The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

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.

I do not remember any posts from you for a while. If I missed one give me the number.

I can easily determine that:
1. Paul knows if he was knocked off his horse.
2. That Luke would be in the second best position to know.
3. That Peter would know if Peter denied Christ three times.
4. That Peter would know if the Tomb was empty.
5. That John would know if Christ was crucified.
6. That Thomas would know if Christ appeared in the upper room with nail scars.
7. That Mathew would know if Christ appeared after being crucified and talked with them.

and on and on.

The apostles were vitally aware of the truth of what founded their faith.
If false they either suffered or gave their lives or both for what they knew for certain was true or false. It makes vastly more sense they thought it was true. What in the world is so hard to get here? The only thing I can think of is your taking conclusions based on evidence and amplifying the slightest uncertainty and claiming they didn't know. To that I would say yet again that you applying double standards you do not use in any other area of your life to faith for convenience. They had far more evidence than almost any juror who returned a verdict did.

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

I made two types of claims. I have shown the former was as strong as claims get and the second is very close. My "experts" were rigorously trained in what good arguments are, what good or bad evidence is, what makes testimony reliable or unreliable. In fact they went on to write textbooks that taught it, such was their credibility. They were only mentioned to suggest the quality of the evidence and similar arguments can't have any better sources than the two I used.


Your claim of weakness is feeble.

 

[1robin]

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.

I would think there. Saying a vacuum is not total is not to say it is completely filled with anything. In fact if you start with a building for instance then divide it into iron, plastic, etc.... then into molecules, then atoms, then electrons, then quarks, etc..... you eventually run out of stuff entirely. If you blew up an atom to the size of the solar system it would contain 99.99999% empty space and he electrons would be further from the sun that Earth is. But it is a logical deduction. No slice (no matter how big or small) of the natural world contains an ultimate explanation. I run out of stuff long before I have it's ultimate source. I need a source that is not natural.

Robin wants to see the indentations of space from gravity?

What is gravitational lensing Robin?

You like using my name a lot. In some situations it is flattering but here it's creepy. Lensing is the distortion of photons by gravity. It is not a graphic pattern imposed on a non existent fabric of space. I did not deny gravity of course, and that is all you have shown. That graphical fabric stuff is no more real that a two dimensional graph of anything your familiar with. Type space time into Google images. You will get graphic representations, drawings, etc..... but no photographs of anything but gravities effects.

"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.

I know very well what gravitational lensing is and it is not what is used to REPRESENT Einstein's theory, no more than bell curves represent people in a class taking a test. It is a tool not a reality. Gravity is still a complete mystery it's self (not how it behaves) and scientists of all theological positions readily admit it.

 

[idav]

Gravity is still a complete mystery it's self (not how it behaves) and scientists of all theological positions readily admit it.

Not fully understanding something is a far cry from something being a complete mystery. It isn't a complete mystery. There have been significant contributions for almost a hundred years.

 

[1robin]

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.

Because in almost all cases that person who changed because the police were nearby quits doing so and reverts to what his nature dictates as soon as they pass. However note one thing here. Even that person is admitting an authority with a set of duties and the capacity to hold them responsible had observed them and they acted accordingly. One similarity would be that and the idea that God always observes them but it does not end there, God gives people the ability to act in ways they had attempted to many times and utterly failed. My case is an example, so would Johnny Cash's, Foreman's, and on and on. That is why in many areas theistic based self help attempts like the 12-steps, homosexual counseling, etc.... have much greater success rates. Just ask any Christian you know. Almost all of them will tell you they tried to quit X but failed, they were born again and succeeded. In my case even the desire to do X went away. One weird side effect was I cursed like the sailor I was (I'm a Navy vet) until the day I was saved. I not only stopped I couldn't even stand to hear it for a long time after words. This last one is a bit odd and requires some explanation but it did occur but I could give a dozen more just in my case alone. If you want some radical verifiable stories look up Ravi Zacharias' visit to Angola prison (Angola I think) his visit transformed the place.

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.

These conversations veer so widely I usually have no idea what thread I am in. How about a resurrection from the non-occurrence of any. Not a resuscitation but a resurrection. Important difference.

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.

I have all I can get to in the 4 or so threads I am in. I attract the most long winded of posters but will consider doing so.

Ciao

- viole

Chow and wahlah to you my friend.

 

[1robin]

Not fully understanding something is a far cry from something being a complete mystery. It isn't a complete mystery. There have been significant contributions for almost a hundred years.

That is why I carefully qualified my statement. Gravity it's self is a complete mystery (and in most opinions by far the most meaningful), but how it acts on other things is fairly well understood. However since we can only measure 1 trillionth or less of the universe science has assumed the universe is universally rational because it's creator is. If you throw God out and rationality goes with him then we probably know next to nothing about even how gravity behaves. But knowing what a child did in the 1 billionth of his existence I observed him is a far cry from knowing that child and that is the point. As a percentage of what is potentially knowable even about local mundane things like the ocean we know very little but that little is still impressive if not abused to form fanciful theories.

 

[idav]

That is why I carefully qualified my statement. Gravity it's self is a complete mystery (and in most opinions by far the most meaningful), but how it acts on other things is fairly well understood. However since we can only measure 1 trillionth or less of the universe science has assumed the universe is universally rational because it's creator is. If you throw God out and rationality goes with him then we probably know next to nothing about even how gravity behaves. But knowing what a child did in the 1 billionth of his existence I observed him is a far cry from knowing that child and that is the point. As a percentage of what is potentially knowable even about local mundane things like the ocean we know very little but that little is still impressive if not abused to form fanciful theories.

I don't follow your qualifier. We know what it is and it works as an inversion of energy with mass. Einstein resolved it in 1915 with general relativity and fixed the discrepancy of orbits. Can you be more specific on what is a "complete mystery", it isn't "itself" a complete mystery I'm not following. How it acts on things is what we need to know about it. Are you saying we know what it does but not how it does it? Space-time curvature, same thing energy does at light speed.

 

[1robin]

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?

No evidence less fantasy never explains things as good as evidenced hypothesis. It is almost impossible for me to give credibility to an idea simply because it isn't impossible but even if I did that credibility factor would be dwarfed entirely by evidenced theories like the Gospels. They don't find a body and a guy standing over it with a gun that matches the bullet who had a grudge and let him go because an alien could have used a similar firearm and killed the guy in a cosmic hunting expedition. Your response has so little merit or evidence as to easily be considered negligible.

Or is it stronger because of empty tombs?

It is stronger for thousands of reasons (which you would conveniently find thousands of reasons to claim them wrong without sufficient justification) which would it's self be evidence of at least a bias. No matter how weak even you consider the bible it is far stronger that a fantasy.

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.

I need no convincing to believe in the power of cognitive dissonance. I am a believer in it and do not require conversion. I spend as much time questioning every aspect of my faith as reading the bible. That is why I like debates even better than preaching most times. I want someone there who can say the theist is wrong if he is. The inability to do so by atheists in a convincing manner has only deepened my faith.

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

Since when. Two wars that cost more lives than maybe all other combined occurred less than a hundred years ago. Most people know little about the Cuban missile crisis by almost no one knows about the closest we came. In the 80's (maybe 83) Reagan was conducted practice exercises in eastern Europe with huge assets. The Russians had false intelligence that we would use this for a sneak attack. At the height of confusion a Russian bunker picked up a signal that was coded as an ICBM launch. I think it was Gorbechev that warmed his missiles up and targeted cities around the world. He called the bunker and was talking to the guy. The guy was uncertain but the world's existence hung on his guessing science had failed. As the launch window was closing he was asked to decide. He said possible sun flare. No launch and we all are alive for one and possibly two more reasons.

1. He guessed science was wrong and it was.
2. I have no idea what he was but secularism would have given him no additional reasons to guess for life without knowing but Christianity would.
3. God may have intervened. The guy could never say why he had chosen the option that would have got him and everyone else in Russia killed if wrong.

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.

Indeterminate systems use modal logic. I work with them and employ all the systems developed by Kripke and others in electronic theory. Craig uses and mentions more than Kalam. Both he and I like Leibniz as well and most would do in there core claims. He uses Kalam because it is well known and semi-universal. I have read his work when replying to very sophisticated arguments in his written sources and he argues almost the same way as always. I am sure he could get very technical if he wanted but I do not see any need here and neither does he apparently. If applicable simple is always better. That is a scientific and philosophic principle as well. Do not multiply causes beyond necessity, Occam's razor, etc......

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.

Since I am not a fairie-ist I cannot comment except to say that like science bad theology tends to be rooted out over time and only the more evidenced survive and flourish.

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.

NO that proves fairies are just as valid as multi-verses. They have no parallel with the bible or even the dreadful Quran and Vedas.

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

Are you suggesting that if I find a glass of water that is not gaining or loosing heat that suggests time is not moving?

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,

No it would not because you have exactly zero of these things to observe. This sounds like the tree falling in the forest sort of canard to me. Thermodynamics does not dictate which way time goes. Entropy seems to increase as time goes but has nothing to do with times existence or direction. The same way a sign indicates the flow of traffic but does not mean I can't go the other way or that cars don't exist. And your particular sign does not exist in the universe we know of nor will it ever anyway. You know, the universe we look at to make conclusions from.

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.

Yes there would be because our universe will always be increasing in entropy. No matter how small the particles they will always be moving.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

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.

No it does not. I look at fluid dynamics in my pool, at evaporation rates, at weight volume equivalence, etc...... and extrapolate about water everywhere. Now before you object you should know that is exactly what science does about most everything. We look at the tiny fraction we can and extrapolate about other places. Which by the way only makes sense of the same creator created it all. That is why modern science was born.

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

First of all I do nor would you have enough evidence to say otherwise if I didn't. Second I would not need to anyway because I have access to endless people who do. Third who cares because I get it from philosophy not physics. Physics just confirms it.

In basic Physics a law states that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. There is NO law that for no action or reason at all there is a reaction.

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.

That is a relative label. There is a view on the theory called classical, and a view that is called modern relativity. In fact type in Classic relativity versus..... and you will get 943,000 sites where relativity is contested. MY point was not that it is wrong juts that the average forum poster is incapable of meaningfully understanding it fully because very few in the field do. It does have areas where great agreement exists but the most controversial areas are where you are, concluding some implication from complex theory.

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?

Normally I would think that but that theory was designed by people who understand on some level the impact of the Quantum. It was designed to be extremely robust and to be true regardless of what could have conceivably occurred in the singularity. It could need tweaking someday but I do not think it is premature nor weak on any level. They set it up so it did not matter what the variables turned out to be within reason.

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

Since even if macroevolution was true no one person will ever see it occur I doubt it. I am in the shoes of someone who is frustrated by claims that have no evidence nor good reasons to believe there ever would be any even if they were true. There are many grey areas but your not in them. Your in areas which have very wide spread agreement and no known exception. Appealing to things who's only merit is they are not impossible, and using theories for radical conclusions and suggesting rejecting the conclusions means I don't accept physics is exasperating.

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.

What? Who did you marry, your past husband? My brain for some reason I can't figure out assigns genders to posters. I rarely know if I am correct but I run about 80% concerning those I do find out about. I thought you were female from your first post, have no idea why, but I did. We are not in causal relationships will 99.9999999999999999% of the universe so I don't know what to make of that. I don't think it does not exist.

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

Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"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

I have also told you until my fingers bled I am primarily interested in each of those subjects as they apply to theology. Virtually no one on either side ever proposes tens less time (though I have heard it) that I would have never heard much about it's explanation. When I have heard it, it is usually posited simply as a brute fact or another non-impossibility which is torn to shreds by Craig or Lennox and foundations are not mentioned in detail.
I studied math and military history most of my life not philosophy. So my philosophical knowledge is deep but narrow because it comes primarily from professional debates and a lot of them. You did notice they were only giving an argument not an accepted law or principle. I can say that despite the fact it rarely is used in professional debate you did use it as correctly as that argument eventually turns out to be. But you might have said the same for arguments that showed a flat earth or the steady state. Stating an argument does not validate it. I believe the argument wrong as things do exist simultaneously. If my car did not exist simultaneously with me I would not have made it to work. I choose option number two in that arguments defeaters.

 

[1robin]

I don't follow your qualifier. We know what it is and it works as an inversion of energy with mass. Einstein resolved it in 1915 with general relativity and fixed the discrepancy of orbits. Can you be more specific on what is a "complete mystery", it isn't "itself" a complete mystery I'm not following. How it acts on things is what we need to know about it. Are you saying we know what it does but not how it does it? Space-time curvature, same thing energy does at light speed.

No, that is a description of the equations concerning predictability in what it does not what it is. It is just one in a whole list of things we do not know what they are or why they are. Others are magnetisms and all kinds of constants that do not seem determined or dependent on anything natural what so ever. I am just going to throw some facts at your.

1. The majority of our universe is dark matter (whatever that turns out to be) and it is the source of most gravity. Yet we do not even have a quantum theory of gravity to handle it.
2. All other forces in nature have opposites. Scientists can explain why gravity does not.
3. Why is gravity the most important force in the universe despite it's being among the weakest?
4. If we understood gravity we would have created a gravity shield that worked or not have tried. However we tried and failed miserably.

5. Question: What is gravity?

Answer: We don't really know.

We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.
High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), Dr. Alan Smale (Director), within the Astrophysics Science Division (ASD) at NASA/ GSFC.

6. Type in what scientists don't know about gravity: You get 42 million hits.

7. We thought we knew so much about gravity that we spent billions looking for gravity waves only to find exactly zero. Even if we did fond them someday why were we looking in the wrong place given we know so much according to you.


This is juts silly, it is a virtually universally admitted fact we don't know what gravity is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can easily determine that:
1. Paul knows if he was knocked off his horse.
2. That Luke would be in the second best position to know.
3. That Peter would know if Peter denied Christ three times.
4. That Peter would know if the Tomb was empty.
5. That John would know if Christ was crucified.
6. That Thomas would know if Christ appeared in the upper room with nail scars.
7. That Mathew would know if Christ appeared after being crucified and talked with them.

and on and on.

The apostles were vitally aware of the truth of what founded their faith.
If false they either suffered or gave their lives or both for what they knew for certain was true or false. It makes vastly more sense they thought it was true. What in the world is so hard to get here? The only thing I can think of is your taking conclusions based on evidence and amplifying the slightest uncertainty and claiming they didn't know. To that I would say yet again that you applying double standards you do not use in any other area of your life to faith for convenience. They had far more evidence than almost any juror who returned a verdict did.

I never claimed that they didn't believe what they believed. My point is, and always has been, strength of belief does not equate to strength of evidence. People have died (and killed) for their religious beliefs from almost every corner of the world and for every single religion. That does not make their beliefs any more likely to be true. The fact that someone is willing to die for a belief only indicates that they believe it strongly - not that it is rational, reasonable or based on any kind of evidence. Your reasoning is completely backwards. "They believed it really strongly, so it must have been based on good evidence" is not a good, or even remotely reasonable, argument.

I made two types of claims. I have shown the former was as strong as claims get and the second is very close. My "experts" were rigorously trained in what good arguments are, what good or bad evidence is, what makes testimony reliable or unreliable. In fact they went on to write textbooks that taught it, such was their credibility. They were only mentioned to suggest the quality of the evidence and similar arguments can't have any better sources than the two I used.


Your claim of weakness is feeble.

Not when your claim is utterly baseless. Once again, "They really believed it's true, so it must have been true" is a very, very poor argument.

 

[idav]

No, that is a description of the equations concerning predictability in what it does not what it is. It is just one in a whole list of things we do not know what they are or why they are. Others are magnetisms and all kinds of constants that do not seem determined or dependent on anything natural what so ever. I am just going to throw some facts at your.

1. The majority of our universe is dark matter (whatever that turns out to be) and it is the source of most gravity. Yet we do not even have a quantum theory of gravity to handle it.
2. All other forces in nature have opposites. Scientists can explain why gravity does not.
3. Why is gravity the most important force in the universe despite it's being among the weakest?
4. If we understood gravity we would have created a gravity shield that worked or not have tried. However we tried and failed miserably.

5. Question: What is gravity?

Answer: We don't really know.

We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.
High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), Dr. Alan Smale (Director), within the Astrophysics Science Division (ASD) at NASA/ GSFC.

6. Type in what scientists don't know about gravity: You get 42 million hits.

7. We thought we knew so much about gravity that we spent billions looking for gravity waves only to find exactly zero. Even if we did fond them someday why were we looking in the wrong place given we know so much according to you.


This is juts silly, it is a virtually universally admitted fact we don't know what gravity is.

I can't agree with any of those points except for what you quoted from the Dr.

1. Irrelevant.
2. Wrong.
3. Conjecture. Subjective.
4. Irrelevant.
5. Wrong. Admittedly we don't know what "anything" , matter, bosons, anything is, doesn't make it a complete mystery.
6. Irrelevant.
7. We found gravity waves and verifies Einstein a thousand times. They knew where to look according to people who look at the theories.

 

[1robin]

I never claimed that they didn't believe what they believed. My point is, and always has been, strength of belief does not equate to strength of evidence. People have died (and killed) for their religious beliefs from almost every corner of the world and for every single religion. That does not make their beliefs any more likely to be true. The fact that someone is willing to die for a belief only indicates that they believe it strongly - not that it is rational, reasonable or based on any kind of evidence. Your reasoning is completely backwards. "They believed it really strongly, so it must have been based on good evidence" is not a good, or even remotely reasonable, argument.

Every non-psychopath on earth and in history INCLUDING YOU has thought otherwise. It is instinctive, it is intuitive and it is rational to equate sincerity with conviction and conviction with the strength of evidence. At times it can be wrong and not all sincerity is equal but the principle is generally sound. I have two options given that the apostles knew the truth of what they claimed.

1. They knew it was a lie but devoted their lives to it. Some gave their lives, others lost their livelihood, spent time in jail, alienated his own countrymen and family, defied the most powerful empire on earth and DID NOT EVEN GAIN WORLDY RICHES OR POWER. They did not even have a system that potentially would have granted them anything. They were 100% service oriented.
or
2. They knew it was true and valued above all the above and all the things I did not mention.


There is only one rational choice since they knew the truth of what they claimed, the costs, and the hoped for gains. What makes one position astronomically better than the other is that they knew the truth and willingly suffered for it. Does not make it true but does make the latter by far the best choice given the evidence. Anyone without some blinding bias could see that.


Now you might say well Osama was committed. Well he did not fly the planes in the first place, gained billions through Islam and construction, and second he had no idea if what he was promoting was true. Even Muhammad said he did not know where he was going and an accepted narrator (Ibn I think) said even with one foot in paradise he would not trust Allah. So conviction alone is not enough. You must also have certain knowledge then conviction is very important. If you disagree then no weapon formed is of use and there is no hope.

Not when your claim is utterly baseless. Once again, "They really believed it's true, so it must have been true" is a very, very poor argument.

It becomes perfectly telling when they also knew. I did not give any later saints or people like Luther who gave it all (even though in Christianity alone they could have known) because they did not see the absolute truth in person. I can know and do but in a different way than the apostles did.


Lets say two people existed. One had been to the north pole and said it was cold and risked his life for that belief. The other had not been there and said it was hot and defended it. If you had to bet your life who would you chose was right. Or would you sit down in the mud and say you accepted death because one choice was as good as another?

 

[1robin]

I can't agree with any of those points except for what you quoted from the Dr.

1. Irrelevant.
2. Wrong.
3. Conjecture. Subjective.
4. Irrelevant.
5. Wrong. Admittedly we don't know what "anything" , matter, bosons, anything is, doesn't make it a complete mystery.
6. Irrelevant.
7. We found gravity waves and verifies Einstein a thousand times. They knew where to look according to people who look at the theories.

All of them except the dark matter one was directly from a PhD in science and the dark matter one was from them but ultimately but from my memory immediately. So you have displayed the reliability of arguments from authority alone.

1. The most relevant claim possible. If we do not even have a theory for 80% of the gravity that exists how is it we know a lot about it?
2. Wrong is not an argument it is a declaration.
3. I can agree here in that I don't know why, but scientists admit this is a profound mystery.
4. No that is an actuality based on what we thought we knew we tried to build an anti-gravity shield. We didn't know what we thought and it failed.
5. You agreed.
6. Perfectly relevant though it is a generalization. We know much less than we know. In fact everything we learn presents many new things we don't in most cases. For every answer we get multiple new questions.
7. That was my understanding so I kept looking at sites. I went through about 10 and every one said we did not find them so I gave up and posted it. You want some of them?

Let me end this absolutely. You have no idea how much that can be known about gravity so you have no basis to say we know a lot to begin with.

 

[idav]

All of them except the dark matter one was directly from a PhD in science and the dark matter one was from them but ultimately but from my memory immediately. So you have displayed the reliability of arguments from authority alone.

1. The most relevant claim possible. If we do not even have a theory for 80% of the gravity that exists how is it we know a lot about it?
2. Wrong is not an argument it is a declaration.
3. I can agree here in that I don't know why, but scientists admit this is a profound mystery.
4. No that is an actuality based on what we thought we knew we tried to build an anti-gravity shield. We didn't know what we thought and it failed.
5. You agreed.
6. Perfectly relevant though it is a generalization. We know much less than we know. In fact everything we learn presents many new things we don't in most cases. For every answer we get multiple new questions.
7. That was my understanding so I kept looking at sites. I went through about 10 and every one said we did not find them so I gave up and posted it. You want some of them?

Let me end this absolutely. You have no idea how much that can be known about gravity so you have no basis to say we know a lot to begin with.

I get this argument all the time. We know nothing. The more we know the less we know. It's nonsense. I am not going to pretend we are completely in the dark but admittedly we know very little of dark matter and spacetime (which means we know little of the universe) but we know a hell of a lot about energy and matter and gravity.

Big Bang breakthrough announced; gravitational waves detected - CNN.com

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Every non-psychopath on earth and in history INCLUDING YOU has thought otherwise. It is instinctive, it is intuitive and it is rational to equate sincerity with conviction and conviction with the strength of evidence.

Garbage. Terrorists hold such strong convictions that they are very often willing to die for them. Does that mean that their reasons for believing what they believe must be based on solid evidence? Is it ignorant not to agree with them?

At times it can be wrong and not all sincerity is equal but the principle is generally sound. I have two options given that the apostles knew the truth of what they claimed.

1. They knew it was a lie but devoted their lives to it. Some gave their lives, others lost their livelihood, spent time in jail, alienated his own countrymen and family, defied the most powerful empire on earth and DID NOT EVEN GAIN WORLDY RICHES OR POWER. They did not even have a system that potentially would have granted them anything. They were 100% service oriented.
or
2. They knew it was true and valued above all the above and all the things I did not mention.

These are not the only two options. Here is a third:

3. They BELIEVED it was true, and valued it above all things you did not mention.

To any reasonable person, option number 3 is the only viable option. They certainly believed what they believed - they did not "devote themselves to a lie" - but that does not indicate the truth of their belief, only the strength with which they believed it. Again, countless people around the world from hundreds of different beliefs have devoted their lives (and often sacrificed them) to their belief. By your logic, they must all be true. That is, of course, completely absurd. Strength of belief does not indicate strength of evicence.

Now you might say well Osama was committed. Well he did not fly the planes in the first place, gained billions through Islam and construction, and second he had no idea if what he was promoting was true.

He had just as much an idea are your supposed apostles did. You have no meaningful way of differentiating between them. He believed what he believed was true, just as your apostles did.

Lets say two people existed. One had been to the north pole and said it was cold and risked his life for that belief. The other had not been there and said it was hot and defended it. If you had to bet your life who would you chose was right. Or would you sit down in the mud and say you accepted death because one choice was as good as another?

That's a poor analogy, since we're not dealing with people who absolutely, definitely knew the truth of what they were saying. They only believed what they were saying.

Do you understand the difference between truth and belief?

 

[1robin]

Garbage. Terrorists hold such strong convictions that they are very often willing to die for them. Does that mean that their reasons for believing what they believe must be based on solid evidence? Is it ignorant not to agree with them?

I must have dealt with that at least twice in my post for crying out loud.

These are not the only two options. Here is a third:

3. They BELIEVED it was true, and valued it above all things you did not mention.

What? They were there. They either lied or knew and both my choices included each option. No need for an incoherent third choice that defies history.

He had just as much an idea are your supposed apostles did. You have no meaningful way of differentiating between them. He believed what he believed was true, just as your apostles did.

The apostles made truth claims not abstract belief claims (at least the core claims about Christ). When Peter says he saw an empty tomb that is a factual claim. It is either true or a lie it is not a faith claim. Did you read my post.

That's a poor analogy, since we're not dealing with people who absolutely, definitely knew the truth of what they were saying. They only believed what they were saying.

The apostles made faith claims but the claims about Christ and the crucifixion, resurrection, miracles, and teachings were known certainties to one or more apostles. They were there when the fish filled the net, when the hungry were fed, and Christ walked through a wall. NO MIDDLE GROUND available. Fact or lie is all we have open to us.

Do you understand the difference between truth and belief?

Do you know what a truth claim is? It is a claim to which empirical evidence was available to the one making it. I can go even further.

One of my favorite philosophers (by the way they all say the claims I am speaking of are truth claims) with far more degrees than most said this:
If the apostles had only been interested in faith claims or in promoting a lie they had an infinitely easier road open to them. No one in Israe expected a bodily resurrection before it occurred. They would have had it very easy to just say that he rose spiritually because no evidence could have disproven it. (Even they did not expect a bodily resurrection and were astonished that it occurred.) yet they chose the very very hard route of saying his body rose from the dead, even Christ's enemies affirmed this. That was an empirical burden they had no need of and that made their claims easily disprovable. The body was sealed in a tomb protected by Roman's who's life was in the balance. Yet no one could find a body despite every reason to produce it. Why did they do this. By far (in fact the only sane) the best conclusion is that the body was no longer in the tomb and had risen just as all those misunderstood predictions claimed before hand. Now that you know what a truth claim is we I dare you to throw the stolen body, mass hallucination, or whatever nonsense can be coughed up as a better explanation for these empirical claims at me.

But I have to go for today. Check in tomorrow, have a good one.

 

[1robin]

I get this argument all the time. We know nothing. The more we know the less we know. It's nonsense. I am not going to pretend we are completely in the dark but admittedly we know very little of dark matter and spacetime (which means we know little of the universe) but we know a hell of a lot about energy and matter and gravity.

Well 100% of my statement came from secular scientists about science so I will go with them.

Big Bang breakthrough announced; gravitational waves detected - CNN.com

I have to go but remind me if I fail to mention looking at this.

 

[idav]

Well 100% of my statement came from secular scientists about science so I will go with them.

All of it was conjecture or irrelevant to your statement that "gravity is a complete mystery" but whatever.

Dark matter isn't gravity.
Making something out of gravity and failing doesn't change knowing about it.
Gravity the most important? Subjective
And we do know what it is, curvature of spacetime. What we don't know about is spacetime, that is a huge difference.

We have known e=mc^2 for almost a hundred years now and we know it has an opposite and is relative, we know these things. The m signifies what gravity would be.

In context of what the guy said makes sense. We don't know what it is in a fundamental way but now we have seen gravity waves, we prove einsteins formulations meaning we have known it all along. As to what the fabric of the cosmos is I have no idea, that would be what I consider a "complete mystery".

Now all these things I stated about gravity means it isn't a complete mystery.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I must have dealt with that at least twice in my post for crying out loud.

You didn't "deal with it", you just made baseless assumptions about it and then dismissed the objection with fallacies.

What? They were there. They either lied or knew and both my choices included each option. No need for an incoherent third choice that defies history.

Can you demonstrate that they were there, and that their beliefs were true?

The apostles made truth claims not abstract belief claims (at least the core claims about Christ). When Peter says he saw an empty tomb that is a factual claim. It is either true or a lie it is not a faith claim. Did you read my post.

For starters, you're hearing second or third-hand accounts without any extra-biblical corroboration. There is no reason to believe these claims came direct from Paul or that these claims are, in fact, true or have any supernatural explanation that adds credibility to the rest of their story.

The apostles made faith claims but the claims about Christ and the crucifixion, resurrection, miracles, and teachings were known certainties to one or more apostles. They were there when the fish filled the net, when the hungry were fed, and Christ walked through a wall. NO MIDDLE GROUND available. Fact or lie is all we have open to us.

Unless the stories are myths or exaggerations based on real people and/or events that have been altered over time. Since the Bible contains no (or, at least, very few) contemporary sources - and no contemporary historical sources corroborate any claims of any supposed miracles, this is a very likely possibility. Your problem is your inability to separate a claim made in a book from the claims of people the book is talking about.

Do you know what a truth claim is? It is a claim to which empirical evidence was available to the one making it. I can go even further.

Empirical evidence is evidence that can be objectively verified by anybody. If the evidence was only available to the individual making the claim, it is not empirical. Case in point: I have a friend who, when walking home one night, saw leprechauns hiding behind some cars. This experience was so real and terrifying to him, that he ran home. By your standards, his claim to have seen leprechauns is a truth claim with empirical evidence, rather than a hallucinogenic experience derived from the substances he had been taking that night. When your standard of evidence cannot differentiate between a drug-induced hallucination and real, empirical observation, it might be time to seriously re-evaluate your position.

One of my favorite philosophers (by the way they all say the claims I am speaking of are truth claims) with far more degrees than most said this:
If the apostles had only been interested in faith claims or in promoting a lie they had an infinitely easier road open to them. No one in Israe expected a bodily resurrection before it occurred. They would have had it very easy to just say that he rose spiritually because no evidence could have disproven it. (Even they did not expect a bodily resurrection and were astonished that it occurred.) yet they chose the very very hard route of saying his body rose from the dead, even Christ's enemies affirmed this. That was an empirical burden they had no need of and that made their claims easily disprovable. The body was sealed in a tomb protected by Roman's who's life was in the balance. Yet no one could find a body despite every reason to produce it. Why did they do this. By far (in fact the only sane) the best conclusion is that the body was no longer in the tomb and had risen just as all those misunderstood predictions claimed before hand. Now that you know what a truth claim is we I dare you to throw the stolen body, mass hallucination, or whatever nonsense can be coughed up as a better explanation for these empirical claims at me.

This would be perfectly reasonable, if these accounts were actually verifiable. Since none of them are, this apologetic tripe is meaningless. It might as well commend Chicken Little for concocting the "empirical burden" that the sky was falling.

 

[viole]

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?

So, now quantum electrodynamics is also at the very limits of science? What is not at the very limits of science for you? Billiards physics?

If you cannot say what is cause and what effect, I doubt you can use the defense that nothing suggests that they do not exist. Nothing suggests that an invisible unicorn is not living in my apartement, either.

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.

Well, if you insist that the consequences of relativity and QED are at the limits of science or that it is logically impossible to traverse the infinite line, then I have good reasons to be skeptical.

I am not even sure that you aware of the debate going on amongst philosophers concerning the nature of spacetime after relativity. A good introduction is the several volumes of "the Ontology of Spacetime" (D. Diek).

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?

Yes, LOL, I agree. They are not in the same (epistemological)realm.

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.

This has nothing to do with asymptotic boundary. It is quite simple, actually. All you have to do is to notice that there is an obvious diffeomorophism batween the points of any circle (except one) and the points of the infinite line. Then all you have to do is to go around that circle and check what the corresponding point on the line does.

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.

If I thought you are slow, I would never spend so much time posting back to you. But I like harmonics, so I am bit curious.

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.

It is not very logical, thought. Either I am bluffing or I am not. If I am bluffing, then I could telly you anything concerning my qualifications. If I am not, then telling you my qualifications is useless.

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.

I am not using authority. For what I know, God exists and they are all wrong. I am just challenging the idea that knowing a lot of science favors belief in God (because of some mysterious evidence written in the skies, call it fine tuning, beginning of the Universe, whatever). It doesn't. The correlation is actually inverse.

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.

Yes, 5 years old kids have a natural talent to understand Christ. They have a natural talent to understand Santa as well.

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.

Yes, this is how theoretical physics works. You work on it and see if it works and makes predictions. If it doesn't, or the predictions are not confirmed, or there are simpler explanations, it is out, sooner or later.

But as you said, we do not give our lives for quantum gravity because we are oppressed by superstring theorists. Theists seem to be ready to give their lives (literally) for totally competing and not evidential claims, which seems silly. Well, not all of them.

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:

Well, I am aware that the second claim has nothing to do with Christianity since it is a Muslim's belief.

True, quantum mechanics has several interpretations. The difference is that all these interpretations give the same objective results. Do you think that the interpretation of a Hindu gives the same objective results as the interpretation of a Christian?

Ciao

- viole