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

[McBell]

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

You would do well to follow your own advice.

 

[Sleeppy]

You would do well to follow your own advice.

I've done well. Thank you.

 

[McBell]

I've done well. Thank you.

If you consider ignoring everything you dislike in favour of your fantasies "doing well"....

 

[Sleeppy]

LOL.


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


i.e. "Intelligentitis"


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


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...

You're destroying your own intellect, with your dishonesty. Christians aren't the only who define God. That should be common knowledge by now.

I've provided the definition. Provide an alternative, if you can.

 

[Sleeppy]

If you consider ignoring everything you dislike in favour of your fantasies "doing well"....

No. As you defined it in your previous post.

Unless you have an argument.. You'd do well to adopt one, and have courage enough to present it, or leave.

 

[McBell]

No. As you defined it in your previous post.

I defined "no" in a previous post?

Unless you have an argument.. You'd do well to adopt one, and have courage enough to present it, or leave.

Again, you would do good to follow your own advice.

 

[adi2d]

How do you think a rock is a rock? And not dust, or something other than a rock? It's very deliberately a rock, isn't it? Why? Science can give you a detailed answer.. But, rocks have certain properties that hold them together, as rocks, and those same properties interact with other things, according to the very deliberate calculations between them.

How much force will it take to crush the rock? The rock knows, because it will submit to that force and be crushed.

Bumped because BS like this shouldn't be buried

"Can you smelllllllllll. What the rock is cookin?"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This looks largely correct, but this is still a long ways off from substantiating any particular religions creation mythology

And what part of it looks incorrect or appears that I was in any way trying to substantiate anything at all about any religion or creation?

 

[Sleeppy]

Bumped because BS like this shouldn't be buried

"Can you smelllllllllll. What the rock is cookin?"

You unconvered it. Don't expect someone else to defend your thoughts; you do it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How exactly does a singularity differ from a black hole?

Black holes have singularities as a property. A singularity, in the broadest sense, is a function where a specific a map or maps are to some image in which the function takes an infinite value (it's a function which can have infinite values). Models, in the sciences, are mathematical equations or functions. As such, when a model of something in some science, whether it involves economics or properties of black holes, has infinite values, we get singularities. They aren't always called this, and especially since the demise of catastrophe theory the use of the term in dynamics of systems where catastrophe theory was used has correspondingly declined.

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.

It's not a theoretical phenomenon. It's not even theoretical phenomena. In fact, it's not even original to cosmology or astrophysics, but was introduced into physics before Einstein had completed his work on the GTR (years and years before Penrose or Hawking were even born). It's been around in mathematics since the 19th century and was, at least in its relation to a buzzword for the general public (catastrophe theory) in the 70s and 80s.


The big bang is not a singularity just because of running the clocks back, but because of relativistic physics itself. Nor is it the only singularity by any means, even in astrophysics and cosmology. The main source of evidence for expansion after actual observations (Hubble) was the explanation of cosmic radiation (there are other sources; Wikipedia no doubt lists some or all or more than all). However, these are all at most almost secondary.

In the GTR, all frames of reference are equivalent (a consequence of special relativity) and gravitation is explained as following from spacetime curvature. This means that
1) even though there is no preferred frame, the laws of physics hold for all frames given some coordinate transfer.
2) Spacetime is curved.

However, observations of other galaxies make everything appear flat. This, however, is not accurate. Space is curved. So we require a 4th dimensional universe that somehow appears flat, but that isn't (which, apart from the GTR itself, is confirmed by the way light behaves, and "curves", in this seemingly flat universe). If we posit that it only appears flat to us, we have the equivalent of "the earth is the century of the universe"-theory extended to our galaxy. If we posit that we do not occupy this privileged position in the universe, then the degree of curvature must be negligible (again, observations of light curvature come into play). This means that we need a universe which appears flat everywhere but isn't. The only way we get that is by imagining an expanding "bubble" or "balloon" in which the galaxies are all resting upon what appears flat but is really curved.

And this 4D geometry (recall that the 4th dimension is time, and that therefore movement in this geometry means movement in time) fits nicely into all the observations and theories that we have for an expanding universe because it situates e.g., the behavior of light in this seemingly flat universe as the result of the way the bubble expands: as the universe appears flat, things like the observations/measurements of the electromagnetic cosmic spectra mean that the appearance is the result of a seemingly-flat universe expanding uniformly from a single point of origin in spacetime.

So relativistic physics which, alongside quantum physics, is perhaps the most successful theoretical frameworks of the sciences ever, is the basis for big bang cosmology and singularities. The observations of light and radiation provide further support in several ways, but also and in particular that the expansion is from a single origin, but with a little fine-tuning of Einstein's equations and some appropriate geometries, we'd get the same expanding universe and the same singularity without all of the other support that is usually deemed the basis for big bang cosmology. Historically, it is. But history doesn't tell us what we could have known based on the information we had available, only what we did. And fine-tuning relativistic physics with probably only observed redshift would give us big bang cosmology. It was more the assumption of a static universe that required evidence like that of the explanation for our detection of microwave radiation than anything else.

Its a complicated mesh of almost pseudo science to ever try to describe the properties of a singularity.

It's incredibly easy. What's difficult isn't the description, but what it means. It's similar in this sense to quantum physics. Here we have a theoretical framework that is essentially (with minimal interpretation) a statistical physics which has, like relativity, continually been supported by more and more sophisticated measurements and experiments. However, what the descriptions of these experiments say is no longer the mathematical banishment of QM by Bohr to the quantum realm. We now use the same mathematical descriptions in experiments that involve macroscopic systems or that involve acausalities of some kind.

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.

The best answer is that you don't know enough to say what we do and don't know.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Black holes have singularities as a property. A singularity, in the broadest sense, is a function where a specific a map or maps are to some image in which the function takes an infinite value (it's a function which can have infinite values). Models, in the sciences, are mathematical equations or functions. As such, when a model of something in some science, whether it involves economics or properties of black holes, has infinite values, we get singularities. They aren't always called this, and especially since the demise of catastrophe theory the use of the term in dynamics of systems where catastrophe theory was used has correspondingly declined.


It's not a theoretical phenomenon. It's not even theoretical phenomena. In fact, it's not even original to cosmology or astrophysics, but was introduced into physics before Einstein had completed his work on the GTR (years and years before Penrose or Hawking were even born). It's been around in mathematics since the 19th century and was, at least in its relation to a buzzword for the general public (catastrophe theory) in the 70s and 80s.


The big bang is not a singularity just because of running the clocks back, but because of relativistic physics itself. Nor is it the only singularity by any means, even in astrophysics and cosmology. The main source of evidence for expansion after actual observations (Hubble) was the explanation of cosmic radiation (there are other sources; Wikipedia no doubt lists some or all or more than all). However, these are all at most almost secondary.

In the GTR, all frames of reference are equivalent (a consequence of special relativity) and gravitation is explained as following from spacetime curvature. This means that
1) even though there is no preferred frame, the laws of physics hold for all frames given some coordinate transfer.
2) Spacetime is curved.

However, observations of other galaxies make everything appear flat. This (and the geometric Minkowski space developed for special relativity), however, is not accurate. Space is curved. So we require a 4th dimensional universe that somehow appears flat, but that isn't (which, apart from the GTR itself, is confirmed by the way light behaves, and "curves", in this seemingly flat universe). If we posit that it only appears flat to us, we have the equivalent of "the earth is the century of the universe"-theory extended to our galaxy. If we posit that we do not occupy this privileged position in the universe, then the degree of curvature must be negligible (again, observations of light curvature come into play). This means that we need a universe which appears flat everywhere but isn't. The only way we get that is by imagining an expanding "bubble" or "balloon" in which the galaxies are all resting upon what appears flat but is really curved.

And this 4D geometry (recall that the 4th dimension is time, and that therefore movement in this geometry means movement in time) fits nicely into all the observations and theories that we have for an expanding universe because it situates e.g., the behavior of light in this seemingly flat universe as the result of the way the bubble expands: as the universe appears flat, things like the observations/measurements of the electromagnetic cosmic spectra mean that the appearance is the result of a seemingly-flat universe expanding uniformly from a single point of origin in spacetime.

So relativistic physics which, alongside quantum physics, is perhaps the most successful theoretical frameworks of the sciences ever, is the basis for big bang cosmology and singularities. The observations of light and radiation provide further support in several ways, but also and in particular that the expansion is from a single origin, but with a little fine-tuning of Einstein's equations and some appropriate geometries, we'd get the same expanding universe and the same singularity without all of the other support that is usually deemed the basis for big bang cosmology. Historically, it is. But history doesn't tell us what we could have known based on the information we had available, only what we did. And fine-tuning relativistic physics with probably only observed redshift would give us big bang cosmology. It was more the assumption of a static universe that required evidence like that of the explanation for our detection of microwave radiation than anything else.

Interesting.

It's incredibly easy. What's difficult isn't the description, but what it means. It's similar in this sense to quantum physics. Here we have a theoretical framework that is essentially (with minimal interpretation) a statistical physics which has, like relativity, continually been supported by more and more sophisticated measurements and experiments. However, what the descriptions of these experiments say is no longer the mathematical banishment of QM by Bohr to the quantum realm. We now use the same mathematical descriptions in experiments that involve macroscopic systems or that involve acausalities of some kind.

Great.

The best answer is that you don't know enough to say what we do and don't know.

I sense some hostility? Cute.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I sense some hostility? Cute.

Not really. No matter how much anybody is familiar with any number of fields, this will always pale in comparison to their complete and nearly complete ignorance of many, many, many other subjects. It's not a criticism to say that someone who doesn't present themselves as an expert in a field doesn't know the field. If you don't study cosmology and related fields of physics (QFT, astrophysics, etc.), then you don't know what "we" know ("we" being the sum total of knowledge available to humanity even though a incredibly small number of individuals actual have more than a speck, if that, of familiarity with that knowledge). That makes you human, rather than omniscient. If you claim present yourself as an expert, by claiming to be so explicitly or by repeatedly making statements about the field, what is known, what isn't, and why, then I tend to get pretty hostile (even though I shouldn't). Specialists work hard to become so, and even those who aren't specialists in some field they talk about but who have spent energy and time studying specialist literature also have gone beyond what idle curiosity generally entails. As someone who has worked with specialists and has spent time, money, energy, and other resources to learn about the things I discuss, I have a great deal of respect for those who have devoted themselves to some area of study (whether academic or not) to gain a level of expertise. As a consequence, I have little patience and too much hostility against those who have not devoted themselves in such a way yet present themselves as if they have anyway. You didn't do this with singularities. So my comment was simply a statement that your ignorance (I use that term without the negative connotation it usually has but merely to refer to a property that is true of anyone who isn't omniscient) is not a good metric for what "we" know. My ignorance is better because it is less, but on this forum alone I know of at least one other whose is a better metric for what "we" know than mine. And I know that my knowledge is simply the acquaintance with research and publications by others, not any achievement of my own.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You're destroying your own intellect, with your dishonesty.

Again, a hearty LOL.

Christians aren't the only who define God. That should be common knowledge by now.

Obviously. But since God is the god-model of the Christian faith, the definition of God is given by the information sources of that particular religion- namely, the Bible (as well as Christian theologians). We can't just define the word "God" to mean whatever we wish it to mean, because this word already has a somewhat set domain of application, i.e. to the deity of Christianity.

I've provided the definition. Provide an alternative, if you can.

Actually, you didn't, but there's no need anyways. The definition of "God" is fairly uncontroversial- the character in the Bible who created the heavens and the earth, appears in a burning bush, turns people into pillars of salt, and so on.

***

And what part of it looks incorrect or appears that I was in any way trying to substantiate anything at all about any religion or creation?

I didn't say YOU were making that implication, but others on this thread were, as theists generally are prone to do (as I'm sure you're aware), and thus it sort of required saying (for the record, as it were).

 

[ChristineES]

Obviously. But since God is the god-model of the Christian faith, the definition of God is given by the information sources of that particular religion- namely, the Bible (as well as Christian theologians). We can't just define the word "God" to mean whatever we wish it to mean, because this word already has a somewhat set domain of application, i.e. to the deity of Christianity.


Actually, you didn't, but there's no need anyways. The definition of "God" is fairly uncontroversial- the character in the Bible who created the heavens and the earth, appears in a burning bush, turns people into pillars of salt, and so on.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I'll dive in. (I know this wasn't directed at me)
First, theists come in many forms, most people tend to post as if Christianity is the only religion but we all know that it is not the only one (even those who act as though it is). As many religions and faiths there are, there are also as many God-concepts. The religions of Abraham- Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Baha'i, are Monotheistic. We believe in one God. I don't want to speak of other religions but other concepts of God include Polytheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Non-theism (a religion, I think, of no God) and probably more that I don't know about.
Second- Each faith and religion has it's own sets of beliefs and a lot of them have writings (scriptures).
I suppose that above is all irrelevant to people who don't believe in God and don't follow a religion, however except as something interesting to study about.

 

[Riceling]

There is little to no evidence that God exists, but that is not a reason for Theists to say that God doesn't exist. Theists will not say that this means God does not exist because the whole point of (most) religions is that you are meant to have faith (even if there is little evidence). Theism and Atheism are pretty incompatible with each other on this matter and the arguments for whether God is real or not are often circular.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As many religions and faiths there are, there are also as many God-concepts.

Not to be overly pedantic, but god-concepts; if you are already refering to them as God-concepts, you're begging the question.

The religions of Abraham- Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Baha'i, are Monotheistic. We believe in one God.

One god. God is the god of Christianity- "God" is the name of their specific god, just as "YHWH" is the name of the Jew's specific god, "Allah" is the name of the Muslim's specific god, and so on. Of course its unfortunate that Christianity named their god "God", showing a mind-blowing lack of imagination- just as if I'd named my dog "Dog", capitalizing the common noun to form a proper name is bound to lead to confusion.

Second- Each faith and religion has it's own sets of beliefs and a lot of them have writings (scriptures).

Right- and if we are going to speak correctly, we need to refer to the particular god-concepts of these faiths the way the information source which publishes this god-concept does; the Christian scriptures and theology delineate the range of usage for the proper name "God", just as the Islamic canon does for the proper name "Allah".

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is little to no evidence that God exists, but that is not a reason for Theists to say that God doesn't exist. Theists will not say that this means God does not exist because the whole point of (most) religions is that you are meant to have faith (even if there is little evidence). Theism and Atheism are pretty incompatible with each other on this matter and the arguments for whether God is real or not are often circular.

What those of us with no faith?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The historical core of Buddhism, common to all the various forms (which, obviously, get mixed with different cultures and often absorb local deities/religious elements), i.e. the teachings of the Buddha, the Noble Truths, etc.

What do you know of this "historical core"? Can you read Sanskrit (whence more Eastern versions of Buddhism came)? What have you read of the 2,000+ years of Buddhist history that forms the basis of you understanding of this "historical core"?

The Buddha himself explicitly eschewed belief in a creator God

REALLY!? According to which texts?

although some traditions in Buddhism have obviously followed his lead less closely than others.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

As I said above, because it is not committed to any of the types of things basically every other major world religion is committed to- messiahs, deities and supernatural agents, an afterlife or other realms and so on.

You mean your watered-down Western cultural appropriation of practices and beliefs existing for thousands of years "magically" reflects the Western influences of the so-called Enlightenment period whence comes this New and Modernistic Buddhism you seem to understand all Buddhism to be.

And the rejection of ALL speculation about such things as being superfluous is also fairly novel.

Maybe to you. Read Ecclesiastes lately? Gilgamesh? Homer? Hesiod?

 

[garrydons]

If we dont accept all things that we see are created by a God. Then what is the origin of all things? Look at the very very complex creation. Where did they came from? How did they originate?

 

[StarryNightshade]

There is evidence for practically everything. The only thing that makes the evidence "valid" or not, are people's perceptions of said evidence.