Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, my point, is still the only supported here. You say I haven't presented a case, but then say the case I've presented is wrong. Still no reasoning. Still no alternative to the evidence. You should be honest. And you should show courage enough to present your disagreements thoroughly.

Should I walk you through it again?

You claimed that there is evidence for god as supported by Stephen Hawking in his work on singularity that was before the big bang. You have likened god to this singularity. However without re-defining your own definition of god there is nothing that ties god to the singularity phenomenon. I have explained this. You however seem to disagree or hold the notion that I must produce counter evidence to disprove your stance.

This is my disagreement and I cannot explain it any more clearly. The phenomenon of a singularity does not have any self evident ties with the existance of a supernatural diety. It is a scientific explination that was derived form asrophisics and observation.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I said nothing of the sort. I didn't agree with the poster who said that, nor did I include it in my response.

It's what I was arguing against, and only kept going because your response did nothing to support that theory. Now I know why.

Which one? Because a common interpretation of quantum physics, which describes all of everything happening all the time, is that it necessitates infinite universes or infinite duplicates of this one with alternate histories. And that has nothing to do with running models backwards.

Infinite universes or duplicates of this one? Not buying it at all. Quantum physics sounds a lot like science fiction to me; I've never been a fan of Hawking, Schrodinger, and the lot. Nothing they say makes any sense to me. It's not that I don't understand what they're saying; there's just way too much assumption involved and no way to directly observe their claims.

Do you know what the evidence is?

I was talking about the universe originating from a singularity, which there is no evidence for.

 

[Sleeppy]

Should I walk you through it again?

You claimed that there is evidence for god as supported by Stephen Hawking in his work on singularity that was before the big bang. You have likened god to this singularity. However without re-defining your own definition of god there is nothing that ties god to the singularity phenomenon. I have explained this. You however seem to disagree or hold the notion that I must produce counter evidence to disprove your stance.

This is my disagreement and I cannot explain it any more clearly. The phenomenon of a singularity does not have any self evident ties with the existance of a supernatural diety. It is a scientific explination that was derived form asrophisics and observation.

Actually, I did no redefining. I did no likening. I presented definitions and supportive evidence, which says that the universe was created from the Singularity.. And anything in our universe can be shown to be ruled by the determined laws and consequences presented by the Singularity.

No claims were made about the supernatural.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Infinite universes or duplicates of this one? Not buying it at all. Quantum physics sounds a lot like science fiction to me

I knew something of it before grad school, but not much. So I didn't realize that demonstrating quantum theories of consciousness were inaccurate would take over 2 years of research, thousands of studies, hundreds and hundreds of volumes, monographs, and textbooks, all just to end up where I started: without an answer.

It may seem like science fiction, but it isn't. The main neuroimaging technology I've worked with is built upon NMR., which is built upon the use of fields to orient nuclear spins. It's quantum physics in action, and like the entire modern world, is only possible because this seemingly science fiction description of reality is not science fiction at all. It is the oldest science realizing that they had developed a framework that failed, and taking a century to recover and to thrive.

I've never been a fan of Hawking, Schrodinger, and the lot.

Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Gisin, Aspect, Bell, Wheeler, Stapp, Everett, Penrose, and many more are integral in the creation of the world we live in.

Nothing they say makes any sense to me

It didn't make sense to Einstein, and his most devastating attack on quantum physics, EPR, turned out to be one of the foremost tools used to show (along with Bell) that Einstein was wrong.

It's not that I don't understand what they're saying; there's just way too much assumption involved and no way to directly observe their claims.

We've experimentally realized things like Schrödinger's cat for so long we have names for classes of Schrödinger kittens.

I was talking about the universe originating from a singularity, which there is no evidence for.

It's mostly a rejected theory, yes. But then, singularity isn't quite what you are arguing against.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, I did no redefining. I did no likening. I presented definitions and supportive evidence, which says that the universe was created from the Singularity.. And anything in our universe can be shown to be ruled by the determined laws and consequences presented by the Singularity.

No claims were made about the supernatural.

So you did not claim that god had any role in the singularity? Then what is your arguing point?

The singularity however does not necessarily have to be the creation of everything. It is part of the the astrophysics that helps explain as far back as we possibly can know about. The big bang isn't a story of creation but begining if that makes sense.

 

[Sleeppy]

It's what I was arguing against, and only kept going because your response did nothing to support that theory. Now I know why.

I was talking about the universe originating from a singularity, which there is no evidence for.

You were arguing against your own misconception. No one said anything about a black hole creating the universe.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You were arguing against your own misconception. No one said anything about a black hole creating the universe.

How exactly does a singularity differ from a black hole?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How exactly does a singularity differ from a black hole?

Well several different things but I can understand why there is confusion. Main differences is that a black hole is a star while the singularity is a theoretical phenomenon. Light only exists because of nuclear reactions and in a singularity such nuclear reactions cannot occur. Its a complicated mesh of almost pseudo science to ever try to describe the properties of a singularity. Best answer is we don't know what the properties are as we don't even fullly understand the properties of our universe's current form.

 

[Sleeppy]

So you did not claim that god had any role in the singularity? Then what is your arguing point?

The singularity however does not necessarily have to be the creation of everything. It is part of the the astrophysics that helps explain as far back as we possibly can know about. The big bang isn't a story of creation but begining if that makes sense.

My claim is that the Singularity is God, as defined. Nothing extra.

It doesn't make sense. The Singularity created our universe. It created the beginning, the end, and everything in between. It encompassed every law that we have or will have.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

My claim is that the Singularity is God, as defined. Nothing extra.

It doesn't make sense. The Singularity created our universe. It created the beginning, the end, and everything in between. It encompassed every law that we have or will have.

"created" is the wrong world. Its where we began. There is no "creation" that science as a whole lays claim to. In fact several other theories fight for the alpha position on the issue. In the theory though the singularity was merely the starting point.

And I adressed this pages ago about how I said you re-defined god to be a natural phenomenon. Or are you now changing your position to say that the singularity and then big bang was an act of god? On this I am confused.

 

[Sleeppy]

"created" is the wrong world. Its where we began. There is no "creation" that science as a whole lays claim to. In fact several other theories fight for the alpha position on the issue. In the theory though the singularity was merely the starting point.

And I adressed this pages ago about how I said you re-defined god to be a natural phenomenon. Or are you now changing your position to say that the singularity and then big bang was an act of god? On this I am confused.

You haven't shown how I redefined anything. The definition of God doesn't include, or necessitate, supernatural claim.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You haven't shown how I redefined anything. The definition of God doesn't include, or necessitate, supernatural claim.

God by definition is a supernatural claim.

 

[Sleeppy]

God by definition is a supernatural claim.

No. It isn't.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No. It isn't.

Yes it is. Provide me an example of where god is not a supernatural claim?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

God [ god ]
You and Hawking shared a peculiar condition; atheism. It strives against religion, and inadvertently excludes God, as defined, altogether. What's ironic is Hawkings and other scientists acknowledge the same idea in different terms, as monotheists.. and certain other theisms as well. They differ in limited practice and term usage.

No, they don't. Hawking has explicitly stated that we don't require God in our picture of the universe. And even when an initial singularity was widely accepted, this didn't entail any commitment to religious fictions.

The Singularity; God; the one Supreme Being and Ruler, created our universe. Bang.

..As I said, often the only difference is method and language.

... And virtually everything else.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There's considerable evidence. The standard view, that the universe expanded from a point (and even here, there is a question of whether it expanded into an already existing infinite space, or if we can't say it expanded into anything in any meaningful way), is supported primarily by observations and known laws of physics that went into developing a model. This is true for all theories in the sciences. And once one has a model, one can run the model forwards and backwards. We can talk about when our sun will explode, when all suns will explode or otherwise cease to be the active fission systems they are, and when even blackholes will cease to exist. Likewise, we can run the clock backwards as far as known laws allow us to. Currently, that's a tiny moment after the big bang. In the moment when expansion begins, it is impossible to apply known laws of physics, and thus we cannot run our model backwards further than this. However, there are other cosmologies and other lines of evidence which actually allow us to speak in some way of "before" the big bang. The attempts at unifying relativistic physics with quantum mechanics such that gravitation as spacetime curvature in unified theories become sufficiently supported in one theory have thus far failed but have also allowed us to explore the ways in which our knowledge of the fundamental elements of the cosmos can inform us about the cosmos (understood not just as our universe, but any and all possible universes that certain theories suggest must exist).

This looks largely correct, but this is still a long ways off from substantiating any particular religions creation mythology; we can "rewind" the model back as far as the Planck epoch, no further, and this does not include any "beginning", "origin", or "creation" of the universe. As you note, attempts at bringing quantum theories to bear on the problem are still sort of in limbo; but at this point models which do not include ANY beginning of the universe, such as Hawking's No Boundary hypothesis, as well as models which include a beginning, but not any occult entities, such as the Zero Energy proposal are on the table.

In any case, none of this has anything to do with the Christian God.

 

[Sleeppy]

No, they don't. Hawking has explicitly stated that we don't require God in our picture of the universe. And even when an initial singularity was widely accepted, this didn't entail any commitment to religious fictions.


... And virtually everything else.

Thanks for the facepalm. We need it here.

Did you notice religion wasn't in the argument? Probably. Why did you continue to mention it? You have the same condition as Hawking, which I mentioned earlier. You're too busy hating the religious beliefs of the day, to omit that feeling when confronted with 'religious' language. Even though the language, 'God', is synonymous with the Singularity.

Unless you have a direct quote from Hawking, within clear context, don't speak again on his behalf.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Even though the language, 'God', is synonymous with the Singularity.

Only if you have redefined either "God" or "singularity". Without doing so, no, they aren't; God is the deity of the Christian faith, whereas the singularity is a mathematical item; a point at which density is infinite.

Unless you have a direct quote from Hawking, within clear context, don't speak again on his behalf.

As that was the subject of large segments of his book The Grand Design, my paraphrase was entirely appropriate. Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that, since his "No Boundary" hypothesis states that the universe had no beginning, God is left out of the picture by Hawking (no beginning no creation, no creation no God).

But if you prefer specifics, how about this-

"Our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking told a packed house here at the California Institute of Technology Tuesday night" (from here)

Or you could read the same thing here.

 

[Sleeppy]

Only if you have redefined either "God" or "singularity". Without doing so, no, they aren't; God is the deity of the Christian faith, whereas the singularity is a mathematical item; a point at which density is infinite.


As that was the subject of large segments of his book The Grand Design, my paraphrase was entirely appropriate. Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that, since his "No Boundary" hypothesis states that the universe had no beginning, God is left out of the picture by Hawking (no beginning no creation, no creation no God).

But if you prefer specifics, how about this-

"Our universe didn't need any divine help to burst into being, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking told a packed house here at the California Institute of Technology Tuesday night" (from here)

Or you could read the same thing here.

As I thought. May as well call yourself an antichristian. You've redefined 'God' by a set of Christian disbeliefs. I don't like to talk down, but that's sad.

Hawkings had a similar condition. His goal was to denounce a particular notion of what 'God' is supposed to be. You probably don't know what constitutes his idea of 'God'? How he defines 'God'? This is the context you needed to provide.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As I thought. May as well call yourself an antichristian.

LOL.

You've redefined 'God' by a set of Christian disbeliefs.

I've used the word "God" as it is used in the English language. Apparently you have something else in mind, which explains alot.

Hawkings had a similar condition.

i.e. "Intelligentitis"

His goal was to denounce a particular notion of what 'God' is supposed to be.

No, his goal is to come up with a successful scientific theory explaining the nature and development of the early universe.

You probably don't know what constitutes his idea of 'God'? How he defines 'God'?

I'm pretty sure he's also using the English meaning of the word "God". You're acting like this is mind-blowing, that we are able to know what other people mean when they use words from a language we both speak and understand...