The Debate of God.

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

This thread has been reopened after several posts were deleted from it per Staff consensus. Please keep all forum rules in mind while participating in this thread, especially Rule 1 and Rule 3:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

 

[Thief]

I see no means to separate the spirit from a discussion about the Spirit.

In debate, one line of thought will overtake another.

Someone will get their feelings hurt.

 

[jasonwill2]

I see no means to separate the spirit from a discussion about the Spirit.

In debate, one line of thought will overtake another.

Someone will get their feelings hurt.

It's called breaking the rules, you can't justify that. When in another's liar YOU SHOW THEM RESPECT or expect to be destroyed.

 

[jasonwill2]

We cannot say that the universe is an artifact, nor can we say that it has a beginning or an end.[/color]

All available evidence will disagree with you on the beginning part, since "beginning" is dictated by time which is tied directly to space [space-time it's called], which we can trace to starting about 14-15 billion years ago given a number of large pieces of evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

As your response is to a post that was deleted, I re-post here the content of that deleted post for reference:

A watch is an artifact; a 'made thing', in the same sense that a pot is an artifact of the potter. This is called the Artifact View of the Universe. Such artifacts have a beginning and an end. We cannot say that the universe is an artifact, nor can we say that it has a beginning or an end. It may be a causeless, beginingless manifestation (ie; an illusion, or maya), rather than a 'creation', as in 'created thing'. If 'creation' is insisted upon, then you are back to the age-old problem of the origin of original material from which it is created, whether the argument is from a religious or a scientific position.

In addition, an artifact can always be compared to something else; the universe, its nature being singular and all-inclusive, has no such 'other' to compare it to. In that sense, then, it is absolute, and not relative, as artifacts are.

But more to the point: Instead of inquiring about the existence/non-existence of God, we should be looking at the reason we are asking the question in the first place.

All available evidence will disagree with you on the beginning part, since "beginning" is dictated by time which is tied directly to space [space-time it's called], which we can trace to starting about 14-15 billion years ago given a number of large pieces of evidence.

We now have telltale background microwave radiation evidence to suggest the presence of a universe prior to the Big Bang, and that the BB is a result of its collapse.


"The big bang, the greatest of all markers in time, it turns out, may not be as hard a wall as previously thought. Scientists studying the background microwave radiation of the Universe have found patterns in the noise, patterns that shouldn’t be there, patterns that are a visible signature of the Universe that existed before the big bang."


Life Before The Big Bang, A Cyclic Universe… | ThinkMachine

In order to have a 'beginning' you must have a point of demarcation, and that must include a 'before'', as well as time. Time would have originated with the BB, according to standard theory, so there cannot have been a 'before' in this model, as Time did not yet exist at the moment of inception. Ultimately, however, Time does not actually exist; it is conceptual only, just as Space and Causation also are conceptual.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation".
Vivikenanda

 

[godnotgod]

When in another's liar YOU SHOW THEM RESPECT or expect to be destroyed.

Uh, I believe you meant 'lair', but I suppose that if someone were lying, one might feign respect, depending on the seriousness with which they are doing the lying with, especially if you really were in a lair, as a creature inhabiting such a place would make no bones about showing fur and claws. Just sayin'...

 

[jasonwill2]

Uh, I believe you meant 'lair', but I suppose that if someone were lying, one might feign respect, depending on the seriousness with which they are doing the lying with, especially if you really were in a lair, as a creature inhabiting such a place would make no bones about showing fur and claws. Just sayin'...

typo, I meant lair

 

[jasonwill2]

As your response is to a post that was deleted, I re-post here the content of that deleted post for reference:



We now have telltale background microwave radiation evidence to suggest the presence of a universe prior to the Big Bang, and that the BB is a result of its collapse.


"The big bang, the greatest of all markers in time, it turns out, may not be as hard a wall as previously thought. Scientists studying the background microwave radiation of the Universe have found patterns in the noise, patterns that shouldn’t be there, patterns that are a visible signature of the Universe that existed before the big bang."


Life Before The Big Bang, A Cyclic Universe… | ThinkMachine

In order to have a 'beginning' you must have a point of demarcation, and that must include a 'before'', as well as time. Time would have originated with the BB, according to standard theory, so there cannot have been a 'before' in this model, as Time did not yet exist at the moment of inception. Ultimately, however, Time does not actually exist; it is conceptual only, just as Space and Causation also are conceptual.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation".
Vivikenanda

That's Roger Penrose though, that's just one guy. I know his work somewhat and have a book of his. That is just his claim. He thinks he sees something, but that's just Penrose being Penrose, their may or may not be something, but so far that isn't proof, just something that he noticed that he thinks supports his idea.

 

[godnotgod]

That's Roger Penrose though, that's just one guy. I know his work somewhat and have a book of his. That is just his claim. He thinks he sees something, but that's just Penrose being Penrose, their may or may not be something, but so far that isn't proof, just something that he noticed that he thinks supports his idea.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I used the word 'suggest' as a qualifier.

He does'nt "think he sees something"; the intstruments he uses have detected something definite. There is no mistake that there is something there; the problem lies in its interpretation:

"Julian Barbour, a visiting professor of physics at the University of Oxford in an interview with Physics World, says that these circles would be "remarkable if real and sensational if they confirm Penrose's theory". They would "overthrow the standard inflationary picture", which, he adds, has become widely accepted as scientific fact by many cosmologists. But he believes that the result will be "very controversial" and that other researchers will look at the data very critically. He says there are many disputable aspects to the theory, including the abrupt shift of scale between aeons and the assumption, central to the theory, that all particles will become massless in the very distant future. He points out, for example, that there is no evidence that electrons decay.

Penrose and colleague Gurzadyn have answered the numerous critics who say that the circles do not contradict the standard model of cosmology in a follow up paper, published on arXiv. In the short article, they agree that the presence of circles in the CMB does not contradict the standard model of cosmology.* However, the existence of “concentric families” of circles, they argue, cannot be explained as a purely random effect given the pure Gaussian nature of their original analysis. “It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology,” reports Physics World."

Stephen Hawking: "We Should Look for Evidence of a Collision with Another Universe in Our Distant Past"

Of course, Buddhists and Hindus have stated a causeless, cyclic, eternal universe for centuries.
(see here, for example: http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html )

If anyone wants to continue to argue the standard, one-time, BB Theory, then they will need to explain these concentric circles that are part of the data.
*****

Here is the source for Penrose's research:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

V.G.Gurzadyan, R.Penrose
(Submitted on 16 Nov 2010)

Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) posits the existence of an aeon preceding our Big Bang 'B', whose conformal infinity 'I' is identified, conformally, with 'B', now regarded as a spacelike 3-surface. Black-hole encounters, within bound galactic clusters in that previous aeon, would have the observable effect, in our CMB sky, of families of concentric circles over which the temperature variance is anomalously low, the centre of each such family representing the point of 'I' at which the cluster converges. These centres appear as fairly randomly distributed fixed points in our CMB sky. The analysis of Wilkinson Microwave Background Probe's (WMAP) cosmic microwave background 7-year maps does indeed reveal such concentric circles, of up to 6{\sigma} significance. This is confirmed when the same analysis is applied to BOOMERanG98 data, eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. These observational predictions of CCC would not be easily explained within standard inflationary cosmology.​

Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) Cite as: arXiv:1011.3706 [astro-ph.CO] (or arXiv:1011.3706v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)


[1011.3706] Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

*The presence of circles in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) does not contradict the standard model of cosmology (one-time Big Bang) because everything remains the same, except for the idea that the BB is the result of a previous universe having collapsed upon itself.

 

[godnotgod]

That's Roger Penrose though, that's just one guy.

So was Einstein, Jesus, Buddha, Beethoven, Gandhi, etc, etc,...There is ALWAYS 'just one guy'.

 

[jasonwill2]

Still don't see this ring, just that all but a circle is colored dulled. You do realize that the temperature difference in that is just a fraction of a degree, right? I know what the background radiation is, and I don't see any patterns in there. The colored-up portion doesn't show anything within itself, such as the same uniform temperature in the less dull area, or anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Still don't see this ring, just that all but a circle is colored dulled. You do realize that the temperature difference in that is just a fraction of a degree, right? I know what the background radiation is, and I don't see any patterns in there. The colored-up portion doesn't show anything within itself, such as the same uniform temperature in the less dull area, or anything.

I think it depends on which view you are observing. The WMAP, when sliced, I believe produces images as follows:

Now do you see the circles?

Did you read the information provided re: random and definite patterns? There is more to it than just a temperature difference.

 

[jasonwill2]

I think it depends on which view you are observing. The WMAP, when sliced, I believe produces images as follows:

Now do you see the circles?

Did you read the information provided re: random and definite patterns? There is more to it than just a temperature difference.

you dont get it! they just dulled the colorization other than those circles for effect! I cant see any color variation different from the pattern within that more colorful area, I just see the same rough pattern of red, blue, yellow, green and blue. Who's not to say though, even if it's there, that it just wasn't due to some weird quantum fluculation? Saying "its a circle so it must be another Universe" is just conjecture and speculation.

Time has a beginning, because space does. Infinite time makes no sense in the same way infinite space or matter or temperature does.

God is finite.

 

[godnotgod]

you dont get it! they just dulled the colorization other than those circles for effect! I cant see any color variation different from the pattern within that more colorful area, I just see the same rough pattern of red, blue, yellow, green and blue. Who's not to say though, even if it's there, that it just wasn't due to some weird quantum fluculation? Saying "its a circle so it must be another Universe" is just conjecture and speculation.

Are you saying that Penrose is foisting a hoax?

Time has a beginning, because space does. Infinite time makes no sense in the same way infinite space or matter or temperature does.

There is no such thing as Time that can have a beginning or an end; Time is only the measurement of something; it is not a real thing.

Space can only be ascertained by the fact that solids exist, and vice-versa.

God is finite.

Any finite entity can only be understood against the background of that which is Infinite. Otherwise, you have no basis for knowing that something is finite.

So if your God is finite, what, then, is the nature of the Infinite?


"If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[godnotgod]

you dont get it! they just dulled the colorization other than those circles for effect! I cant see any color variation different from the pattern within that more colorful area, I just see the same rough pattern of red, blue, yellow, green and blue. Who's not to say though, even if it's there, that it just wasn't due to some weird quantum fluculation? Saying "its a circle so it must be another Universe" is just conjecture and speculation.

Following is the latest statement from Penrose and his colleague in response to criticisms of the concentric circles as being valid:

More on the low variance circles in CMB sky

V.G.Gurzadyan, R.Penrose
(Submitted on 7 Dec 2010)

"Two groups [3,4] have confirmed the results of our paper concerning the actual existence of low variance circles in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky. They also point out that the effect does not contradict the LCDM model - a matter which is not in dispute. We point out two discrepancies between their treatment and ours, however, one technical, the other having to do with the very understanding of what constitutes a Gaussian random signal. Both groups simulate maps using the CMB power spectrum for LCDM, while we simulate a pure Gaussian sky plus the WMAP's noise, which points out the contradiction with a common statement [3] that "CMB signal is random noise of Gaussian nature". For as it was shown in [5], the random component is a minor one in the CMB signal, namely, about 0.2. Accordingly, the circles we saw are a real structure of the CMB sky and they are not of a random Gaussian nature. Although the structures studied certainly cannot contradict the power spectrum, which is well fitted by LCDM model, we particularly emphasize that the low variance circles occur in concentric families, and this key fact cannot be explained as a purely random effect. It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology." ​

Comments: 2 pages Subjects: Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO) Cite as: arXiv:1012.1486 [astro-ph.CO] (or arXiv:1012.1486v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1486

 

[jasonwill2]

No, I'm saying that they enchanced the color to emphasize something, but I don't see it. Penrose isn't a liar as far as I know, I know he's really eccentric and insanely smart, I could barely understand most of his book.

Also, let's not bring physics too much into the debate of God... aint really that related of subjects.

Also your assertion that there must be infinity for there to be finite is absurd. Can you explain why it is that you think this?

 

[godnotgod]

No, I'm saying that they enchanced the color to emphasize something, but I don't see it. Penrose isn't a liar as far as I know, I know he's really eccentric and insanely smart, I could barely understand most of his book.

OK, so the "something" he is emphasizing is real, and the enhancement is executed so that we CAN see it.

Also, let's not bring physics too much into the debate of God... aint really that related of subjects.

But this particular physics dovetails right into the the debate of God, because if true, it overturns the idea of a creator-God and his singular 'creation' via a causeless, infinite, cyclic universe.

But to take the argument into the realm of the Infinite, the cyclic universe in question is not the hard material universe we are used to thinking about. It is not real, but a manifestation of the Absolute; in fact, it IS the Absolute itself, but we fail to see it that way because we are overlaying the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation onto it. When these concepts are removed, we see the universe exactly as it is, and that is the Absolute itself:

"The Universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

Also your assertion that there must be infinity for there to be finite is absurd. Can you explain why it is that you think this?

Is that so? OK. So please demonstrate how you know that the finite is, in fact, finite?

Without the background, or field, against which something is seen, that which is being seen (ie; 'figure') cannot be ascertained, as in:

 

[jasonwill2]

You just totally lost me when you posted that picture, the black isn't infinite, it's finite. I can see the ends of the black, and even if the black wasn't there I would still see the white figure so long as the background wasn't white too. Just because the concept of infinity exists doesn't mean it exists in reality, even if that concept helps us understand the finite, but I don't believe that as I'm pretty strongly against a literal and realized infinity in any physical measurement that can be made in the Cosmos on the macroscopic.

Also that circle is supposed to emphasize something inside it, but I don't actually see what it is, unless that's just randomly edited to have a picture, I actually doubt that it raelly shows what he saw, as the circle itself and where it is doesn't show... well, anything actually.

 

[godnotgod]

You just totally lost me when you posted that picture, the black isn't infinite, it's finite. I can see the ends of the black, ....

Of course! That's due to the limitations of your screen, etc. The idea is that the black is undifferentiated and goes on indefinitely, while the figure is differentiated and finite. Can't you see that?

...and even if the black wasn't there I would still see the white figure so long as the background wasn't white too.

It's called 'contrast'. Without the contrast of the finite against the Infinite, you would not see that which you call 'finite' because it would'nt exist! The one is completely interdependent upon the other. But you see, you do admit that you would not see the white figure were it not for a contrasting field. By the same token, you cannot define the finite without including the Infinite as well.

Just because the concept of infinity exists doesn't mean it exists in reality,

But we're not talking about a concept; you are saying that 'God is finite'; that is a positive statement on your part. All I am saying is that for you to be able to make that statement, you are (unwittingly) including the Infinite, whether you mean it as a concept or not. The finite is defined by the Infinite. It can be no other way. Why? Because if only the finite existed, it would be the Absolute, because the Absolute has no 'other' to compare it to.

Read:

"Since it [the Absolute] is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms. "

John Dobson, astronomer

even if that concept helps us understand the finite, but I don't believe that as I'm pretty strongly against a literal and realized infinity in any physical measurement that can be made in the Cosmos on the macroscopic.

Whether you are 'strongly against' it or not has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot talk about what is finite without including the Infinite. We are not talking about an Infinite that can be measured. If you could measure it, it would not be Infinite. I think you're confusing the mathematical model of infinity with the cosmic Infinite.

So once again; if you think you can define the finite God you speak of without including the Infinite, I'd like to hear it.

Also that circle is supposed to emphasize something inside it, but I don't actually see what it is, unless that's just randomly edited to have a picture, I actually doubt that it raelly shows what he saw, as the circle itself and where it is doesn't show... well, anything actually.

Excuse me, but Penrose's findings have been confirmed by at least two other researchers.

 

[godnotgod]

God is finite.

I will agree with you on this, in the sense that God, The Infinite, The Supreme Identity, is playing a cosmic game of Hide and Seek, hiding from himself within all the finite forms of his own creation, playing all the parts simultaneously, while pretending not to be God. When God awakens from this dream of being something other than who he really is, the finite self is seen as an illusion because it never existed from the very beginning. The Infinite was simply pretending to be born, to live the character in the drama of life, and to then die, in short, to be a finite being. The Infinite awakened understands that it is really The Unborn, The Deathless, the Indestructible Sunyata.