Your best argument that god exists

[viole]

I am sure you could find millions of them, the question is can you find any that have any evidence? Evidence for God exists even if you think it weak or unpersuasive, I could not find any for block universes or your machine (nor do I think we ever could even if they were true). How do I access another universe?

How? I have a personal relationship with their inhabitants every day. Just open your heart and you will see the truth, as well And if Vilenkin's theorem premises are right, then they follow by necessity, as Vilenkin explains in his own book.

Isn't maybe time that you actually open those books instead of desperately googling around?

BTW. How do I access this conscious entity of yours?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

If you want to give up and punt I would have preferred you do so at the beginning of the post.

And I'd prefer a lot of things myself, but I realize that's not how the world works, and I ignore such trifling annoyances. But here's an FYI that may help: You're under no obligation to respond to any part of a post, or even to any post in whole, mine included.

 

[outhouse]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods?


Looks like mythology to many of us.

 

[outhouse]

Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).

Wrong.

We know a singularity expanded.

The universe is full of singularities.


YOU have no explanation outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Your dismissal of Craig says more about you than him.

Craig is KNOWN pseudoscientific quack.

He is a factual biased apologist, who goes against academia. He has only found success by being a skillful debater.

On paper ALL of his guesses are put to shame.

 

[outhouse]

the only living scholar more potent than Craig

He is a philosopher, NOT A BIBLICAL SHOLAR.

William Lane Craig /kreɪɡ/ (born August 23, 1949) is an American Christian apologist, theologian and analytic philosopher

NOT A SCHOLAR

 

[1robin]

Evidence that this is not only metaphysics? Relativity, of course. What else? It is all there. Einstein's verdict: time is only an illusion, albeit a stubborn one.

Relativity is still in it's infancy, like the quantum. It certainly shows promise but no one is exactly sure what it's implications are. I will once again remark how every scientific counter argument against God exists in the most theoretical end of science every single time. I almost hate to ask but can you find me a physicist that actually shows how Relativity results in a block universe other than simply stating it? I cannot find any proofs nor even attempts. All I can find are presumptions.

Once you realize you can bend time like a rubber, you also realize the time is physics. And that time and space are essentially the same thing, since they can be converted one into the other by using a constant. The twin "paradox" is nothing more then someone's time using someone else's space, since time and space convert one into the other all the time (or all the space, lol).

How do you bend an abstract object? How do you convert an abstract into space? I thought that space bent, and time dilated. I can't see how, but it is logical to me that time could be slowed or sped up but my argument would hold regardless unless it could be reversed which is kind of illogical.

There is nothing metaphysical about that. What we also know today is that there is not such a thing like the present that separates past from future. The very concepts of past and future are parochial and, therefore, not objective.

You cannot argue by categorizing. For example I should not say that what you said is untrue because your narrow minded. That is not an argument, it is denial by categorization. Why should I doubt that my subjective dread of a coming event or memory of a past event is not objectively true.

And no. I saw Carroll vs. Craig debate. Towards the end, Craig "blames" Carroll to hold a tenseless theory of time (he does). It is obvious that the block universe is a direct consequence of tenseless time as Carroll shows in his book.

I did not understand "blames into agreeing".

Another hour spent looking for the evidence. I either can't find it or am not smart enough to understand it. I keep seeing what you stated. Mainly that relativity necessitates tense less time. I am not sure I am equipped to dive that deep into the theoretical end of science. I did however find a very famous work from a well published teacher of formal logic who seemed to get to the bottom of this. You might enjoy reading the entire paper but I simply searched it for "relativity" and read his counter argument against it implying tense less time. He formally states the premise and conclusion of the argument and then it's negation step by step.
http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/nmarkos/papers/defpres.pdf

 

[1robin]

And I'd prefer a lot of things myself, but I realize that's not how the world works, and I ignore such trifling annoyances. But here's an FYI that may help: You're under no obligation to respond to any part of a post, or even to any post in whole, mine included.

For the sake of courtesy I always respond in conversations unless they turn uncivil. No, I do not have to, but I attempt to treat people with the respect I desire.

 

[Skwim]

For the sake of courtesy I always respond in conversations unless they turn uncivil. No, I do not have to, but I attempt to treat people with the respect I desire.

Don't take being ignored for a lack of respect. More often than not people make posts not worthy of a reply, even those personally directed to you.

 

[1robin]

How? I have a personal relationship with their inhabitants every day. Just open your heart and you will see the truth, as well And if Vilenkin's theorem premises are right, then they follow by necessity, as Vilenkin explains in his own book.

This was completely lost on me. Your either joking, or lost in science fiction.

Isn't maybe time that you actually open those books instead of desperately googling around?

I read more than you can imagine. Everywhere I sit on a regular basis has a pile of books. I however mostly read books you would never think I would. The majority of reading I do is in military history, with only the minority being shared by philosophy, theology, and science. I may not be able to explain the Quantum but I can tell you what caliber rifles the confederacy used in 1863. I do science all day, and I hate it because my job is testing new instruments and they constantly fail, then their redesigned, then they fail, then we buy another, and it fails, then we get new firm ware, then it burns down, sinks into the swamp, then fails. Actually that is why I debate all the time. Nothing science designs ever seems to work in these ESTS stations I have, so the PHD starts figuring out what to do about it, and I sit here and waste time debating. When 12 out of 12 instruments utterly fail I really look cross eyed at our ability to fully understand relativity, multiverses, and
time.

BTW if you do not mind answering how is it you have so much free time?

BTW. How do I access this conscious entity of yours?

I own no entities. Are you asking how to be saved, how to access me, someone I know? This whole post was one complete mystery to me.[/quote]

 

[1robin]

Don't take being ignored for a lack of respect. More often than not people make posts not worthy of a reply, even those personally directed to you.

I don't, being ignored at times would be a relief. I just wish I would be ignored before I am sent a post, instead of at the bottom of one. 3 or 4 times I have spent 20 minutes typing something only to see the last line say they no longer wanted to debate whatever it was. I have people on my ignore list. I tell them up front, give them at least another shot to challenge me, then tell them without making a list of points for them to respond to, that is it. Most of the time I am just killing time so it does not matter, but sometimes I am taking time away from something else to respond out of courtesy.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hmm. Arguments that the Gods I believe in exist..

Well, let's look at ourselves first. It is not unreasonable to expect a God or Gods that interact with us(humanity) to be somewhat like us. What do I mean by that? Well just think about it. Whether they created us or not, for them to bother at all there would need to be some common ground. When I look at the God of Abraham, I am struck by how inhuman(or atleast inhumane) it is. Its perception and claims of "love" are so warped that it wouldn't be out of place to see it as a mockery of love, an abusive spouse or parent who keeps telling us how it's our fault he hits us, who will throw us into the basement and lose the key if we don't beg forgiveness for imagined slights and praise him for things we would rightfully imprison others for doing. He demands constant reverence, constant praise & sycophancy. He must be told how perfect he always is despite the multitude of problems he has allowed to fester.

What does this have to do with my Gods existing? Well, my Gods are not like that. They are very human. They have self-admitted flaws. They do not expect(or require) our faith. They reward for deeds and deeds alone. And most importantly they do not demand our love or our respect. They know that you cannot just demand such things without perverting them into something sick & cruel. They respect us and our wishes. They do not belittle us or go on about our failures. They are our family, not our owners or slave-drivers. And for me, the single most important factor is that they are NOT omnipotent.

Why is that proof they exist? Because if there are Gods that have any interest in humanity, they will be like ourselves in many ways. It's a matter of how much and in what ways. The God of Abraham may also exist. I do not know, I cannot say with certainty one way or another if he exists. But nor do I care, either. He can stay in that desert from which the Nazarene and the Prophet came and rule over it and his followers as he deigns, but I have a request; take a page from the First Followers of that God, and leave those lands with their Old Gods to themselves.

 

[outhouse]

Your philosopher has no credible argument.

Kalām cosmological argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kalām cosmological argument has received criticism

Criticism and discussion include the disciplines of philosophy (with a focus on logic) as well as science (with a focus on physics and cosmology).


"... whether there needs to be a cause of the first natural existent, whether something like the universe can be finite and yet not have a beginning, and the nature of infinities and their connection with reality".

 

[Skwim]

I don't, being ignored at times would be a relief. I just wish I would be ignored before I am sent a post, instead of at the bottom of one. 3 or 4 times I have spent 20 minutes typing something only to see the last line say they no longer wanted to debate whatever it was.

It was what you wrote that "broke the camel's back"---I read it all. That you spent time and energy that I didn't care to respond to is one of the risks you take in participating on the site. With almost 12,000 post this should be more than apparent. From time to time we all "waste" time on post that are ignored. It happens to all of us. *sheesh!*

 

[1robin]

It was what you wrote that "broke the camel's back"---I read it all. That you spent time and energy that I didn't care to respond to is one of the risks you take in participating on the site. With almost 12,000 post this should be more than apparent. From time to time we all "waste" time on post that are ignored. It happens to all of us. *sheesh!*

I did not accuse you of anything immoral, I did not complain to anyone, I did not get offended. What are you defending so vigorously? I simply said if your done with a debate I wish you would have stated it up front. Not made a bunch of points that I responded to and then saw the last line saying you no longer wished a debate. There is no big deal here, no reason for a carefully planned defense. I wish X, is not a stimulant for anything.

 

[viole]

Relativity is still in it's infancy, like the quantum. It certainly shows promise but no one is exactly sure what it's implications are. I will once again remark how every scientific counter argument against God exists in the most theoretical end of science every single time.

In its infancy? Shows promise? If relativity is in its infancy, then inflationary theory (one of the premises of Vilenkin's theorem) is still under embryological development.

I am not sure you realize how old relativity is and all the tests it passed and predictions it made. It is also the basis of quantistic electrodynamics which is arguably the most successful theory in the history of science. If Einstein did not put an ad-hoc and unnecessary term in its first equations (in order to accommodate a static universe), he could have predicted Hubble expansion decades before its actual observation.

I almost hate to ask but can you find me a physicist that actually shows how Relativity results in a block universe other than simply stating it? I cannot find any proofs nor even attempts. All I can find are presumptions.

Physicists, usually, do not care too much about ontology, but it is easy to see how relativity entails a very well defined ontology of time that leads directly to the block universe. But the basic idea has been laid down by Minkowsky once he realized what relativity entails.

Let's start with --> B-theory of time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there's no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment....Relativity of simultaneity implies eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four dimensional universe."

And then this --> Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"(Eternalism) It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time."

So, (special) relativity => relativity of simultaneity => eternalism, a.k.a. block universe

In other words, in order to falsify the block universe, you have at least to falsify (special) relativity. And if you manage to do that, then I will REALLY have a beer with you in Stockholm when you collect your Nobel prize.

How do you bend an abstract object? How do you convert an abstract into space? I thought that space bent, and time dilated. I can't see how, but it is logical to me that time could be slowed or sped up but my argument would hold regardless unless it could be reversed which is kind of illogical.

We have uncontroversial evidence that time at sea level runs slower when compared with time on the top of a mountain. In other words, when you fly or climb a mountain and then come back home, you would have travelled slightly in the future of someone who stayed home during your trip. If the earth would be much more massive, your son, if you had one, could be older than you when you come back. We must take into account this stretching of time in order to synchronize the clocks of our GPS satellites with the clocks on earth.

Do you know other "abstracts" able to do that near a gravitational field?

You cannot argue by categorizing. For example I should not say that what you said is untrue because your narrow minded. That is not an argument, it is denial by categorization. Why should I doubt that my subjective dread of a coming event or memory of a past event is not objectively true.

Not objective means that different observers will disagree on something, and none of them is privileged in any way to decide who is right. For instance, the time it takes between two events is not objective. Things that appear simultaneous for you, might not be simultaneous for someone else. All this can be easily tested. Ergo, time is not objective. The same with space.

We do not usually notice that (psychologically) because we live in a world where things do not go too fast, gravity is not too strong and our synapses trigger at a rate of 100 times a second, which is a very poor resolution (albeit sufficient for our survival needs).

I did not understand "blames into agreeing".

Craig acknowledged that Carroll subscribes to the B-theory of time, and that entails a block universe. So, Carroll did not say anything about his view. But Craig did.

[/quote]
Another hour spent looking for the evidence. I either can't find it or am not smart enough to understand it. I keep seeing what you stated. Mainly that relativity necessitates tense less time. I am not sure I am equipped to dive that deep into the theoretical end of science. I did however find a very famous work from a well published teacher of formal logic who seemed to get to the bottom of this. You might enjoy reading the entire paper but I simply searched it for "relativity" and read his counter argument against it implying tense less time. He formally states the premise and conclusion of the argument and then it's negation step by step.
http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/nmarkos/papers/defpres.pdf[/QUOTE]

Again, read Carroll. I am sure you have the faculty to understand his book. It is a very graceful introduction to all these things.

Now, back to your article trying to defend presentism under the premise of the special theory of relativity (STR).

The problem with that is that it assumes a-priori the existence of absolute simultaneity and shows how relative simultaneity could still be compatible with it. How? Well, he says this is because absolute simultaneity cannot be detected by any physical or empirical means. In other words: it is compatible with physics because it is inaccessible to physics, which is a funny way to keep compatibility with science.

Even worse, how is that different from postulating that planets follow orbits because of invisible fairies, impervious to physical evidence, carrying them around, and that Newton cannot possibly offer us the whole picture concerning orbiting planets? This is also compatible with the a-priori assumption that invisible fairies exist. No wonder philosophy is so despised in scientific circles.

In other words, he is begging the question, and can be dismissed without any problem.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This was completely lost on me. Your either joking, or lost in science fiction.

I read more than you can imagine. Everywhere I sit on a regular basis has a pile of books. I however mostly read books you would never think I would. The majority of reading I do is in military history, with only the minority being shared by philosophy, theology, and science. I may not be able to explain the Quantum but I can tell you what caliber rifles the confederacy used in 1863. I do science all day, and I hate it because my job is testing new instruments and they constantly fail, then their redesigned, then they fail, then we buy another, and it fails, then we get new firm ware, then it burns down, sinks into the swamp, then fails. Actually that is why I debate all the time. Nothing science designs ever seems to work in these ESTS stations I have, so the PHD starts figuring out what to do about it, and I sit here and waste time debating. When 12 out of 12 instruments utterly fail I really look cross eyed at our ability to fully understand relativity, multiverses, and
time.

No doubt. But we are not talking of military history. And I firmly believe that you cannot gather any real understanding about science just by listening to philophycal/theological debates or by googling around. Your knowledge will be bound to be fragmentary and confused. You have to see the big picture and how things relate to each others, even hisorically, and there are plenty of good books for the layman explaining these things. They are not always easy reads, but I am more than confident that you can manage. Just take your time and don't preceed until you fully understood what you read. This is my technique.

At least they will enable you to come to a gun fight with a gun, and not a knife

BTW if you do not mind answering how is it you have so much free time?

Women are very good at multitasking, allegedely.

I own no entities. Are you asking how to be saved, how to access me, someone I know? This whole post was one complete mystery to me.

[/QUOTE]

Nope. You asked how I can access the multiverse, and I asked you how to access the conscious deity. Since, none of us can do that without begging the question, both our theories are still on equal footing and both logically possible. But if both conflicting claims are logically possible, then neither of them is logically necessary, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

No doubt. But we are not talking of military history. And I firmly believe that you cannot gather any real understanding about science just by listening to philophycal/theological debates or by googling around. Your knowledge will be bound to be fragmentary and confused. You have to see the big picture and how things relate to each others, even hisorically, and there are plenty of good books for the layman explaining these things. They are not always easy reads, but I am more than confident that you can manage. Just take your time and don't preceed until you fully understood what you read. This is my technique.

I only mentioned what I read in my spare time. I also have 190 sem hours including Cal 1, Cal 2, Cal 3, Cal 4, Cal-phy 1, Cal-phy 2, Cal phy 3, linear, partial DE, DE, discrete, statics, dynamics, etc......... I however do not float around in the deep end of theoretical science. I work in practical science and the science fails there about 90% of the time, so I distrust the massively less accessible theoretical stuff.

At least they will enable you to come to a gun fight with a gun, and not a knife

Yeah, a phalanx electric cannon with Doppler and phased array radar tracking and depleted uranium shells with tungsten penetrators. What I will not come to a gun fight with is an untestable science claim.

Women are very good at multitasking, allegedely.

Evasive, ok I will drop it.

Nope. You asked how I can access the multiverse, and I asked you how to access the conscious deity. Since, none of us can do that without begging the question, both our theories are still on equal footing and both logically possible. But if both conflicting claims are logically possible, then neither of them is logically necessary, by definition.

So your asking how I can contact God. Then presume we can't? If I said Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. or you must be born again. James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

That is a method (which you simply deny), you do not have a method (which I cannot even consider). Whatever that is, it is not an equality. It would be the same thing if a man in the bronze age said how do I access Pluto, and someone said build a solar powered probe, and they said that was question begging.

How is that question begging? It is a method and millions have tried and succeeded. It would be no more circular than quantum claims which I cannot verify because I could not repeat the experiment myself.

Your objections often come in categorical dismissals. You find a category that is fallacious merely wish my claim into it and then declare it defeated. Very seldom do I agree with the categorical claims you make.

 

[viole]

I only mentioned what I read in my spare time. I also have 190 sem hours including Cal 1, Cal 2, Cal 3, Cal 4, Cal-phy 1, Cal-phy 2, Cal phy 3, linear, partial DE, DE, discrete, statics, dynamics, etc......... I however do not float around in the deep end of theoretical science. I work in practical science and the science fails there about 90% of the time, so I distrust the massively less accessible theoretical stuff.

Yeah, a phalanx electric cannon with Doppler and phased array radar tracking and depleted uranium shells with tungsten penetrators. What I will not come to a gun fight with is an untestable science claim.


Evasive, ok I will drop it.

So your asking how I can contact God. Then presume we can't? If I said Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. or you must be born again. James 4:8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

That is a method (which you simply deny), you do not have a method (which I cannot even consider). Whatever that is, it is not an equality. It would be the same thing if a man in the bronze age said how do I access Pluto, and someone said build a solar powered probe, and they said that was question begging.

How is that question begging? It is a method and millions have tried and succeeded. It would be no more circular than quantum claims which I cannot verify because I could not repeat the experiment myself.

Your objections often come in categorical dismissals. You find a category that is fallacious merely wish my claim into it and then declare it defeated. Very seldom do I agree with the categorical claims you make.

Well, you show that it is question begging by posting a verse of the Bible as if it should be taken seriously. But obviously, before taking it seriously, you must believe that it has been inpired by God, instead of being the likely product of a deluded human being named James.

Incidentally, I also gave you my method of contacting the multiverse. Open your heart and you will get immediate connection with their inhabitants. You must search, and you will find... I don't have scripture to support that, but I can let myself be inspired to write something if you want.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Well, you show that it is question begging by posting a verse of the Bible as if it should be taken seriously. But obviously, before taking it seriously, you must believe that it has been inpired by God, instead of being the likely product of a deluded human being named James.

How would that be different than showing 2 + 2 = 4 and claiming it is 4. You asked for a method. I gave you one. You did not ask for proof. If you had asked me to prove I can contact God I would have responded with I can't. I only quoted the bible out of laziness anyway. I could have said prayer, or reading the word with an open and sincere heart but was to lazy. Let me change the question to avoid all this anyway.

Give me a way anyone claims to have accessed another universe. I believe every one who considers them possible denies their ability to access them. Most even deny any future potential of accessing them. Christianity is not in that same boat. No matter how weak you think it, it is still a better explanation. Not that multiverses get you out of a need for an uncaused first cause anyway.

Incidentally, I also gave you my method of contacting the multiverse. Open your heart and you will get immediate connection with their inhabitants. You must search, and you will find... I don't have scripture to support that, but I can let myself be inspired to write something if you want.

I would not summarily dismiss that if I felt it sincere but I am almost certain you do not in fact believe that your self. If you sincerely believed that I would consider it evidence greater than zero but just. It still would not equal the evidence for Christianity because we have millions upon millions who ARE SINCERELY (millions who have radically changed lives included) suggesting that concerning God. Plus the historical, etc...... evidence. So even if both are weak arguments from a subjective view, but from an objective view (no matter how weak you think it is) Christian claims are still millions of times greater than yours. It is like a million astronauts claiming to have been to the moon and it was made of rock for every one that claimed it was made of wax. Both maybe weak but one is a million times better than the other. However since I do not think your even attempting to be sincere your still at zero. At least now I know what your statement was supposed to mean. I thought you may have had a seizure and then sank into the swamp.