The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[viole]

I at least began to take it up. I have heard it used many times but never as an exception to cause and effect. Only as an unknowable and illogical idea concerning non linear results from identical that no one could possibly know were identical. In fact I just heard it taken apart by a scholar in a debate but am drawing a blank currently. Are you suggesting either particle was produced without a cause?

Nope. I am arguing that assigning labels like X is the cause and Y is the effect, is meaningless in some physical situations (see above).

It is remarkable since I work with the latest technology every single day how little I use it. Unless I get into design I do not see that I will ever need anything beyond algebra. I sure wasted a lot of time. I work with rubidium oscillators, weapons systems for fighter aircraft, GPS, SDS, multiplexers, HUDS, FORMCs, 1553s, H009s, aim-7 and 9 etc.... I see it all yet never even need a calculator. If I could go back I would have studied philosophy. However if you give me an example of a mistake I made instead of simply declaring that I have, out there, somewhere, I will ask my boss who is one of the greatest mathematicians you are ever likely to talk with. He is an information specialist who is flow to Germany every year to add to the sum total of mathematical knowledge and has studied with people who work with Hawking and are the undisputed leaders in several fields. No infinite can be traversed, that is not even a logical proposition, ...

Why do people feel the need to wave their qualifications to me? Even if you told me that you graduated in Princeton under Einstein, I would not care, even if true. I speak with people, not their degrees. For I know teenagers who grasp things like physics better than their teachers.

High education (in physics) is mostly useless, except for those few cases for which it is (almost) superfluous (R. Feynman).

If you want, I can show you, at least mathematically, how a point on an infinite line can start from a certain location on the line, cross +infinity to pop out from -infinity in finite time, by using a certain acceleration and speed profile. No equations involved, only a simple model.

...I have seen hundreds of professional debates and been to faculty research presentations. I have never heard any of the mention 0-geodesics, the Gaussian curve yes, but not that theorem. I have looked it up but I only get bits of it. Can you explain what it is your implying with these theorems?

Sorry I used a little trick. null-geodesics are central in the proof of BGVT. Wanted to check wether you actually read and understood the theorem. Naughty girl...again

Let me also ask what your credentials are? Your dealing with a wide range of advanced subjects that it is extremely doubtful anyone in this forum sufficiently understands, much less the fact they are all in diverse fields. Do you have a graduate in Physics, a masters in mathematics (which requires differential geometry), and a bachelors in philosophy. Unless you do I think this is mostly show.

I am S. Hawking. LOL. No, course not. You can tell by the English . But if my English were perfect, how could you tell?

No, I am not interested in dick measuring contests. I would lose immediately, for being a girl and all.

Let's say that I needed to help physicists sometimes to save them from their mathematical sloppiness.

Scholars in abundance completely disagree with you. There is no known escape from the absolute necessity of a very God like ultimate explanation necessitated by the universes complete lack of one.

As if I cared wether (theistic) scholars disagree with me. In their amazing wisdom they are not even capable to agree on the properties of this God. Some think He can spawn Himself to create a human form of Himself to sort of dying to save us from some alleged apples related sins, others think you can actually, literally, eat this incarnated being if a funny dressed testicles carrying ape murmurs some latin words on a wafer, others think He can throw black stones on a desert as a sign and collect his prophets using winged horses as a transportation mean, others think that He might have the head of an elephant and supports the partitions of human beings into castes.

As I said, ridiculous.


Come back when they all believe in the same God, or theory thereof.

1. The academy of science preemptively rules out God as an explanation long before they even begin to investigate.
2. The academy of science only deals with studying natural law. They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural. You might as well say 95% of the NBA refuses to use a 3 wood to sink three pointers.
3. The entire academy of science is built around scientific foundations created by Christians. We founded most of the fields themselves which these guys work in. We have made most major break-throughs, the modern guys seldom do and instead add the next step by standing on Christian shoulders. If you added in Jewish scientists we have produced almost all the original major abstract scientific thought used in modern times.

Your claim is chronological arrogance and irrelevant anyway.

Could be. But they are scholars in their respective fields of science. And they do not see this alleged necessity of a God like explanation that might transpire from the results of science.

Doesn't that worry you a little bit? ±90% of the US population believes in God and ±90% of its scientific elite doesn't. What makes you think that scientific knowledge should make more evident the belief in God?

Christianity is the only major faith adopted by significant numbers in every single nation on earth. It has converted entire empires originally hostile to it, has broken through every border, and has transcended every cultural expectation.

You believe in God and not Quetzalcoatl because Europe conquered and decimated the Aztecs. If the contrary happened, now we would discuss the ontological argument for the existence of Quetzalcoatl.

Someone has to win. And the most popular god is the one of the winner. It is almost tautological.

And the willing to sacrifice oneself because of belief in X, does not add a iota to the plausibility of X. After all, if you really delude yourself in believing that your sacrifice entails playing the harp with Jesus in the clouds or getting a planet all for you in the afterlife, then it is not a sacrifice at all.

I have spent less than a total of 5 minutes at answers for genesis. I get it from Plantinga, Hume, Nietzsche, Craig, Zacharias (who may have degrees than any of them), Aquinas, Socrates, Plato, Kant, Leibnitz, and on and on. Of course I have read about modal logic, and nomology. I have read Kripke for example. I just have never seen them put to the uses your attempting to. Not by anyone. I have well over a thousand hours of professional debates to recollect and not in a single one are your claims. Even when you mention a claim that was brought up a time or two you put it to another use all together and all of them are in the deep end of each academic field. BTW I showed a proof of your geodesic mathematics to a PhD and the first thing he asked is to what purpose you could be using it in theological debate.

With geodesics mathematic, do you mean the BGVT theorem? Because that is what it is: a theorem involving geodesics in spacetime. I did not start with that

You spend so much of your time outside the mainstream (at least with your conclusions) that not even the atheists who debate this issue even mention your claims...

Well, I also watched Craig vs Carroll recently. I did not have the impression that Carroll arguments were much different than mine. It is all in there: A vs. B theory of time, lack of meaning for a "popping out" of the Universe out of nothing, lack of meaning for causality for the Universe as a whole, thermodynamics origin of the arrow of time, etc. I suggest you watch it without turning your TV off after 5 minutes.

I think it very obvious but I doubt you would agree with me. Almost nothing you use (especially in philosophy) is part of the common professional debate arena concerning theology. I am quite sure you have linked it somehow but I am also sure the link is so week that most virtually do not exist in those circles.

Ditto.

This is going to make three posts and not one of them has a significant point from you or me. We are way off the playing field. Continued below;

I want to remind you I asked for your credentials and to ask you a question that is relevant. Without looking it up state the standard oscillation model with the equation/s that is necessary for your geodesic theory mentioned earlier. I asked it in particular because I will know if you looked it up or not. I am just trying to nail down the capability of who I am talking to. Your either brilliant ( I mean savant brilliant only in more than one area), your half way familiar with the concepts you mention but are incorrectly using them because of unfamialrity with the application given context, or your way over your head and trying to bluff it out.

I told you. I am S. Hawking

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Of course the dead rising, the hungry being fed from two fish, and a universe being created by a word (this one is looking far more likely these days) is ridiculous. However given the fact the most intelligent men in history have included people who risked death or some other loss to believe it suggests so strongly that the quality of the evidence is so strong. The most critical among histories scholars including people among the very elite in law, evidence, testimony, history, physics, biology, mathematics and ever other subject that is relevant have given their lives to the bibles claims. What is infinitely more ridiculous is not having an ultimate explanation of moral, physical, philosophical, historical, etc explanation that can compete with the bible yet destroying the only possible ultimate hope by inventing fantasies like multi-verses without any evidence what so ever to justify plausible denial. That is truly remarkable.

Well, as I said, giving your life expecting some sort of afterlife, or expecting to resurrect to sit at the right of the father, or similar stuff, is no sacrifice at all. I would probably do that as well, if I were sufficiently deluded.

I will promise you to return to your philosophic and scientific anomalies very soon if you wish, but if you will I want to switch gears and get historic for at least a post or two. I am having to spend hours responding to stuff that in my experience is not considered relevant enough to appear in an atheist's debate material and feel like I am spinning my wheels. I have not even begun to throw my philosophy at you yet because I am trying to half answer you and half steer the conversation to traditional common ground. I want a change of pace for a minute. Deal?

As you wish.

Ciao

- viole

 

[johnhanks]

Oh come on man. I have almost 10,000 posts and am not that interesting. You actually went back and read all my posts ...

Read more carefully before you hit the keyboard. I said I read all of your POST - singular, the one I was replying to; and I said this because although it was lengthy I quoted only a small part of it. You seem all too eager to jump on the nearest high horse and start lecturing from its lofty height.

See you in the new thread - or not, as you will.

 

[1robin]

Read more carefully before you hit the keyboard. I said I read all of your POST - singular, the one I was replying to; and I said this because although it was lengthy I quoted only a small part of it. You seem all too eager to jump on the nearest high horse and start lecturing from its lofty height.

See you in the new thread - or not, as you will.

That is what I thought you said and I commented quite a bit assuming I had misunderstood you. Did you read that part? I do not have time for another thread but do not blame you for bailing out here. This would have been a very lengthy discussion. That is why I prefer ontological foundational arguments instead of debating mountains of conflicting statistics.

 

[johnhanks]

I do not have time for another thread but do not blame you for bailing out here.

Starting a new thread for the express purpose of continuing a discussion would seem to most people an odd way of baling out of it. But it's your call: I'm leaving this thread to the something-from-nothing argument.

 

[1robin]

Well, as I said, giving your life expecting some sort of afterlife, or expecting to resurrect to sit at the right of the father, or similar stuff, is no sacrifice at all. I would probably do that as well, if I were sufficiently deluded.

First this is theological nonsense. God never ever said giving our lives will get anyone into heaven. Some give their lives because they love God (because of what they have already gotten not to get anything) but no one does to be saved. That was why the whole Christ thing was necessary to begin with. Your describing Islam not Christianity. Second far more suffer in misery in efforts to help others that die for their faith. No one (or at least almost no one) does so to get approval but out of a Christ like heart that loves others. I do not obey out of fear but gratitude. He handed me something of infinite value and by which my heart towards others was greatly softened. So I and others in thankfulness and genuine concern suffer to serve. My friend (who by the way was sinful and nuts when we grew up) was saved. Instantly he became a very moral man, founded three successful companies, and can afford most luxuries but every year for weeks or months (even though he is already saved) crawls through south American jungles to help the poor and sick and funds much of the trip. Christianity more than any demographic on earth demonstrates a willingness to suffer and. or die in service to others. Not to gain approval but out of thankfulness for being approved and genuine concern. It would be the height of foolishness to make ineffectual attempts to tarnish that track record. Maybe suicide bombers but not most missionaries out there in the bush.

As you wish.

Ciao

- viole

Well I have left you hanging in other posts currently so I will be brief.


Four (of many) conclusions are held by a consensus of NT scholars regardless of their faith. These are as reliable as ancient history can make them.

1. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. Whether he had it or not is irrelevant here.
2. He died as a result of being crucified by the romans.
3. His tomb was found empty. Despite virtually everyone having a motive and the means to produce the body.
4. Even his enemies sincerely believed they had met him postmortem.

Now using only that less than .01% of the bible alone I can justify faith completely.

1. If you wish to contend with faith you must provide a defeater to them.
2. If you wish to contend with me you must provide a better explanation than the Gospels do of those historical details.

Pick your poison. Geodesics and nomology are off limits BTW.

 

[1robin]

Starting a new thread for the express purpose of continuing a discussion would seem to most people an odd way of baling out of it. But it's your call: I'm leaving this thread to the something-from-nothing argument.

I can't be nice enough for you to not be disturbed by my comments apparently. I meant bail out on this discussion where it had originated. You may think when talking to a person in a room them telling you they are going to another room is evidence that they want to have the discussion with you but I am unconvinced but it does not matter anyway because I said I did not blame you as this topic can be very involved. I am not faulting in anyway what so ever.

 

[1robin]

Nope. I am arguing that assigning labels like X is the cause and Y is the effect, is meaningless in some physical situations (see above).

First, I do not get it. This seems to be a perfect case of X causes Y. The only issue here is with equating two X's that are not equivalent. This one I talked over with a person who studied Boolean differential calculus as it applies to indeterminate systems. He said there is no such thing as two identical causes (which was my assumption). They work with systems that use "identical" inputs but get differing answers. Their conclusions are not that we have a break down in cause and effect (as we obviously do not) but that we have other variables (tiny variations in temperature, density, resistance, wear, etc...) that affect a causal chain but are not usually noticed. The theories go so far as to suggest that true indeterminism is impossible outside of mind.

Why do people feel the need to wave their qualifications to me?

It must be because you so often question their competence. You do not have a fraction of what you would need to make the assumptions you have. We have gotten into almost nothing of what I know and have only scratched the surfaces of what you bring up.

High education (in physics) is mostly useless, except for those few cases for which it is (almost) superfluous (R. Feynman).

It is also boring.

If you want, I can show you, at least mathematically, how a point on an infinite line can start from a certain location on the line, cross +infinity to pop out from -infinity in finite time, by using a certain acceleration and speed profile. No equations involved, only a simple model.

This is funny since I learned about the impossibility of traversing an infinite from university professors but by all means do so. If you or anyone actually does then I expect to see on time's cover page.

Sorry I used a little trick. null-geodesics are central in the proof of BGVT. Wanted to check wether you actually read and understood the theorem. Naughty girl...again

I have never investigated the mathematics of that theory because those who produced it have much more competence and spelled out their conclusions. I have no need to wade through equations. BTW I have yet to see your response to my question about harmonics.

I am S. Hawking. LOL. No, course not. You can tell by the English . But if my English were perfect, how could you tell?

No, I am not interested in dick measuring contests. I would lose immediately, for being a girl and all.

Let's say that I needed to help physicists sometimes to save them from their mathematical sloppiness.

I did not attempt to compare myself with you. You bring up things that relatively few understand and require much effort to evaluate. Before I can justify the time needed I want to be sure it is worth it. As you avoid every effort I make to acquire it my skepticism is growing. All evaluation of complex and very specialized theory requires credibility to be worth examining. That is why half of all professional debate is name dropping.

BTW based on the ten percent of what I am qualified to evaluate and listening to those much more qualified evaluate work concerning Hawking, he is an idiot. The only reason I have not disqualified him personally is his credibility.

As if I cared wether (theistic) scholars disagree with me. In their amazing wisdom they are not even capable to agree on the properties of this God. Some think He can spawn Himself to create a human form of Himself to sort of dying to save us from some alleged apples related sins, others think you can actually, literally, eat this incarnated being if a funny dressed testicles carrying ape murmurs some latin words on a wafer, others think He can throw black stones on a desert as a sign and collect his prophets using winged horses as a transportation mean, others think that He might have the head of an elephant and supports the partitions of human beings into castes.

In what way would you ever expect complete agreement concerning the workings of a perfect mind by thousands of imperfect minds. The mind blowing fact is that there is overwhelming agreement though not reason to expect total agreement. Even about infinitely more mundane issue in science and history there exists greater disagreement. Do you no longer care about either of them.

As I said, ridiculous.

I know you said it, the problem is it is unjustifiable.

Come back when they all believe in the same God, or theory thereof.

This is an incoherent and inconsistent request. I would never ever ask this of anyone on any subject. You get out of the mathematic stratosphere and your lost aren't you.

Could be. But they are scholars in their respective fields of science. And they do not see this alleged necessity of a God like explanation that might transpire from the results of science.

Since science is the study of the natural (and very modern secular scientists prefer to neglect the supernatural preemptively) this is irrelevant.

Doesn't that worry you a little bit? ±90% of the US population believes in God and ±90% of its scientific elite doesn't. What makes you think that scientific knowledge should make more evident the belief in God?

Nope because it is not true but it does show a very deep bias. Science goes back a long way. The majority of scientists have believed in God and that majority of the best in my God. In fact abstract science it's self was the result of faith.

You believe in God and not Quetzalcoatl because Europe conquered and decimated the Aztecs. If the contrary happened, now we would discuss the ontological argument for the existence of Quetzalcoatl.

This is beneath a rational mind. You do not have the slightest idea why I believe. I at one time was more hostile to Christianity than any Aztec who ever lived (by the way I know quite a bit about Cortez) My pre-Christian attitude was not merely ignorance of the faith but hostility to whatever it was.

Someone has to win. And the most popular god is the one of the winner. It is almost tautological.

So when almost all of Rome was Pagan it should have won yet Christ used a single man to convert the whole pagan empire. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.

And the willing to sacrifice oneself because of belief in X, does not add a iota to the plausibility of X. After all, if you really delude yourself in believing that your sacrifice entails playing the harp with Jesus in the clouds or getting a planet all for you in the afterlife, then it is not a sacrifice at all.

It does so and does absolutely. No human who ever lived is more qualified to know the truth than any one of the apostles. Given that and the fact that they all risked everything for an entire lifetime that if it was true was of no value whatever says more than every argument you have made combined, which is why everyone who debates it must reckon with them and does so. One of (if not the greatest, Greenleaf) greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history made their claims the foundation of evaluating faith. The only legal mind in history to hold every legal office in the histories greatest empire did so as well plus a whole army of lesser legal experts on both sides. I would stick with math if I was you.

With geodesics mathematic, do you mean the BGVT theorem? Because that is what it is: a theorem involving geodesics in spacetime. I did not start with that

If X is composed of Y and other stuff then X is not Y. So the BGVT is not geodesic math in totality. It is doubtful if I could properly evaluate all the methodology they used and thank goodness I have no need because I have THEIR conclusions. As I have said in thousands of hours of debate and study I have never heard anyone on either side even mention geodesics. That being said the day after your post I heard someone in some context use it. Have you ever notice how many more times you notice a thing after you note it instead of before? Regardless you have yet to apply it nor answer my question about it.

Well, I also watched Craig vs Carroll recently. I did not have the impression that Carroll arguments were much different than mine. It is all in there: A vs. B theory of time, lack of meaning for a "popping out" of the Universe out of nothing, lack of meaning for causality for the Universe as a whole, thermodynamics origin of the arrow of time, etc. I suggest you watch it without turning your TV off after 5 minutes.

I have seen most of the best but Carroll in my opinion is the best the other side has at least over all. I really like him and he is the only one IMO that can stay with Craig. If you and Carroll share the same model hen you both share the same purely speculative invention which Carroll even admitted which made me like him even more. Maybe it is true but it is not science at the moment and not persuasive until at least partially evidenced.

Ditto.

Back at you.

I told you. I am S. Hawking

Ciao

- viole

If I was you I would use any other name but his in my case. I recognize I may be completely incapable of doing so but my determination is he is a philosophical moron regardless of his science his conclusions are almost all philosophical. His statement about because gravity exists then nothing can produce something maybe the stupidest most irrational statement of any kind I have ever heard, except for stating there is no absolute truth. What kind of a mind could produce it's like?

 

[1robin]

No, it does not. Strength of belief does not equal strength of evidence, especially when the vast majority of people throughout history have been raised in environments where religious beliefs, myths and ideologies are pervasive of every single level of society, and to not believe them at such a time would not only be considered absurd but actively harmful to the individual. Religion has pervaded throughout so many great minds specifically because it positions itself as unquestionable and not requiring of evidence, and it asserts terrible consequences on those who do not adhere to it. You cannot use its pervasiveness as evidence of its validity and more than I can use the British Empire as evidence that Britain should rule the world.

That is an absurdly ignorant argument.

So those who are by far more qualified than any human who ever existed to know, being completely consistent to events that have absolutely no benefit unless true and even in spite of death and lifelong suffering, means nothing to you. Says more about you than it. Why do Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, and a whole host of legal scholars on both sides feel it is absolutely essential as it is in every courtroom on earth?

 

[1robin]

And what does modal logic and possible worlds semantics have to do with the multiverse? And what makes you think I would use that tool to increase the plausibility of the multiverse? It would be like using a hammer to measure distances.

They are completely unrelated.

I may have been mistaken but I got it straight from you. However nothing (today) can provide any evidence for multi-verse so it is moot regardless.

And what makes you believe that discovering God from science is inconvenient?

I have used many quotes from scientists on both sides who sited theological preference as what partially drove their science. We are human and it can't be helped, but it is still remarkable at the extent cognitive dissonance occurs. I will give you one that I ran into the other day. It is a little different but shows the principle when it was only a theory that was valued over fact. Maybe the most important fossil find ever was the Burgess shale deposit. It shows that all major body plans appeared over a brief time. At the time it was found Darwin's very gradual model was taught. The find was sent to the Smithsonian. It's director was a great proponent of slow gradual evolution so he buried 60,000 important fossils in drawers and closets and told virtually no one. So a lie was taught for many years until a grad student found them and examined them. That is where punctuated equilibrium and the bush models came from.

You are thinking we are so stupid to stubbornly refuse what could send me to eternal fire because of some unspecified inconveniences. Sciences like inconvenient things. This is how we proceed.

We are stupid enough to have invented the means of our total instant destruction and to have almost used it twice, so yes we are stupid enough to do absolutely anything.

I am arguing that cause and effect are not generally applicable. See below for my exceptions.

I believe I have addressed your supposed exceptions but will review when I see them.

Fine, then forget modal logic. Pity, though. You could use it to provide pretty powerful arguments, for instance the modal version of Leibniz cosmological argument. Much more powerful than things like Kalam, anyway.

Hold it. Above you suggested you would never use modal logic to demonstrate the multiverse now you say if I reject the multiverse modal logic goes with it. Which is it? Kalam has no known fault but it is not the modal I use.

I am sure that professional apologists would use them more often if they could. Alas, they have to adapt to the available knowledge and intuitions of their audience.

Did not get it.

And what is wrong with blue fairies? I think they are equally valid candidates for being the uncaused cause of the Universe, if any.

I gather that is true, but I do not. Fairies did not potentially write 750,000 of the most scrutinized and influential words in history. They did not become a man and feed the hungry, etc... BTW why is there not a single "I was there and that did not happen" claim from the period. If I claimed to feed my coworkers from my sack lunch (and people formed a religion about it) and I didn't do it all kinds of them would be produced and survive. Fairies do not have over a billion people who claim to have met them. Etc... ad infinitum. Even fairy tales do not include that they created anything from nothing.

Hypothetical? I am stating that time has a polarization only in systems which evolve toward equilibrium. During equilibrium, both directions are equally valid.

Not true because time is independent of thermodynamics. The amount of energy or chaos in a system is not used to measure time. In fact time might be only an abstract construct linked to duration by mind.

No future. No past. Full symmetry.

What system exhibits this magical property? God would but God is supernatural. Thermodynamic change might be dependent on time but not the other way around. It is called times arrow because it seems to obey time but time does not obey it. Do you really think a glass of water that is at equilibrium means time does not exist? It would not matter anyway because the universe is not in equilibrium.

Philosophers in such worlds would have a problem to say what began to exist and what is the cause and what the effect of anything. Alas, philosophers cannot live in such a world, so it is not surprising that the only possible philosophers think that cause and effects have no exceptions.

When find ourselves in such a world remind me of this. If we do not even know what is true of 90% of our own oceans why n the world bring up other universes?

I am not saying anything of the sort. Let's make it simple: suppose I show you a movie from my lab where a photon disappears and two particles take hits place. You know that photons can generate two antiparticles and when that happens the result is always the same: two antiparticles.

So, you see something happened. One object disappears and two new objects appear. What is the cause and what is the effect of that?

One possible answer is: the particles are an effect and the photon is their cause. Do you see others?

You would need to supply volumes of information that you did not for me to meaningfully respond. I did not see anything that suggests cause and effect were suspended, just a whole world of stuff you did not mentions. What lab do you work in?

I wonder why you insist that the conclusions from relativity do not have a solid basis. You are confusing causes with effects . Relativity is the result of these ''speculative' consequences. Not the other way round. And these "speculative" consequences are just the result of observation.

If a theory is only partially understood by relative handfuls of people and still hotly debated all conclusions are premature.

And these observation tells us that there is not such a thing as an objective present. Period. Things that are in your present. are not necessarily in mine. Things that happen at the same time from your point of view, might happen with a time difference from my point of view. And both point of vies are equally valid.

What? Tens-less time is BELIEVED in by far less scholars than have accepted tensed time. You keep mentioning observation but always conclude things about stuff that can't be. I see no dinosaurs, previous me(s), or previous anything's. How is this an observation. I can perceive that memories are retained by the exact same cells over time however. Take a picture of tens-less time and post it please. Why is it always some abstract or theoretical place where this non-theistic evidence is? Why can't you use this universe, macro objects, or the time we all perceive to get rid of fantastic claims made by ignorant men 4000 years ago made. There are trillion of them, why do they line with God so easily?

All this can be easily measured. Relativity simply provides a theoretical framework to explain these "counterintuitive" results.

I have heard tens-less time used many times but I have never heard relativity used as it's defense. Relativity primarily deals with either a real or perceived contraction or stretching of time. I see no break in linear time by stretching or shrinking it. By the way what unit of time composes now in this view? No matter what you picked I can half it and so on so that now would eventually contain so little time as to not allow the necessary time to allow neuron conduction to perceive it, but I do perceive it. That means that now has a minimum, what is it?

Continued:

 

[1robin]

I think you confuse reality with what your intuition tells you.

I am no relativity expert but I did have to work with it. I found things that did not agree with my perception but did seem rational given some data and theory but tens-less time was not one of them, in fact it was never mentioned in 10 years of school.

Oh dear, sometime I have the impression I am talking with a smart person from the 18th century. What do you mean with "we know little about gravity"? I think we know more than you think. Gravity is the result of deformation of 4-dimensional space time. You know. That thing that it is supposed to be my speculation

I do not know why but I found this funny. I feel like I am talking to someone who is in this century but thinks he lives in the next one and all his theories have been shown to be true. No, gravity is described by the deformation of space in a graph, it isn't an actual part of any space fabric. Another observation you can't observe even if true. I want a picture of an actual space indention. No one in human history knows what gravity is. Just so happens I just heard a Princton mathematician say this and his non-theistic adversaries agree without reservation. I have never even heard a single scientists ever different though I imagine a few of the more arrogant might.

And I doubt that "Origin, agency, destination, morality, purpose" are outside the scope of science or, more generally, rational inquiry. declaring that they are just sounds like the swan song of so-called spiritual thinking.

I heard both Ravi and Dinesh bring this up in several debates with scientists. Forget the fact Ravi must be a systematic alien robot and can deconstruct anything you might venture in seconds. None of their adversaries even challenged this. They even stated it emphatically as "science can only answer ion each case" Don't have a clue, Don't have a clue, Don't have a clue, etc.... to provoke a response to no avail. The secular folks just trivialized the questions and changed subjects. Just as you did.

Of course not. Because, as I said, possible worlds semantics does not address the ontological status of possible worlds. The only thing it says, in this area, is that actual Universes are also possible, not the other way round, obviously.

That is better sounding and fancy way of saying that what you stated has no relationship to truth. I am all for scientific speculation but it belongs in a lab and labeled as such. Don't bring it into a place where persuasiveness is important.

I never said that it does increase the likelihood of an actual (physical) multiverse.

I see you switched up again. Please state whether it is or is not involved and lets move on.

I just wanted to check wether you know what modal logic is about and how it is used in philosophy...and theology. I know, naughty girl

Said the person who has not even acknowledged my questions for the same purpose. I have said before my knowledge in most areas is heavy in the parts that apply but not in areas that have little impact to theology. So expect an inconsistent capability level. I know little about modal logic in general, only enough to know is of no use for making other universes likely but I am familiar with modal logic as it applies to beings because it does apply. I however work with an expert in modal logic so bring it on.

Oh thank you. I did not know to possess supernatural faculties; e.g. fantasies.

Incoherency becomes you. Just kidding, but seriously I don't get this.

Yes, of course, symmetry is a powerful tool for the physicist especially when symmetry assumptions are retroactively confirmed by observation.

Yes I have heard it used before but very rarely and it is always shut down the same way as used in that context. However this is a good example you did not give me anything to evaluate. You just made a proclamation about cutting edge science and moved on. What am I supposed to do with this?

But, we must always be ready for a black swan because these assumptions do not always work. And they do not always necessarily work because they are synthetic propositions, not analytical.

I used to be mesmerized by science. Slowly over my days in school I lost it all. The last straw was going to faculty discussions. One night they all said that because of holographic theory we can reliably know the universe is actually two dimensional, the next night the exact same people said that because of string theory we can conclude it has 11 dimensions or more. I just gave it up and have only been justified since then in my apprehension. Build something with it or keep it to your self IMO. I have probably over compensated but I am very distrustful of the most speculative 25% of science or so. I work in science but do not have the luxury of working on things that have no known right answers. I must be right and my theories must work in the real world where applied or someone may very well die, of course if they do work someone else may die anyway. I work in defense.

Incidentally, this is the reason why I label myself "gnostic atheist". Because I make a difference between knowledge and absolute certainty. I assume that if I do not see God because of local lack of evidence in my surroundings, then He is nowhere.

That is fine but your arguments rely heavily on the most unreliable of science, though I am not saying it is known to be unreliable, just unpersuasive.

Ciao

- viole

Again what lab do you work in?

 

[viole]

First, I do not get it. This seems to be a perfect case of X causes Y....

This is not the point. The point is that in a regime of time direction symmetry you have no way to say what is cause and what effect.

It must be because you so often question their competence. You do not have a fraction of what you would need to make the assumptions you have. We have gotten into almost nothing of what I know and have only scratched the surfaces of what you bring up.

I am not questioning their competence. I don't think that the idea I exposed cannot be understood by a smart layman. You can buy any book from Carroll or Greene and you will read the same. And the intended audience is not composed of PhDs.

It is also boring.

(Modern) physics boring? You should really stick with empty tombs, Gods feeding a party with two fishes, and other similar much more interesting things, LOL.

This is funny since I learned about the impossibility of traversing an infinite from university professors but by all means do so. If you or anyone actually does then I expect to see on time's cover page.

I doubt that Time magazine will devote their cover to the obvious. Let me ask you this: do you agree that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the points (except one) of a circle and the points of an infinite line?

I have never investigated the mathematics of that theory because those who produced it have much more competence and spelled out their conclusions. I have no need to wade through equations. BTW I have yet to see your response to my question about harmonics.

It might have been lost with all these posts. Be a gentleman and repeat please what this question about harmonics is about.

I did not attempt to compare myself with you. You bring up things that relatively few understand and require much effort to evaluate...

Well, you are not a natural born skeptic, that is for sure. For if I told you that I am X (very important sounding title), would you be suddenly less skeptical? If not, why do you ask? If yes, why? If I bluff about my math, I can bluff about my titles as well.

I am not sure if it is true, but theists seem to be more concerned about titles than normal people do. "Look, he is a Prof. Emeritus, Phd. and fellow of this and that..and he also supports 6,000 years old earth. or the supernatural origin of the black stone, or the primacy of the mind, or the existence of the soul, heaven, ghosts, etc. ...(So, what we believe is not necessarily BS)".

BTW based on the ten percent of what I am qualified to evaluate and listening to those much more qualified evaluate work concerning Hawking, he is an idiot. The only reason I have not disqualified him personally is his credibility.

Yes, it can happen to hold such views, when we do not fully understand things. It was the same for me with things like Jesus, God or Satan. Let's face it: if the books describing them were factually true, I don't think they are the brightest tool in the shed. I have not disqualified then personally on account of their non existence.

In what way would you ever expect complete agreement concerning the workings of a perfect mind by thousands of imperfect minds. The mind blowing fact is that there is overwhelming agreement though not reason to expect total agreement. Even about infinitely more mundane issue in science and history there exists greater disagreement. Do you no longer care about either of them.

True, but all these scientific disagreements can only be discerned by evidence. And will stay in this limbo until we know more, either disproving them or confirming them. I doubt we can say the same with things that involve winged horses picking up prophets going to Heaven. LOL.

I know you said it, the problem is it is unjustifiable.

Which part? The one concerning ingesting Jesus after a few Latin words on a wafer? Or the winged horses limo service for VIPs: Very Important Prophets?

This is an incoherent and inconsistent request. I would never ever ask this of anyone on any subject. You get out of the mathematic stratosphere and your lost aren't you.

Why? I also ask my cosmologist friends to come back when they have an agreement. I simply have no time to go through all their models even if it were fun. But it is a fact that when models make contradicting claims, then they cannot be both right, but they can be both wrong. Usually, it is the latter, especially if the controversy is still unresolved after centuries and seem to depend on where you live and not any particular evidence..

Since science is the study of the natural (and very modern secular scientists prefer to neglect the supernatural preemptively) this is irrelevant.

Yes, secular scientists do not see God and non-secular ones do. On the other hand, secular scientists see relativity and non-secular ones see it as well. So, where is the objectivity of God's evidence in Nature and what makes it so different from things like relativity?

Nope because it is not true but it does show a very deep bias. Science goes back a long way. The majority of scientists have believed in God and that majority of the best in my God. In fact abstract science it's self was the result of faith.

Yes, everybody believed in God back then. Newton was an alchemist and believed in a Bible code and other nonsense, too. Astrology were very wide spread and probably motivated much of astronomy. Probably I would have believed that stuff, too. But now we know better...and we have less risk of getting barbecued if we speak our mind for the (historical) record.

This is beneath a rational mind. You do not have the slightest idea why I believe. I at one time was more hostile to Christianity than any Aztec who ever lived (by the way I know quite a bit about Cortez) My pre-Christian attitude was not merely ignorance of the faith but hostility to whatever it was.

But who cares if you were hostile to God? The question is why you were not hostile to an Aztec God.

I don't know why you believe (it is actually puzzling) but I know that if you do than chances are that you belief in the Gods of your culture, your parents, your family, your friends, missionaries, etc. . You believe in God because you know God and not Quetzalcoatl.

So when almost all of Rome was Pagan it should have won yet Christ used a single man to convert the whole pagan empire. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.

And who was that man that converted the whole empire? You mean Constantine?

It does so and does absolutely. No human who ever lived is more qualified to know the truth than any one of the apostles. Given that and the fact that they all risked everything for an entire lifetime that if it was true was of no value whatever says more than every argument you have made combined, which is why everyone who debates it must reckon with them and does so. ...I would stick with math if I was you.

The apostles? Yes, they were probably severely deluded, if they ever existed or the legends you read were reliable, You know, deluded like those guys who got an hitchhike on a comet by killing themselves and all their families. What an amazing proof that aliens exist!

If X is composed of Y and other stuff then X is not Y. So the BGVT is not geodesic math in totality. It is doubtful if I could properly evaluate all the methodology they used and thank goodness I have no need because I have THEIR conclusions.

Yes, very doubtful, since they use models that can only work on a classical 4-dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold, my big speculation, lol. Maybe I would really stick with apostles, empty tombs and that sort of stuff, if I were you.

I have seen most of the best but Carroll in my opinion is the best the other side has at least over all. I really like him and he is the only one IMO that can stay with Craig. If you and Carroll share the same model hen you both share the same purely speculative invention which Carroll even admitted which made me like him even more. Maybe it is true but it is not science at the moment and not persuasive until at least partially evidenced.

He admitted that his own model is speculative. Not that the tenseless theory of time is, unless you can point me to where he said that.

But it is not important. As long as these models, multiverses, etc. are not ruled out, they are (at worst) as plausible as your God explanation. For this reason all premises of all arguments concerning beginning, causes, fine tuning are not necessarily valid if they consider God as only explanation. It isn't the only explanation. Not even close of being the only explanation. This might impress a clueless family watching Craig on TV, but it is destined to fail if you go beyond a minimum level of knowledge.

If I was you I would use any other name but his in my case. I recognize I may be completely incapable of doing so but my determination is he is a philosophical moron regardless of his science his conclusions are almost all philosophical. His statement about because gravity exists then nothing can produce something maybe the stupidest most irrational statement of any kind I have ever heard, except for stating there is no absolute truth. What kind of a mind could produce it's like?

You don't like his ability to show God's redundancy, do you?

What about Einstein? He said that the Bible is a set of primitive and childish tales. Do you prefer him?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So those who are by far more qualified than any human who ever existed to know, being completely consistent to events that have absolutely no benefit unless true and even in spite of death and lifelong suffering, means nothing to you. Says more about you than it. Why do Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, and a whole host of legal scholars on both sides feel it is absolutely essential as it is in every courtroom on earth?

How on earth can you possibly determine any of these things? You've failed to respond to a single argument I've made. I restate: strength of belief does not equal strength of evidence, and the fact that wise people believe something does not indicate that it is true, especially when these beliefs pervade specifically because they assert truth in lieu of evidence.

Once again, this is an extremely weak argument that only serves to make you look extremely silly.

 

[shawn001]

There is NO no-thing. That humans know about, even in the empty vacuum of space, there is still energy and that energy does some weird things and could have been the caused of the bang.

Robin wants to see the indentations of space from gravity?

What is gravitational lensing Robin?


"When astronomers refer to lensing, they are talking about an effect called gravitational lensing. Normal lenses such as the ones in a magnifying glass or a pair of spectacles work by bending light rays that pass through them in a process known as refraction, in order to focus the light somewhere (such as in your eye).

Gravitational lensing works in an analogous way and is an effect of Einstein's theory of general relativity – simply put, mass bends light. The gravitational field of a massive object will extend far into space, and cause light rays passing close to that object (and thus through its gravitational field) to be bent and refocused somewhere else. The more massive the object, the stronger its gravitational field and hence the greater the bending of light rays - just like using denser materials to make optical lenses results in a greater amount of refraction."

What is Gravitational Lensing? | CFHTLenS

and yes we still don't fully understand gravity, but there have been many breakthroughs recently in cosmology.

 

[viole]

First this is theological nonsense. God never ever said giving our lives will get anyone into heaven. Some give their lives because they love God (because of what they have already gotten not to get anything) but no one does to be saved. That was why the whole Christ thing was necessary to begin with. Your describing Islam not Christianity. Second far more suffer in misery in efforts to help others that die for their faith. No one (or at least almost no one) does so to get approval but out of a Christ like heart that loves others. I do not obey out of fear but gratitude. He handed me something of infinite value and by which my heart towards others was greatly softened. So I and others in thankfulness and genuine concern suffer to serve. My friend (who by the way was sinful and nuts when we grew up) was saved. Instantly he became a very moral man, founded three successful companies, and can afford most luxuries but every year for weeks or months (even though he is already saved) crawls through south American jungles to help the poor and sick and funds much of the trip. Christianity more than any demographic on earth demonstrates a willingness to suffer and. or die in service to others. Not to gain approval but out of thankfulness for being approved and genuine concern. It would be the height of foolishness to make ineffectual attempts to tarnish that track record. Maybe suicide bombers but not most missionaries out there in the bush.

I don't know. I am skeptical...if someone starts behaving after believing in God, or being "saved", then what is the difference from someone behaving after having seen the police?

I am definitely more impressed when someone does good (or stops doing bad things) even when she thinks that no-one is watching.

Well I have left you hanging in other posts currently so I will be brief.


Four (of many) conclusions are held by a consensus of NT scholars regardless of their faith. These are as reliable as ancient history can make them.

1. Christ appeared on the historical scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. Whether he had it or not is irrelevant here.
2. He died as a result of being crucified by the romans.
3. His tomb was found empty. Despite virtually everyone having a motive and the means to produce the body.
4. Even his enemies sincerely believed they had met him postmortem.

Now using only that less than .01% of the bible alone I can justify faith completely.

1. If you wish to contend with faith you must provide a defeater to them.
2. If you wish to contend with me you must provide a better explanation than the Gospels do of those historical details.

Pick your poison. Geodesics and nomology are off limits BTW.

Well, unless you think that the tales of the Gospel are a typical example of something from nothing, I think that this subject would be hopelessly off topic here.

So, I think you should open a new thread and I will join you there together with other people who might be more interested than discussing cosmological or philosophical stuff.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I may have been mistaken but I got it straight from you. However nothing (today) can provide any evidence for multi-verse so it is moot regardless.

Yes, but they explain your "fine tuning" as good as your equally-evidential God. So, your fine tuning argument is moot as well, isn't it?

Or is it stronger because of empty tombs?

I have used many quotes from scientists on both sides who sited theological preference as what partially drove their science. We are human and it can't be helped, but it is still remarkable at the extent cognitive dissonance occurs. ...

Yes, cognitive dissonances can lead to lies or self deception. I had a young friend once who could not believe that His father died still so young; he was everything for him. his inspiration, his guide towards an uncertain future, etc.

He kept having visions of him all the time: that was his brain's way to rationalize away reality. He even managed to convince his brothers that dad was still alive, somewhere.

We are stupid enough to have invented the means of our total instant destruction and to have almost used it twice, so yes we are stupid enough to do absolutely anything.

Could be. But things seem to improve. Wars and criminality seem to be going down dramatically. At least, in secular countries or continents.

Hold it. Above you suggested you would never use modal logic to demonstrate the multiverse now you say if I reject the multiverse modal logic goes with it. Which is it? Kalam has no known fault but it is not the modal I use.

Modal logic is not used by scientists. It is a used by philosophers and theologians. What I am saying is that people like Craig uses Kalam more often because even simpletons can understand it, probably. If the majority of his audience would not be composed of (philosophical) simpletons with the job of spreading his points, he would probably use more powerful modal based cosmological arguments. He is smart, I would not be confident about the correct transmission of the modal Leibniz argument by the average member of his fans base, either.

I gather that is true, but I do not. Fairies did not potentially write 750,000 of the most scrutinized and influential words in history. They did not become a man and feed the hungry, etc... BTW why is there not a single "I was there and that did not happen" claim from the period. If I claimed to feed my coworkers from my sack lunch (and people formed a religion about it) and I didn't do it all kinds of them would be produced and survive. Fairies do not have over a billion people who claim to have met them. Etc... ad infinitum. Even fairy tales do not include that they created anything from nothing.

Usually the arguments against fairies betray a total lack of knowledge in fairology. They can be so unsophisticated that they are a pain to read. The message on the Tales can be figurative, evocative, symbolic or literal. Once we apply the correct hermeneutics, we can see how the message of the Tales corresponds to the one the authors intended to convey. Not only there is no contradiction with the current findings of science, but the places and environments in which the Tales take place, the towns, the forests and the trees, have been confirmed by historians, archeologists, biologists and even contemporary eye witnesses that can attest the truth of the existence of forests and wolves in Scandinavia and Germany.

This provides evidence that the Tales are the inspired word of fairies. It is also generally accepted by fairologists today that the true fairies can only be blue, even if it is not always explicitly clear from the text of the Tales . Beliefs in alternative colors, like red fairies, should be considered heretical.

Not true because time is independent of thermodynamics. The amount of energy or chaos in a system is not used to measure time. In fact time might be only an abstract construct linked to duration by mind.

Yes, time is independent from thermodynamics. But not its preferred direction or arrow.

What system exhibits this magical property? God would but God is supernatural. Thermodynamic change might be dependent on time but not the other way around. It is called times arrow because it seems to obey time but time does not obey it. Do you really think a glass of water that is at equilibrium means time does not exist? It would not matter anyway because the universe is not in equilibrium.

You do not pay attention. Time would still exist. It is not easy to get rid of a whole dimension in spacetime. But time would lose its preferred polarization, from past to future,

If the glass of water was the whole Universe? Of course there will be no difference between past and future. I wonder why you ask.

When find ourselves in such a world remind me of this. If we do not even know what is true of 90% of our own oceans why n the world bring up other universes?

Who cares? You are discussing the something from nothing argument, which will necessarily leads you away from what you observe in your swimming pool or everyday environments.

You would need to supply volumes of information that you did not for me to meaningfully respond. I did not see anything that suggests cause and effect were suspended, just a whole world of stuff you did not mentions. What lab do you work in?

Ok, but if you lack even basic knowledge of fundamental physics, how do you intend to defend your concept of generally applicable causality?

If a theory is only partially understood by relative handfuls of people and still hotly debated all conclusions are premature.

What? relativity is only understood by a handful of people and hotly debated? It might help your ego, but it is not true, LOL.
It is even considered classical today.

By the way, the BGVT relies entirely on classical spacetime as it comes from relativity, as you probably know. Do you think its conclusions are premature?

What? Tens-less time is BELIEVED in by far less scholars than have accepted tensed time. You keep mentioning observation but always conclude things about stuff that can't be. I see no dinosaurs, previous me(s), or previous anything's. How is this an observation. I can perceive that memories are retained by the exact same cells over time however. Take a picture of tens-less time and post it please. Why is it always some abstract or theoretical place where this non-theistic evidence is? Why can't you use this universe, macro objects, or the time we all perceive to get rid of fantastic claims made by ignorant men 4000 years ago made. There are trillion of them, why do they line with God so easily?

Now you stepping into the intellectual equivalent of a creationist who wants to see a movie of a dino turning into a bird.

Not being in a causal relationship with other events in timespace does not entail their non existence. I cannot possibly causally influence anything in my present section of spacetime, either, does it mean my present does not exist?
I cannot even take a picture of my husband as he is in my present.

I have heard tens-less time used many times but I have never heard relativity used as it's defense. Relativity primarily deals with either a real or perceived contraction or stretching of time. I see no break in linear time by stretching or shrinking it. By the way what unit of time composes now in this view? No matter what you picked I can half it and so on so that now would eventually contain so little time as to not allow the necessary time to allow neuron conduction to perceive it, but I do perceive it. That means that now has a minimum, what is it?

Continued:

This is odd.

But you like philosophy... So, let's see what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about the relativity defense of tenseless time

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

"The first of these is an argument from the special theory of relativity in physics. According to that theory (the argument goes), there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. But if there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, then there cannot be objective facts of the form “t is present” or “t is 12 seconds past”. Thus, according to this line of argument, there cannot be objective facts about A properties, and so the passage of time cannot be an objective feature of the world. It looks as if the A Theorist must choose between two possible responses to the argument from relativity: (1) deny the theory of relativity, or (2) deny that the theory of relativity actually entails that there can be no such thing as absolute simultaneity. "

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I am no relativity expert but I did have to work with it. I found things that did not agree with my perception but did seem rational given some data and theory but tens-less time was not one of them, in fact it was never mentioned in 10 years of school.

Could be. I did not either. Only later when reading about the consequences of relativity. After all Einstein himself declared that time flowing is only a stubborn illusion. This is the logical conclusion in a world in which simultaneity is not objective and measurements of time (and space) differences between two events is relative to the observer. So, if relativity is true, then tensed time must be wrong.

But even if we agree to disagree, tense-less time does not seem to suffer from internal contradictions, at least not as many as tensed time. So, even if I conceded that they were on equal plausibility footing, the fact that we cannot decide is sufficient to cast serious doubts on the premises of most cosmological arguments.

I do not know why but I found this funny. I feel like I am talking to someone who is in this century but thinks he lives in the next one and all his theories have been shown to be true. No, gravity is described by the deformation of space in a graph, it isn't an actual part of any space fabric. Another observation you can't observe even if true. I want a picture of an actual space indention. No one in human history knows what gravity is. Just so happens I just heard a Princton mathematician say this and his non-theistic adversaries agree without reservation. I have never even heard a single scientists ever different though I imagine a few of the more arrogant might.

You seem to neglect the fact that we have a pretty well tested and accepted theory of gravity. Next year it will be its 100th anniversary. It is the general theory of relativity. And the general theory of relativity explains gravity as curvature of the space time fabric. Space time is a physical object that can even be plucked to produce waves. This is pretty much othodoxy nowadays.

You can disagree that this is what it says, but you would border living in denial.

A good introduction is "Gravitation" by Wheeler and co. The first couple of chapters explain the underlying concepts pretty well.

I heard both Ravi and Dinesh bring this up in several debates with scientists. Forget the fact Ravi must be a systematic alien robot and can deconstruct anything you might venture in seconds. None of their adversaries even challenged this. They even stated it emphatically as "science can only answer ion each case" Don't have a clue, Don't have a clue, Don't have a clue, etc.... to provoke a response to no avail. The secular folks just trivialized the questions and changed subjects. Just as you did.

We are not trivializing anything. We just don't swallow without challenge anything the non-secular folks say. If we did, things like lighnings would still be competence of the pious believers in Zeus.

I am aware that non-secular folks perceive it as an invasion in the last God's hiding corners, but this the way it is, I am afraid.

That is better sounding and fancy way of saying that what you stated has no relationship to truth. I am all for scientific speculation but it belongs in a lab and labeled as such. Don't bring it into a place where persuasiveness is important.

Every scientific subject I mentioned has left the speculation area a long time ago. It won because of evidence, not philosophy or speculations.

I see you switched up again. Please state whether it is or is not involved and lets move on.

It is not.

Said the person who has not even acknowledged my questions for the same purpose. I have said before my knowledge in most areas is heavy in the parts that apply but not in areas that have little impact to theology. So expect an inconsistent capability level. I know little about modal logic in general, only enough to know is of no use for making other universes likely but I am familiar with modal logic as it applies to beings because it does apply. I however work with an expert in modal logic so bring it on.

Modal logic is used by philosophers and, frequently, by theologians. I believe Pantinga likes the modal ontological argument, for instance. My advise to you is to learn it so that you can construct better philosophical arguments. Better than Kalam, anyway.

Incoherency becomes you. Just kidding, but seriously I don't get this.

I was kidding, too.

Yes I have heard it used before but very rarely and it is always shut down the same way as used in that context. However this is a good example you did not give me anything to evaluate. You just made a proclamation about cutting edge science and moved on. What am I supposed to do with this?

Well, you said that science assumes uniformity of the laws of Nature in the whole universe. This is a form of symmetry, isn't it? Namely translation symmetry: the laws of physics are the same if I transfer my lab on the Andromeda galaxy.

There is nothing metaphysical about it. We can actually validate it.

In this particular case, this form of symmetry leads to a conservation law we can try to falsify: the law of conservation of momentum. The fact that momentum appears to be always conserved gives us confidence that the translation symmetry is true.

The conservation of energy is another consequence of a symmetry: the symmetry in the direction of time. If the fundamental laws of nature are still valid when you invert time, as they apparently are, then energy must be conserved.

And before you complain that this is another speculation of mine, be aware that these results are very very classic. Chapter 1 of Landau's book on classical (non relativistic)mechanics, for instance.

I used to be mesmerized by science. Slowly over my days in school I lost it all. The last straw was going to faculty discussions. One night they all said that because of holographic theory we can reliably know the universe is actually two dimensional, the next night the exact same people said that because of string theory we can conclude it has 11 dimensions or more. I just gave it up and have only been justified since then in my apprehension. Build something with it or keep it to your self IMO. I have probably over compensated but I am very distrustful of the most speculative 25% of science or so. I work in science but do not have the luxury of working on things that have no known right answers. I must be right and my theories must work in the real world where applied or someone may very well die, of course if they do work someone else may die anyway. I work in defense.

Yes, except that what I have been telling you so far is consolidated science. About 100 years old, at least. Nothing to do with string theory or other "bleeding edge" concepts.

String theory is an attempt to marry consolidated and proven science (relativity and QM) into a uniform framework. And it is motivated by the huge success of these two theories which cannot be married so easily, yet.

That is fine but your arguments rely heavily on the most unreliable of science, though I am not saying it is known to be unreliable, just unpersuasive.

Nope, it doesn't. Unless you call relativity unreliable. If you did, then you will immediately transfer this unrealiability to your beloved past finite universe theorem, which is eminently relativistic.

Again what lab do you work in?

I don't work in any lab. I am not an experimental physicist. If you refer to my movie example of the splitting photon, or the transfer of my lab on Andromeda, those were gedanken experiments.

In case you complain: gedanken experiments do not have anything to do with being or not being an experimental physicist

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

There is NO no-thing.

...and then you pointed to energy.

So....Something Greater?

Spirit?.....or substance?

 

[1robin]

This is not the point. The point is that in a regime of time direction symmetry you have no way to say what is cause and what effect.

To save time I do not see anything that would suggest cause and effect were not present. This sounds like a typical non-determinant logical system of which I am very familiar with and no one suggest that cause and effect are absent. It also is possible that cause and effect can be virtually (to all appearances simultaneous) and would be hard to differentiate but still not a violation. Why are you always at the very limit of science looking for arguments?

I am not questioning their competence. I don't think that the idea I exposed cannot be understood by a smart layman. You can buy any book from Carroll or Greene and you will read the same. And the intended audience is not composed of PhDs.

You have questioned and commented very strongly on my competence and so I imagine it is a common practice that would produce the common response that you asked why, about? You are not rude but you are very judgmental and in my case you don't have a fraction of the data needed to make the judgment.

(Modern) physics boring? You should really stick with empty tombs, Gods feeding a party with two fishes, and other similar much more interesting things, LOL.

Even your contrivance betrays you. No electron is half as interesting a the dead rising from the grave. How could they even be in the same realm?

I doubt that Time magazine will devote their cover to the obvious. Let me ask you this: do you agree that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the points (except one) of a circle and the points of an infinite line?

I could admit that there could very well be. Since there are an infinite number of these points on lets say a number line that represent distance, starting at any point, and traveling at any theoretically possible speed, you will never ever reach a point where you do not have infinity left to go. In fact to save time with you inventing complex examples so abstract that anything can be hid in them let's use a simplistic numbered distance line. It is virtually a forgone conclusion in science and is treated as one so good luck. IN fact the most common use of infinity in mathematics is as an asymptotic boundary that something can't get to.

It might have been lost with all these posts. Be a gentleman and repeat please what this question about harmonics is about.

Oh never mind. I have a good idea that your education level is below (not that it I slow by any means) what is necessary to have fully understood all of what you have posted and I have seen your reluctance to respond to every test I have given, so never mind.

Well, you are not a natural born skeptic, that is for sure. For if I told you that I am X (very important sounding title), would you be suddenly less skeptical? If not, why do you ask? If yes, why? If I bluff about my math, I can bluff about my titles as well.

What?

1. Christian doctrine claims we are all born skeptics.
2. I was not skeptical to Christianity I was hostile.
3. I don't trust much of anything anyone says (even Christian miraculous claims I rule out 90% before hand).
4. I asked you for reasons you may not understand. Your refusal was exactly what I expected, as was your self justification. So you confirmed my suspicion without answering.

However it is not that important.

I am not sure if it is true, but theists seem to be more concerned about titles than normal people do. "Look, he is a Prof. Emeritus, Phd. and fellow of this and that..and he also supports 6,000 years old earth. or the supernatural origin of the black stone, or the primacy of the mind, or the existence of the soul, heaven, ghosts, etc. ...(So, what we believe is not necessarily BS)".

After thousands of hours of professional debates watched, transcripts read, and faculty dinners attended I can say without any possibility of being incorrect is that both sides exhaustively depend in authority and I can see why. Any kid will usually ask when told something "oh yeah who says". It is a gut level question that is perfectly appropriate and meaningful. Does not prove anything but does lend credibility. I don't use a guy with a PhD in cosmology for the reality of ghosts. I use him for cosmology, historians for history, philosophers for philosophy, unless their experience is wider that that. You however used the national academy of science concerning God's existence which has more problems than a math book. I don't use authority in the ways you described (or at least try not to). Arguments from authority are used in all professional settings and belong here as much as anywhere if used reasonably.

Yes, it can happen to hold such views, when we do not fully understand things. It was the same for me with things like Jesus, God or Satan. Let's face it: if the books describing them were factually true, I don't think they are the brightest tool in the shed. I have not disqualified then personally on account of their non existence.

I have little choice with Hawking. Barely a hand full of people can fully understand M-theory, etc.... (Penrose for example called it a bad excuse for not having a viable theory). However we can all have great knowledge about Christ. The bible is full of history not equations that only Phd's understand, but absolutely correct philosophy, astoundingly accurate history, the greatest moral pronouncements in human history, etc..... We teach it to 5 year olds and they get it (most of it anyway), and great numbers of scholars in every field find it not only convincing but convincing enough to give their lives over to it. That can't be said of Hawking so they are not meaningfully similar.

True, but all these scientific disagreements can only be discerned by evidence. And will stay in this limbo until we know more, either disproving them or confirming them. I doubt we can say the same with things that involve winged horses picking up prophets going to Heaven. LOL.

Then multi-verses are out, dark matter and energy is out, micro-black holes are out, if reliable evidence is mandatory then half of theoretical science is out. I however do not have your arbitrary standards about disagreement. I include it al but I include it with the weight assigned to it, that it deserves. That is by far the better system. You would have to be specific to discuss this any further.

Which part? The one concerning ingesting Jesus after a few Latin words on a wafer? Or the winged horses limo service for VIPs: Very Important Prophets?

I emphatically disagree with the first (and even among those who "officially" practice it, few believe it). The second is one of those claims that is taken on pure faith and not one that composes a single core component of any Christians faith. My core faith is unaffected by the truth of either one. Sort of like quantum theory being untouched depending on which one of the ten (some mutually exclusive) forms which it may operate by. If I read from 3 reporters that the same game was tied, that X won, or that Y lost and my faith is based on whether a game occurred then their disagreements or alternate descriptions are irrelevant. The worst possible conclusion is the one you make. That their disagreement means no game occurred at all.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Why? I also ask my cosmologist friends to come back when they have an agreement. I simply have no time to go through all their models even if it were fun. But it is a fact that when models make contradicting claims, then they cannot be both right, but they can be both wrong. Usually, it is the latter, especially if the controversy is still unresolved after centuries and seem to depend on where you live and not any particular evidence..

No, science is done as if God did not exist because science does not have access to him. They all operate as if there is no God. Some because they rule him out before hand, and others because science is the study of the natural and not the supernatural. The more meaningful factor is that knowing all that science does not seem to impede faith but is completely compatible with it and what inspired it to begin with. My faith does not contradict a single reliable scientific fact but science does line up with my faith in many ways. I nor anyone is justified in demanding a choice between the two.

Yes, secular scientists do not see God and non-secular ones do. On the other hand, secular scientists see relativity and non-secular ones see it as well. So, where is the objectivity of God's evidence in Nature and what makes it so different from things like relativity?

Objectivity among a host of things means independent of the opinions of it's believers. There are billions of claims to supernatural experience. They are not stated as an opinion or conclusions of a hypothesis but a spiritual experience the same as seeing would be. Just as we have not all seen the empire state building (or even buildings never photographed) the massive amounts of reports of seeing it make it an objective probability perceived subjectively. Additionally we all act as if objective morality exists, even you, and others that deny it does. That is strong evidence that it does in fact exist. God demands faith so a lack of universal objective proof is not only irrelevant it can't exist except for those who had faith that produced the experience (just as I take the empire state building on faith but others have objective proof it exists)

Yes, everybody believed in God back then. Newton was an alchemist and believed in a Bible code and other nonsense, too. Astrology were very wide spread and probably motivated much of astronomy. Probably I would have believed that stuff, too. But now we know better...and we have less risk of getting barbecued if we speak our mind for the (historical) record.

Pointing out where Newton was wrong in one area (if he actually was) does nothing to prove he was in another. My point was about the persuasiveness of the evidence not about any one man's being omniscient. We know astrology was wrong but we do not by any means know a single claim in the bible was wrong (outside scribal error). Just as Newton knew believed in gravity and it survived while astrology did not so has the bible. Even with all this science Christianity add the equivalent of the population of Nevada per year.

But who cares if you were hostile to God? The question is why you were not hostile to an Aztec God.

At the time I was hostile to God I did not know of any Aztec God to hate. Even today I am ignorant of most of the billions of irrational concepts of God that have existed. India potentially has 330,000 million alone. What is the point here? I knew of Christianity the same way I did about thunder. I did not think it was Thor getting mad because that had been strained out of existence by evidence. So have almost all of the half billions God's in history.

I don't know why you believe (it is actually puzzling) but I know that if you do than chances are that you belief in the Gods of your culture, your parents, your family, your friends, missionaries, etc. . You believe in God because you know God and not Quetzalcoatl.

If I know God then the question is academic. When I was mad at God I was ignorant of Quetzalcoatl, but before becoming a Christian I found out quite a lot about him. Like that he was actually embodied in a statue that the Aztecs carried around and made moral commands that completely defy the almost universal moral core people hold and for many additional reasons he was relegated to non-existent. If you want t o get into the Aztecs I can certainly oblige you but I have no idea why they are relevant. Do you know how or why the Aztecs wound up on the island (Tenochtitlan) that is now Mexico city to begin with?

And who was that man that converted the whole empire? You mean Constantine?

Nope, he only stopped the Christians from being killed. He made all religions (or at least Christianity and all the flavors of paganism) ok to practice. Christianity eventually took over. In another example Protégées missionaries went to India. Despite their being dependent on brutality and force at times even they were surprised how the Indians jumped into their arms. Hinduism validated strict sect systems where the bottom rungs could not ever advance. Whether practiced correctly at all times or not just having a foundation that made all men equal produced a tidal wave of conversions.

Side note: Did you know Cortez was told by his Abbot that forced conversions were ungodly and he so he outlawed them? It was also the only known time a conquest was terminated for humanitarian considerations.

The apostles? Yes, they were probably severely deluded, if they ever existed or the legends you read were reliable, You know, deluded like those guys who got an hitchhike on a comet by killing themselves and all their families. What an amazing proof that aliens exist!

The scholars most trained and capable of knowing the facts concerning what you said overwhelming adopt the exact opposite position. Your so far off the page I can now see why you love theoretical science so much. Apostolic sincerity is granted by almost every NT scholar there is.

Yes, very doubtful, since they use models that can only work on a classical 4-dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold, my big speculation, lol. Maybe I would really stick with apostles, empty tombs and that sort of stuff, if I were you.

I did not use the term speculation, I have no ideas what your talking about. I said X and Y are not equal. You said BGVT was basically geodesics. I said it is mostly other stuff but it does not matter anyway because the conclusions is that this universe (you know the one we actually have evidence for) is finite in time. I do not care how long the words you use are that is still the conclusion.

He admitted that his own model is speculative. Not that the tenseless theory of time is, unless you can point me to where he said that.

I thought the context of your statement was cosmology not time. His model was cosmological and appeared to assume tensed time but I am guessing the last part somewhat. I was thinking time in my response.

But it is not important. As long as these models, multiverses, etc. are not ruled out, they are (at worst) as plausible as your God explanation. For this reason all premises of all arguments concerning beginning, causes, fine tuning are not necessarily valid if they consider God as only explanation. It isn't the only explanation. Not even close of being the only explanation. This might impress a clueless family watching Craig on TV, but it is destined to fail if you go beyond a minimum level of knowledge.

Yes I am very well aware that you consider plausible denial preferable to reliability. If our universe appears to need a cause it does not contain then as long as another scenario who's only merit is it's non impossibility is the escape mechanism. Your world view requires more faith than mine and more than I have.

You don't like his ability to show God's redundancy, do you?

I have no idea where he ever did so. If he did I was unaware and so could not have used that as a motivation. I doubt he ever got close to doing what you said and I even gave a few examples of why I am skeptical of him that had nothing to do with whatever your talking about.

What about Einstein? He said that the Bible is a set of primitive and childish tales. Do you prefer him?

Yes, and I do so without quoting his numerous quotes that were very positive about theology. He was a scientific genius but a theological schizophrenic. You have to judge his theology by the month.

Ciao

- viole

Later,