Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, all beliefs are limited. That is not unique to atheists. That is a consequence of cognitive relativism and that applies to us all, unless you are actually God.

But beliefs are not equally limited, the belief that there is no moon is more limited than the belief there is a moon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But beliefs are not equally limited, the belief that there is no moon is more limited than the belief there is a moon.

Yeah, but some beliefs only work as beliefs and I just test if I can believe differently than you for some cases. I am a skeptic and you are in effect a rationalist. So we believe differently, yet we are apparently both in the everyday world.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Running from all the points I made (again). What on earth are you gibbering on about now? Somebody is posting your messages (unless your a bot - which is possible, they don't seem to involve much thought).

You think you are making points, but you are gibbering. Do some yoga or some other efficacious religious practice and you will have your evidence. Until then, please stop your gibbering.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think you are making points, but you are gibbering. Do some yoga or some other efficacious religious practice and you will have your evidence. Until then, please stop your gibbering.

I have no evidence at all, yet it is a fact that I am different than you and you experience that right now, because you are reading the effect of me being without evidence at all. Go figure.

 

[ratiocinator]

You think you are making points, but you are gibbering. Do some yoga or some other efficacious religious practice and you will have your evidence. Until then, please stop your gibbering.

Humm. It seems to be a tactic of yours to take any criticism and just accuse the person who made the point of the same thing. Frankly, I find it a bit childish. More playground than debate.

Do you have an answer to the points I made or not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Humm. It seems to be a tactic of yours to take any criticism and just accuse the person who made the point of the same thing. Frankly, I find it a bit childish. More playground than debate.

Do you have an answer to the points I made or not?

You made no points, except in your mind, I see only gibberish.

 

[ratiocinator]

You made no points...

More bearing false witness. Points:

1. In what objective way can we distinguish between your unevidenced claims of 'realisation' from mere blind faith beliefs?
2. How do you address the problem that people who make claims of spiritual 'realisation' or 'revelation' do not agree with each other, so if we accept them, we'd end up with contradictory beliefs?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

More bearing false witness. Points:

1. In what objective way can we distinguish between your unevidenced claims of 'realisation' from mere blind faith beliefs?
2. How do you address the problem that people who make claims of spiritual 'realisation' or 'revelation' do not agree with each other, so if we accept them, we'd end up with contradictory beliefs?

Just do it, religious practice and more practice, you will eventually have a realization.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More bearing false witness. Points:

1. In what objective way can we distinguish between your unevidenced claims of 'realisation' from mere blind faith beliefs?
2. How do you address the problem that people who make claims of spiritual 'realisation' or 'revelation' do not agree with each other, so if we accept them, we'd end up with contradictory beliefs?

How do you explain that you can do science without the belief that the universe is physical?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have no evidence at all, yet it is a fact that I am different than you and you experience that right now, because you are reading the effect of me being without evidence at all. Go figure.

At one level yes, but at another there is also, for me at least, awareness of the cosmos forest being simultaneously aware of the two respective different tree experiences.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just do it, religious practice and more practice, you will eventually have a realization.

Which leads to inconsistent results - point 2. All you get is a personal opinion/belief that will differ markedly from, and contradict, the conclusions of other people who have 'just done it'. That is to say, it doesn't actually work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which leads to inconsistent results - point 2. All you get is a personal opinion/belief that will differ markedly from, and contradict, the conclusions of other people who have 'just done it'. That is to say, it doesn't actually work.

Yeah, for a certain version of neutral science. But there are other versions "married" to other versions of philosophy that are no different than certain beliefs in religion.

 

[ratiocinator]

How do you explain that you can do science without the belief that the universe is physical?

Clearly the universe has a physical aspect of it because we can observe it physically. There is no need to assume that is all there is, but we can't deal with anything else unless we have some evidence and some objective means of studying it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

At one level yes, but at another there is also, for me at least, awareness of the cosmos forest being simultaneously aware of the two respective different tree experiences.

Hold on for that one for dear life and then learn when you start claim it has to be so for the rest of us, because it is so for you and then stop doing that.

 

[Zwing]

That is correct. Those that believe the BB started everything also believe it was uncaused. How could it be otherwise if time started at that point?

No, there was a cause. It was that there was an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space which caused a spontaneous conversion of energy into matter (as mass-energy equivalence suggests) at the point of primordial singularity, an infinitely hot and dense single point that then, because of the associated energy, inflated and stretched (first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate) over the next 13.7 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today. Such random intensifications of the energy which pervades space occur irregularly within infinite space, but certainly rarely result in the conversion to matter. I do not mean to suggest that the fact that there was a cause also suggests agency. This is the fallacy (one of them) which can lead to theism. Rather, the entire reaction was spontaneous, and ultimately the result of randomness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Clearly the universe has a physical aspect of it because we can observe it physically. There is no need to assume that is all there is, but we can't deal with anything else unless we have some evidence and some objective means of studying it.

Well, yes we can. We just deal with it socially or individually, and then some people deny that they do that, because they are special and speak for all humans objectively.
The test if something is objective as per falsifying that, is to test if you can get away with doing it subjectively.
There are 5 main tests -
-Objective as independent of the brain
-Objective as formal thinking in the brain
-Social as shared between brains
-Individual as how to cope as a single human
-What happens when you try to add up the four other ones

There are even more and in Denmark we have 7 kinds of science and not just one.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, there was a cause. It was that there was an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space which caused a spontaneous and expansive conversion of energy into matter, as mass-energy equivalence suggests.

In the classical BB model there is no space-time before, so your claim "there was an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space" is meaningless for three reasons

1. No space, so no "small region of space".
2. No time, so an "intensification" couldn't happen.
3. Even in the presence of space-time "an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space" is basically word salad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the classical BB model there is no space-time before, so your claim "there was an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space" is meaningless for three reasons

1. No space, so no "small region of space".
2. No time, so an "intensification" couldn't happen.
3. Even in the presence of space-time "an intensification of quantum energy in a small region of space" is basically word salad.

As long as you acknowledge that is a model and not a fact, then okay. It is in a sense philosophy and not science.

 

[ratiocinator]

As long as you acknowledge that is a model and not a fact, then okay. It is in a sense philosophy and not science.

Of course - and I'd go so far as to say that it's probably wrong because we have no theory that properly covers such an event - we need a unified theory that covers general relativity and quantum field theory. The context was that the BB was the start of space-time.

With a new theory, we might still end up with time starting at the BB, and then the arguments would be the same, but there are many other possibilities (currently just conjectures or hypotheses at best).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hold on for that one for dear life and then learn when you start claim it has to be so for the rest of us, because it is so for you and then stop doing that.

Every tree is an expression of the forest, but not all trees are aware of the forest, just sayin!

And this also applies, awareness of the forest is only present when the tree self has temporarily ceased to self identify with the tree and united with the forest Self.

Now please, no word salad accusations or demands for objective evidence.