January 15th, 2013, 09:35 PM
What exactly is God/a god? Where is your stance on what 'god' is? Is it the entity, if you could even refer to it as an entity that created the universe? That oversees the universe? Is it an actually incredibly intelligent creature that evolved naturally from this universe or another and came here creating life? Creating a 'lifeforce' such as the soul? I'm not quite sure on peoples view on what 'god' actually is. Please share your thoughts.
God is an entity sometimes taking the form of an invisible elf or flying spaghetti monster, who dominates the thoughts of certain atheists, forcing them to start new threads about him on TheScienceForum every couple or three days.
If you could define god (accurately) you would be God.
I always thought of God as the sum of all forces. The idea of a personified God struck me as a bit silly.
Aww Harold aren't you sweet.Originally Posted by Harold14370
I surmise that 'God' is a nonsensical term, highly vague and subjective if we use the constraints of scientific knowledge, I think that's one of the reasons it does so well alongside faith in that it can shift and shape when it is time for it to be scrutinized.
Can you expand on that I am interested in it.
I never really got any further than that. I was very young and just learning how things worked in the world in terms of natural forces shaping the planet. I thought there might be some equation to tie all those forces together. As I got older I realized that wasn't feasible, but it was the closest I ever got to believing in a single power forming responsible for life on Earth.
Conversely: if you could define god accurately it would probably become apparent that he doesn't/ couldn't exist.
The more specific the definition the easier it is to show how that description fails or is invalid.
I would define god as the mind. We live in a system of intelligence: eternal intelligence. As the mind evolves so the universe unfolds.
That sounds plausible, but I have insuffcient confidence in the current capability of human intellect to accept that your conclsuion is probable.Conversely: if you could define god accurately it would probably become apparent that he doesn't/ couldn't exist.
The more specific the definition the easier it is to show how that description fails or is invalid.
Really? Where, exactly, is this "eternal intelligence"?
At the simplest level any description that a human can come up with - using human imagination - should be able to be refuted by science and/ or logic.
As soon as someone gets down to specifics on a supposed "god" then it narrows the possibilities (or impossibilities), and makes it easier to point out that that particular characteristic is infeasible because of... X, Y or Z. The more nebulous the attributes of "god" the harder they are to refute.
I agree, I think in time the more we develop understanding of science and knowledge as to how the universe works the notion of God will become more and more definable and as Dywyddyr said it will show that the description fails and seems invalid, as science has already made a lot of biblical and supernatural claims seem highly implausible and absurd so the notion will in time.That sounds plausible, but I have insuffcient confidence in the current capability of human intellect to accept that your conclsuion is probable.Conversely: if you could define god accurately it would probably become apparent that he doesn't/ couldn't exist.
The more specific the definition the easier it is to show how that description fails or is invalid.
I think there are certain kinds of knowlege that are unknowable through science. All we can do with science is observe and discover the rules of the universe. Using Feynman's analogy, we can watch the chessboard, and deduce the rules of chess, at least the for the moves we have seen so far. This leaves other questions that could be asked. (1) Who or what is playing chess? (2) Why are they playing chess? (3) Who made up the rules of chess? (4) Are there other games of chess being played than we can see? (5) Are there other games to play besides chess?I agree, I think in time the more we develop understanding of science and knowledge as to how the universe works the notion of God will become more and more definable and as Dywyddyr said it will show that the description fails and seems invalid, as science has already made a lot of biblical and supernatural claims seem highly implausible and absurd so the notion will in time.That sounds plausible, but I have insuffcient confidence in the current capability of human intellect to accept that your conclsuion is probable.Conversely: if you could define god accurately it would probably become apparent that he doesn't/ couldn't exist.
The more specific the definition the easier it is to show how that description fails or is invalid.
Hmm.
If those questions can't be answered then that would leave the definition somewhat nebulous, wouldn't it? Ergo, less able to be refuted...All we can do with science is observe and discover the rules of the universe. Using Feynman's analogy, we can watch the chessboard, and deduce the rules of chess, at least the for the moves we have seen so far. This leaves other questions that could be asked. (1) Who or what is playing chess? (2) Why are they playing chess? (3) Who made up the rules of chess? (4) Are there other games of chess being played than we can see? (5) Are there other games to play besides chess?
Quite true, and it does not imply that there is another way besides science to arrive at the answer.Hmm.
If those questions can't be answered then that would leave the definition somewhat nebulous, wouldn't it? Ergo, less able to be refuted...All we can do with science is observe and discover the rules of the universe. Using Feynman's analogy, we can watch the chessboard, and deduce the rules of chess, at least the for the moves we have seen so far. This leaves other questions that could be asked. (1) Who or what is playing chess? (2) Why are they playing chess? (3) Who made up the rules of chess? (4) Are there other games of chess being played than we can see? (5) Are there other games to play besides chess?
Hey, John Galt, you are probably very smart. If you want to know exactly where "eternal intelligence," is, why don't you go look for it?
Eternity doesn't exist, and intelligence is questionable too sometimes
And how do you know that, especially as you say that intelligence is questionable, how can you possibly be discussing this subject when you lack intelligence?
Last edited by DeixoEmBranco; January 17th, 2013 at 02:28 PM.
no
can't say - i have no first-hand experience of any god(s)
Well one argument is that because there are a set number of Quantum Fluctuations possible and constraint of laws of physics the universe will end either in a big rip or a big crunch, even if a big bang occurred over and over again eventually the same repetitions would occur, for instance a repetition of this universe, and assuming these differences are dimensions as some string theories predict they will have limit as well at the highest degree - see the Calabi Yau manifold for instance.
The last part of my post was a joke, thanks for the insult though dude!
Marnix I think your answer is the most honest and profound simple and true scientifically.
You are exhibiting your iignorance, Quantime. String "theory" is not even a theory. The fate of the universe is far from being known to the certainty you think it is.Well one argument is that because there are a set number of Quantum Fluctuations possible and constraint of laws of physics the universe will end either in a big rip or a big crunch, even if a big bang occurred over and over again eventually the same repetitions would occur, for instance a repetition of this universe, and assuming these differences are dimensions as some string theories predict they will have limit as well at the highest degree - see the Calabi Yau manifold for instance.
The last part of my post was a joke, thanks for the insult though dude!
Marnix I think your answer is the most honest and profound simple and true scientifically.
"One argument is that..." doesn't look like certainty to me.You are exhibiting your iignorance, Quantime. String "theory" is not even a theory. The fate of the universe is far from being known to the certainty you think it is.
String theory is called String Theory. The world should not be expected to refer to it as String Hypothesis just to please you.
Your rebuttal here was basic nitpicking with very little substance to work with.
String is quite elegant and promising. It reveals a great deal- though not enough. I dislike String, to be blunt, but I also admire it and sadly, the Universe often does not operate aesthetically.
String is a work in progress that currently lacks the means of testing many of its predictions and while progress has been made, String is an incomplete hypothesis mathematically.
In spite of this, it shows a lot of promise. Bugger it.
Now, if all you want is a reason to nitpick- I'm sure I can give you many. Would you like to go a few rounds?
String theory is a theory based on observations and accepted in credential theoretical physics; there is no evidence so far for them and they are a prototype for the resolution to the problems in Quantum Physics and Relativity, I have mentioned that it is one argument I did not state it was fact, what I said is not ignorant, it is my attempt along with other physicists to answer questions we have about the universe which faith, has not done a very good job of answering... at all.
What is ignorant and becoming tiresome is your dubbing my contributions ignorant and not backing those claims up. Theories are all we have to go on, Quantum theory, theory of relativity, theory of evolution and string theory. We haven't confirmed evidence for string theories predication because we don't yet have the machines to make measurements to detect them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there to be discovered. Our predictions based on observations we have made is all we can go on presently.
Our predictions as to the fate of the universe is based on some observations from the science we already know (expanding universe, singularities, big bang, big crunch etc), they aren't just guess work. We might not know for sure now which is why I said:
This argument is that if big crunches and big bangs keep occurring, if Quantum Fluctuations still occur we will have a degree of certain results, this is already fact - if you have a set number of quantum fluctuations eventually with enough volume (space) and time you will eventually get repetitions like a cosmic roulette wheel on massive proportions and seeing as if big bangs and big crunches occur over and over again this will result in eventually a repetition of the same universes, not to mention the theory of 'tunneling' to a new universe if the big rip occurs.Well one argument is that because there are a set number of Quantum Fluctuations possible and constraint of laws of physics the universe will end either in a big rip or a big crunch...
This is what I suggested by no 'eternity' in the same way another probabilistic system can also only have a limit of results; I then expanded that one argument is that string theory says that if big bangs do create multiple laws of physics and different universes there will still be a set number of them and a limit, this is because dimensions as we know them, namely space and time will only allow a certain amount of probabilities on the amount of information that is contained within that system, for instance the space you occupy has a certain number of Quantum Fluctuations that can be arranged in a certain manner, in other words a limit of information, so has the universe as we know it which with enough repetitions would equal repeating patterns like the roulette wheel...
All I mentioned above is credible and accepted as possible within the framework of the universe we understand, and to which is a lot more accurate than anything 'faith' can or will ever offer and in time science even if we are wrong with some of the theories we currently have, will find the answers, while faith will remain stuck in its claims it has always made and never will change.Assuming these differences are dimensions as some string theories predict they will have limit as well at the highest degree - see the Calabi Yau manifold for instance.
Now if you are going to call my claims ignorant, please back up your claim and put forth an argument on your side of the discussion and offer something that backs up your claim of my being ignorant, baring in mind that your first actual post in this thread was trolling and did not pertain to the question, I shrugged this off as a joke but as of late you seem to have this agenda of constantly claiming I am not putting forward credential arguments for the origin of the universe and its fate, for one, I am offering an argument in scientific understanding and accepted scientific theories, and to which you ignore and do not reply to only to label me 'ignorant' in other threads; ignorant to what exactly? Elaborate don't expect me to guess if I am making ignorant claims. Do you understand? Or are you going to continue this constant rebuke of hit-and-run posting where you accuse me of being ignorant without backing it up? I'd like to know if I am being ignorant, I like to learn. I don't think I am though I am substantiating my argument within the constraints of what we know and scientific fact and scientific theory that is accepted.
Now can we please get back to the threads topic of can you define God? If you aren't going to oblige that please leave. Which again was another genuine question for my understanding of others belief in God (I actually do care about what people think of their theism and beliefs because I want to learn), if you won't oblige and keep harassing me claiming I am talking ignorance without backing that up, leave. I am frankly getting very tired of it, it seems you have an agenda and it isn't scientific.
I can only offer what we can think about the universe based on the observations we have and the science that I follow up on from reputable scientific organizations and figures, I do offer an air of certainty but if it is accepted by many reputable scientists it is good enough for me and I will trust their confidence from their observations, when the facts come along that prove them wrong I will accept them.
What are you offering in return besides personal unsubstantiated rebuke Harold?
god is men invention ...
man created god in the image of man
irational man need to belive in supernatural force
rational man don't
rationalism come from irationalism, so respect irational people as well
Rationalism can only come from irrationalism when you realize you were irrational, even then...
Why respect irrational people? I respect a person depending on who they are and if I get to know them, respect is earned not given. Be polite absolutely but respect someone for being irrational, well that depends on the circumstances on what they are being irrational about.
The question was "how do you KNOW that." Quantime's answer was, in part, string theory. Very, very weak. The correct answer is, "Quantime does not KNOW that." Is that nitpicking? No, you are nitpicking."One argument is that..." doesn't look like certainty to me.You are exhibiting your iignorance, Quantime. String "theory" is not even a theory. The fate of the universe is far from being known to the certainty you think it is.
String theory is called String Theory. The world should not be expected to refer to it as String Hypothesis just to please you.
Your rebuttal here was basic nitpicking with very little substance to work with.
String is quite elegant and promising. It reveals a great deal- though not enough. I dislike String, to be blunt, but I also admire it and sadly, the Universe often does not operate aesthetically.
String is a work in progress that currently lacks the means of testing many of its predictions and while progress has been made, String is an incomplete hypothesis mathematically.
In spite of this, it shows a lot of promise. Bugger it.
Now, if all you want is a reason to nitpick- I'm sure I can give you many. Would you like to go a few rounds?
No, you are trolling. I gave an explanation to respond to and you haven't replied except with more rhetoric. And very very weak against what? The postulate that eternity does not exist because the parameters of existence have a finite number of solutions? Which is based on a mathematical principle of probability and the law of large numbers along with Quantum mechanics solution of Quantum states? Back up your claims against me Harold, I am accepting your argument and up for listening to the response but you are not responding at all with anything, even after I am sat here waiting for you to justify your side of the argument, if you won't offer a counter to what I am saying then this is no longer a discussion as it no longer falls into the rules of discussion.
Again this is your final warning, verify your claims against me to which I have replied to mostly politely and to the point clearing up my statements, so verify your claims or meet my block list. I have tried to be reasonable and have not one person in my entirety on this forum in 6 years blocked anyone, that's going to be quite an accomplishment Harold as I am very open minded to others and never wish to blacklist their contributions or possibility of mutual learning from both parties from each other. I may be brash, I may be arrogant I may even at times be ignorant, yet I am answering in terms of discussion and open for your side of the argument and have been polite as much as possible, unless we discuss we aren't going anywhere, neither of us will learn and the whole point of discussion and forum breaks down and becomes useless. I have supported my contribution by explaining it further if you had read it, I will provide evidence where requested on demand.
Please don't make me have to block you I respect you very much and your contributions.
Yeah, ok, Harold- unable to admit to fault?The question was "how do you KNOW that." Quantime's answer was, in part, string theory. Very, very weak. The correct answer is, "Quantime does not KNOW that." Is that nitpicking? No, you are nitpicking."One argument is that..." doesn't look like certainty to me.You are exhibiting your iignorance, Quantime. String "theory" is not even a theory. The fate of the universe is far from being known to the certainty you think it is.
String theory is called String Theory. The world should not be expected to refer to it as String Hypothesis just to please you.
Your rebuttal here was basic nitpicking with very little substance to work with.
String is quite elegant and promising. It reveals a great deal- though not enough. I dislike String, to be blunt, but I also admire it and sadly, the Universe often does not operate aesthetically.
String is a work in progress that currently lacks the means of testing many of its predictions and while progress has been made, String is an incomplete hypothesis mathematically.
In spite of this, it shows a lot of promise. Bugger it.
Now, if all you want is a reason to nitpick- I'm sure I can give you many. Would you like to go a few rounds?
"I know you are but what am I?"
Riiiiight...
Well NO, I am not nitpicking- you are nitpicking. Don't bother flinging it back at me.
I've shown your nitpicking and sticking out your tongue does not refute my claim in any way at all.
Just because the O.P. asks something a certain way, doesn't mean all answers given will be formatted by the O.P.
They will be formatted by the posters words. Period.
Your refutation was absurd- you tried to claim Quantimes intentions based on what someone else said.
"It's 'cuz I've got a big head... and little arms... and I just think this wasn't thought all the way through..."
Next time you're confronted, instead of trying to figure out a way to worm out of it, maybe you should examine it objectively and critically and own up to mistakes if you've made any.
Your refutation of my refutation is absurd. It is totally reasonable to evaluate an answer to a question in the context of what the question was. You are not engaging in a reasonable conversation, but only trying to score debating points.
No, it isn't. How many crank questions are asked in which the answer to the crank O.P. must be formatted entirely differently in order for the answer to make sense?
How many questions have serious misconceptions in which the answer must be formatted entirely differently from how the O.P. was asked?
Harold, it's painfully obvious you're projecting your own behavior, here.
Now, I may be the mere peon and you the admin, but I can tell you now: If it was the other way around, I'd have moderated your stubborn butt by now.
But I'm not. So I'll go a different way: You're losing face with these antics. I'm most certainly not the only fool that can see it and I'm fully aware of that. If you persist in these antics, you will continue to lose the respect from the members that must be tolerant of you, rather than respecting your posts as a member and your position as an Admin.
Your choices are your own. You can choose to grow up, stop nitpicking over dumbcrap, stop rationalizing and justifying such nonsense and learn how to post like an educated grown man...
Or you can post foolishly and wonder how many people are laughing behind their screens while you sit there smugly thinking you pulled one over.
I prefer to think that the question was as stated: "How do you know?" Don't try to put some other words into the man's mouth. Quantime arrogantly declared as a fact what the fate of the universe is going to be. That's far beyond anything even the most expert cosmologist would ever claim.No, it isn't. How many crank questions are asked in which the answer to the crank O.P. must be formatted entirely differently in order for the answer to make sense?
How many questions have serious misconceptions in which the answer must be formatted entirely differently from how the O.P. was asked?
Harold, he did no such thing and as usual, in spite of your claims as to what another person said, (Or as you said, "Don't try to put some other words into the man's mouth."- Doing some more of your projecting?) you provide no quotes that demonstrate any accuracy in your claims.
I, on the other hand, Have Done So. I quoted him and pointed out your error, to which you went into denials and ad homs without providing support. I will also point out that the horses mouth, the poster in question, also refuted your claim.
Scientifically, you're out.
My opinion is that you were motivated by something other than scientific accuracy in your remarks. And when confronted on it, you chose to project your own behavior, sidestep, make claims without support... gee seems a habit with you. You remind me of Bells and Tiassa.
Clearly, confronting you does not result in rational and reasonable conclusions. Since it's senseless;
That's enough bickering between us, for now.
Just know others can read all this and publicly, I question your abilities to administrate a science forum when your posts are so unscientific.
Last edited by Neverfly; January 17th, 2013 at 08:07 PM.
Well let's see.
Quantime: "Eternity doesn't exist." No uncertainty there. A bold statement of fact. What is the basis for this claim?
Deixmbranco: "And how do you know that" A perfectly reasonable question given Quantime's bold statement of fact.
Quantime: "Well one argument is that because there are a set number of Quantum Fluctuations possible and constraint of laws of physics the universe will end either in a big rip or a big crunch, even if a big bang occurred over and over again eventually the same repetitions would occur, for instance a repetition of this universe, and assuming these differences are dimensions as some string theories predict they will have limit as well at the highest degree - see the Calabi Yau manifold for instance."
Does this support the statement of fact that eternity does not exist? I hardly think so.
I agree he was a bit ambiguous, but you need to keep the context.
"Eternity" was used as a divine or religious notion.
No one can say whether it is true or not, but the belief is irrational based on what we currently do know. Which is what I believe Quantime was trying to demonstrate when he presented one possible argument.
Personally, I favor the Big Freeze.
The trouble you have here is that you moved the goal posts from "String Theory" and "End of Universe Scenarios" to the next line up that you could say was said with certainty.
And in itself, the context is important because whether it can be said with certainty is a matter of perspective. If someone said, "Fairies told me" and the response was, "There are no fairies" and we know one cannot prove a negative; You can nitpick and claim that he cannot say there are no fairies with certainty.
Poor show, Harold.
In that case, the whole discussion has me baffled, as I cannot see how string theory or end of universe scenario would have a bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a deity.
I'm less baffled, but I've been exposed to Quantimes posts enough to speculate:
As a former believer in God, Quantime reached a point where his scientific learning caused him to re-examine his beliefs.
Because of this, when explaining why he lacks belief in religious fundamentals, he is likely to fall back on explaining what he understands about science in order to show why he does not believe in the myths and why he finds them irrational and implausible.
This is a difficult task because one would have to unload a great deal in a thread in order to really cover it and make sense and that much posting would go unread by most. It would just be too long.
His one possible argument showed that a "Divine Eternity" would be difficult to support should the Universe indeed end in a Big Crunch or such.
Granted, a religious person can move the Divine Eternity outside of the Universe or claim that the Big Crunch would renew into a Big Bang and go on and on for Eternity... But it's at that point that many readers may see that such rationalizations are getting far-fetched and that it's much more logical to conclude that the concept of a Divine Eternity is also very far-fetched. Because the concept of Divine Eternity is stated as a Certainty. A probability that nullifies that certainty is a problem for the belief in that certainty.
I could be wrong- it's up to Quantime to clarify. That's my speculation as to what his thought process was.
There's a number of problems with this post;
Firstly it was me that asked the question, not John Galt.
Secondly, since it was YOU that made the claim, it's up to you to support it, not up to me to find out exactly what you meant.
Thirdly (after a quick Google search) we have a number of candidates for "eternal intelligence":
A) Freeman Dyson's version - except that it's a hypothesis (i.e. not a fact) and it's also been shown to have problems. Plus the fact that Dyson claimed INFINITE intelligence (as in infinite number of thoughts) - this doesn't imply that this "intelligence" is eternal.
B) then we have this one: which fails utterly since it is unsubstantiated belief, and starts with an unsubstantiated belief as premise.
C) followed by this: equally unsubstantiated (and equally woo).
I'll therefore ask again: Where, exactly, is this "eternal intelligence"?
Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 18th, 2013 at 12:53 AM.
Can I define God?
Definitions require a context. Things can only be defined in terms of other things. The part that this question is missing is that it does not say "in terms of". Without such a restraint any definition will remain incomplete and open to question. For the purposes here I would refer to Aristotle and define It as a "first cause" This has been used in a lot of theological arguments, and is not entirely incompatible with scientific thinking.
As to whether God exists is an irrational question. If something truly did not exist, I would not be able to give it a name. Even "nothing" exists as a concept. So I should be able to bypass the question as to wether the thing exists and start asking why and how it exists. Isn't that what science does? Personally I am not as interested in discovering God, or proving/disproving God as much as I am in understanding its existence.
I continue to be amazed at how many atheists are obsessed with God. The passion they exhibit for their rational agenda surpasses that of some evangelists I have encountered.
Really?
de·fine (d-f
n
)v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines
v.tr.1. a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
b. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.
2. a. To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
b. To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.
3. To give form or meaning to
define - definition of define by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
So you can't describe the nature or qualities of god without referring to something else?The part that this question is missing is that it does not say "in terms of".
Such a definition, if accepted, then removes any excuse for religion, and invalidates the bible (among other religious books and claims). Go for it.For the purposes here I would refer to Aristotle and define It as a "first cause" This has been used in a lot of theological arguments, and is not entirely incompatible with scientific thinking.
Science calls it the Big Bang, it has more letters than "god" but far fewer nebulous (and societal) connotations.
And it also adds a slight problem in that the "first cause" once existed but doesn't anymore (so far as we can tell - otherwise there'd be more universes popping up).
And a supreme example of irrationality here. You're wrong. It may exist as a concept to gain a name, but that doesn't mean it actually exists. Do unicorns exist? Does "cold"? Does Russel's teapot?As to whether God exists is an irrational question. If something truly did not exist, I would not be able to give it a name. Even "nothing" exists as a concept. So I should be able to bypass the question as to wether the thing exists and start asking why and how it exists.
Right. So you're hard at work studying physics in this attempt to understand the first cause?Personally I am not as interested in discovering God, or proving/disproving God as much as I am in understanding its existence.
Oops, fail again. Since religion pervades so much of life and society (and we have so many religions telling us how to behave, how to think, what reality is) don't you consider that we have a right to be highly concerned?I continue to be amazed at how many atheists are obsessed with God. The passion they exhibit for their rational agenda surpasses that of some evangelists I have encountered.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 18th, 2013 at 02:29 AM.
There are in general two senses of the term. One is God (capital G) and the other is god (small G).
God refers to the creator of the universe, while god refers to a powerful ruler. There are so many beliefs about God that I wouldn’t attempt to describe then into one post. There are monotheistic beliefs (only one God) and polytheistic beliefs (more than one God). The three main monotheistic conceptions of God are from Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are of course many others. Then there are polytheistic beliefs such as Hinduism. Another conception of God is patheism, that God is the sum of all things. Spinoza was a pantheist as I recall as was Einstein.
There are beliefs that God need not be all powerful or ominipotent. God could just be the designer from the theories of intelligent design.
Conceptions of god are people in very powerul positions such as a pharaoh from ancient Egypt.
I personally have no strong belef either way. On some days I drift towards atheistm, on other days I drift towards Monotheism (Christianity).
Personally, I respect people's beliefs in this area, regarldess of whether I believe them or not but only to certain extents. I have no respect for people whose belief in God drives them to hurt others.
Last edited by popper; January 18th, 2013 at 03:56 AM. Reason: spelling corrections
I'm unsure here, either you don't know much about ID (and its proponents) or are trying to exonerate it/ them in some way.
The "designer" in ID IS the god of the (Christian) bible.
And ID has no theories, it has claims which are, by and large, unsupported speculation.
From your response it appear to be the other way around.
[QUOTE=Dywyddyr]
In any case that is neither here nor there. What I believe about ID has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread and I don't want to get side tracked for no good reason. If the OP or anybody else is interested in ID or what I think about it then they can start a new thread Let us not let this thread geet side tracked.
That is simply incorrect. Nowhere in the theory or in the texbooks which define and describe the theory is any mention made as to the nature of the designer.
The judge who supported the ban on ID in classrooms justified his rulling on the basis that ID was cretionism in sheeps clothing. But there is no specification and no description in the texts about ID or by the proponents of ID about the nature of the designer other than its existance. If you believe otherwise then your understanding of ID is incorrect. All you need to do to verify this is to read those texts which define and outline the theory such as Darwin's Black Box.
And there actually is a theory and that theory states that life on Earth is best explained by their being an “intelligent designer” that influences or controls, at least to some extent, how life on Earth has originated or developed. Intelligent design does not try to to explain or identify what the agent of creation. Some people confuse it with Christianity because most of the proponents ofthe theory are Christians. Much of the information offered as evidence used to support ID focuses on the concept of irreducible complexity. And no, this is not mere speculation. It’s a valid theory whose postulates are (1) organisms which show irreducible complexity must have a designer and (2) life on Earth does show irreducible complexity. The evidence (defined as information given in support of a theory is what has been offered as examples of irriducible complexity. No, there hasn't been any evidence offered which hasn't been explained otherwise.
As for myself, don't accelt ID. But I know that its quite wrong to assert that its mere speculation. To do so is to confuse speculation with logical induction. I don’t support ID because ther haven’t produced any evidence of irreducible complexity yet that hasn't been explained in evolutionary terms. To debate whether this is a theory or speculation is to go outside the scope of the question since nobody here cares whether its theory or speculation. I mentioned it only to be complete in my response.
However if you truly care about whether its a theory or mere speculation then I suggest that you start a thread and pose the question for others to respond to. I myself have no interest in demonstrating that its theory rather than speculation. In fact I wouldn't want to try that with any theory.
While it's true that no mention of who the designer is may not be specifically mentioned in the "theory" or in the books promoting that particular agenda is, and always has been, there:
Dembski - "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God".
Or you could try reading this.
False, as shown.But there is no specification and no description in the texts about ID or by the proponents of ID about the nature of the designer other than its existance. If you believe otherwise then your understanding of ID is incorrect.
Ah, the fraudulent "book". Why should I take any notice of that?All you need to do to verify this is to read those texts which define and outline the theory such as Darwin's Black Box.
That's not a theory, that's a claim. They have zero evidence to support it.And there actually is a theory and that theory states that life on Earth is best explained by their being an “intelligent designer” that influences or controls, at least to some extent, how life on Earth has originated or developed.
It’s a valid theory whose postulates are (1) organisms which show irreducible complexity must have a designer and (2) life on Earth does show irreducible complexity.
Yes, "irreducible complexity" essentially a claim that "I don't understand it, therefore it must be impossible". (Or, more specifically "we don't understand it NOW, therefore we can justifiably claim we never will, therefore it must have been designed"). Irreducible complexity (which has not yet been shown to exist) is not falsifiable, therefore it isn't science.
Incorrect. It has been shown to be mere speculation (with a large touch of wishful thinking, ignorance and deception).But I know that its quite wrong to assert that its mere speculation. To do so is to confuse speculation with logical induction.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 18th, 2013 at 05:43 AM.
Popper, you missed the memo, on this one. I.D. absolutely is the Abrahamic God.
It also is in no way theory, as it's unsupported speculation, distortion of actual observation and even, in many cases, dishonest interpretation.
It's probably the one heaviest complaint I have: When certain people, in an attempt to support a faith or belief, mick science and in so doing cause confusion among the general populace as to how science works and what is valid and what isn't.
ID might be an advanced alien race that had their fingers in the pie at some stage, though ID as a movement definitely is a fundamentalist Christian initiative. Thing is, IF there ever is found some evidence of an intelligence having had a hand in shaping life on this planet, it would be vastly more likely that an alien race would be the culprits. We are not that far from being able to do as much ourselves, except for quick interstellar travel.
Another thing is that if that evidence exists, I believe the current scientific method would be able to detect it as is. Specifically looking for it creates all kinds of problems, not the least of which being that it simply moves the goalposts, as that designer must have come from somewhere as well. So in the end it still reduces to either life being able to fully originate and develop on its own or some form of supernatural God being needed. As it stands, there is very little reason to believe that a God is needed and every new bit of knowledge gained from science reduces that chance.
That is correct.
So what? Evolutionary biology also has something called a common ancestor. Without all those astrophysical connotations.Science calls it the Big Bang, it has more letters than "god" but far fewer nebulous (and societal) connotations.
And that would be the cause for its existence.It may exist as a concept to gain a name
No, I am not.Right. So you're hard at work studying physics in this attempt to understand the first cause?
I will give you that. Now that I consider how much you have to overcome, I'm no longer that amazed.Oops, fail again. Since religion pervades so much of life and society (and we have so many religions telling us how to behave, how to think, what reality is) don't you consider that we have a right to be highly concerned?
So you're either inarticulate or god only exists in comparison with something else?
And your point here would be...?So what? Evolutionary biology also has something called a common ancestor. Without all those astrophysical connotations.
Why use "god" rather than Big Bang, and then you could ignore the non-scientific ramifications? Or are you claiming that your "first cause" isn't scientific? In other words, contradicting your claim that it's not incompatible with scientific thinking?
Right. Because naming/conceptualising unicorns caused them to exist. Why didn't I think of that? I'd better be careful not think of the concept of "fribble" because when one pops up in my bedroom it'll cause havoc. Oops, too late.And that would be the cause for its existence.
Ah, so you were being less than honest when you said you wanted understand the "first cause"? Or maybe you just have some weird idea that you don't need to, that you can get scientific answers by not studying science?No, I am not.
Yeah well, thinking helps.I will give you that. Now that I consider how much you have to overcome, I'm no longer that amazed.
I'm confused. You just said that Unicorns do exist simply because they're named.
Rationalism can only come from irrationalism when you realize you were irrational, even then...
Why respect irrational people? I respect a person depending on who they are and if I get to know them, respect is earned not given. Be polite absolutely but respect someone for being irrational, well that depends on the circumstances on what they are being irrational about.
On evolutionary scale, first was irrational man, that belive thunder and raind come from angry gods, and rational man come second. So the rational man could not exist without irrational man, irrational man was first. Ststistics, there are more irrational people then rational ones right now, but with every decade passing by, are more and more rational people.
I say to respect people beliving in gods and irrational things like parrents, grandparrents, becouse withou irrational people you could not have rational ones. Is just natural evolution. Man was first irrational and then he become rational.
Yes and before the humans of today was Homo Erectus. He came first. Doesn't mean that I had to respect the views of Homo Erectus, though. I'd give him a hard time, too.
Firstly I want to thank Neverfly for his input there.
My claim was bold as to saying there is 'no eternity' and then asked how do I know that? I have elaborated based on what science knows at the moment, with me adding some mathematical principles into it as well which fits in with Quantum Fluctuations (probabilities). I don't for sure in the same way I can't empirically 'disprove god' which is why I said the words 'argument, theory, suggest, implies' that says that what we know suggests the notion is unlikely.
What I do know is what I expanded upon by explaining a few times in how the universe behaves in accordance to what we understand in that a divine eternity as faith claims with the knowledge we have seems highly implausible and unlikely. There is still a chance that it might exist in the same way god might, unicorns might, fairies might, mermaids might, but nothing in the sense that we understand and have evidence for (not much) presently and certainly say that because we don't yet know, doesn't mean it exists.
Harold if you understood the concepts I was describing you would see what I was saying, they do suggest that an eternity seems unlikely as to be not true at all, but thats what we know so far which I gained from the science I have learned. I make bold claims and I do back them up if you:
A: Read and replied to me with the bits you wanted me to expand upon.
B: Expanded on your claims against me so I could help out and clarify my points. I couldn't do that if you didn't reply to me.
Surely one argument to at least support the notion that eternity (endless time) doesn't exist is that the Big Bang happened, and, as far as we know, time started then.
If time started then it can't have "always" been.
Hawking: Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
Well, I certainly get the point about fairies, etc. as this point is made ad nauseum here daily. You could just as well make that point using Newtons gravitation, as this removed the explanation of angels beating their wings to drive planets around in their orbits. However, you seemed to think that quantum fluctuations and string theory have some bearing on whether the universe will last an eternity or not. I'd like to know what that connection is. I am not a cosmology buff, as you seem to be, so I need to be shown a source for how you derived these conclusions, and whether it is really accepted science, or just speculation. I did not find anything like that by searching the internet for quantum fluctuations. I do not trust your interpretation, as I do not think you have any actual training in physics.
If your conclusion rests to any great degree on string theory, I think you are full of stuff and nonsense. As I said, string theory has not achieved the status of a theory, and in fact is not even a single theory, but a set of them. It does not support the degree of certainty that you expressed.
Physicists seem comfortable with the universe coming from "nothing" at the moment, at least to some degree, but there is nothing definitive on that yet, nor on quantum fluctuations as the primary cause for our universe, though I like that idea for at least our "bubble'. I also like the idea of an eternity, but more for aesthetic reasons than anything else. The point is we just don't know yet one way or the other.
Thank you for replying at last.
Quantum Fluctuations are the changing of Quantum States in which position and momentum vary. Your body for instance is a very complex structure of arrangements of atoms which themselves sit there by the chance that created them. Quantum Fluctuations are believed to be the reason we see everything as it is today due to how the universe started which again ties in with the fact that it 'began', already implying no eternity to start with. The laws of interaction in quantum mechanics became what they are and are thus the reason matter behaves in a certain way, which has limit and degree, AND because the universe observantly has finite solutions to all the equations we have it means that eventually we will get repetitions also based on the fact matter can only be arranged a certain number of times. one example of this is if you put a number of particles into one corner of a set space, that is a state. In time the particles will return to the same state as they only have a finite number of states they can occupy.
Now lets firstly understand what eternity is, it is infinite. So saying a Googolplex for instance here means that this giant number is incredibly small in comparison. Now the arrangement of particles in your body, all the possible way to structure your molecules is approximately 10 to the 10 to the 70th power, in the same way the arrangement roulette wheel has 37.
A Googolplex is of the order 10 to the 10 to the 100th power, now seeing as your molecules can only be arranged into different forms of to the 70th power, after that number you will get repetitions in the same way you would get repetitions of a roulette wheel number 23 as the maximum possible number of occurrences has a maximum number of 37, for the atoms in your body that is 10^10^70th power, therefore at more and more arrangements you will get the same repetitions, this is a mathematical fact of probability. This is an impossibly large number and for this to occur you would need universes that were larger than 10^10^70th power meters wide to get repetitions just for you, for our universe to repeat you would need even larger sizes of a universe, or a universe having a big bang over and over that set many number of times.
Seeing as the universe is nowhere near that wide (from observations) we won't get repetitions but with enough time we will which means that if eternity DOES exist we will start to get the same systems repeating over and over and over again, this defies the divine eternity that is claimed, assuming the universe does continue into eternity which compared to a Googlplex is incredibly large. Even if we add multiple universes if they follow the same laws of physics they too will have another set of arrangements of matter. If we start the big bang again we would likely get another universe like ours but where Earth never came around because the fluctuations are random and determine what happens next, but with enough big bangs the same occurrences would happen again because like the particles in a corner there will only be so many configurations. Our universe's probability is incredibly unique, our existence very unlikely but not impossible or we wouldn't be here. These probabilities would occur at the same rate of occurance, say if our universe is one in a quintillion (probably much more than this) a quintillion big bangs and more would start to repeat this universe.
String theory comes in because it states multiple universes are actually higher dimensions - geometry, which themselves too depending on their laws also have a finite number of solutions which again suggests no divine eternity. String theory is also a possible solution to the problems with singularities we have (black holes AND big bangs) which will further explain what we know about multiple universes if they exist and our own universe.
I cannot explain in terms that are understandable without you having the knowledge and it isn't easy to comprehend. But from what science understands eternity seems implausible and divine eternity seemingly even more implausible. You seem to be arguing with semantics Harold and as Nevefly said; nitpicking and moving the goal posts.
Only from the observations we have made of the universe expanding and the particle horizon, which does suggest the universe was once upon a time a small small space which Hawking calls a D-1 dimensional with no time as we know it. Quantum Fluctuations are not the cause of the universe, this isn't what they are, they are responsible for systems to develop which is postulated to be one of the reasons we are here today in that that set Quantum fluctuations made what we observe today. Quantum fluctuations can say that a pot noodle can appear in a universe where humans never came into existence, very unlikely but not impossible. Arrangement of matter. Quantum fluctuations are not an easy concept to grasp and neither is quantum mechanics itself, it does seem logically contradicting but it is not.Physicists seem comfortable with the universe coming from "nothing" at the moment, at least to some degree, but there is nothing definitive on that yet, nor on quantum fluctuations as the primary cause for our universe, though I like that idea for at least our "bubble'. I also like the idea of an eternity, but more for aesthetic reasons than anything else. The point is we just don't know yet one way or the other.
Not forgetting finally that eternity itself, is a concept of dimension. Even though we have little knowledge to prove or disprove eternity, we have observations of how it began in that it did begin in other words there is no eternity because it already started. This is one theory and the big bang is the most accepted view on how our universe 'began', something that begun is not eternal. Hopefully in time if string theory is true we will have more answers. But currently, divine eternity seems unlikely.
Feel free to move the goal posts and nitpick again Harold if you wish. I have explained to the greatest degree possible with my understanding and within constraints of what scientific knowledge we already have, I understand that what I have said is extremely questionable and rightly so. There is the evidence there, if you want me to cite my claims please highlight and I will provide links. Cheers.
I am just partial to normal eternity in time and space. I agree that the big bang theory seems to point towards a beginning of all there is at t=0, but we can't see that far back yet with our current understanding. There are indeed a few theories around that do not hold the event at t=0 to be the beginning of all of time and space. Quantum fluctuations might have been the origin of the amount of energy we currently have in our universe, i.e. there are theories that postulate the actual amount of energy to be zero, with gravity being a form of negative energy. Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a framework and has its implications and in time we will see if our observations are correct. Time being 0 must have been the case because remember time is the 4th dimension in a framework of space and time, if the big bang did occur as models and evidence predict, then the universe was at a point where time could not exist as the space would not either, in essence the dimensions came into existence also. Eternity is a fabrication of a possible state of dimension so to therefore suggest no dimension of time implies no eternity, that is the logical statement and one currently accepted as true.
The problem with the other theories when it comes to 'before' the big bang is that before implies the 4th dimension again, if the universe was impossibly small and had no time there could be no 'before'. String theory tries to resolve these problems and they are as of yet theoretical and our ways to empirically test it do not exist as we need more complex technology to do so. Quantum Fluctuation and problems such as zero-energy can be resolved with string theory, but even string theory has its upper final dimensions where solutions end the same as the probabilities of Quantum fluctuations do, that is my argument regarding string theory and eternity which all finally as I said based on what we know in both evidence and theory implies no eternity, evidence may come up to the contrary but for now until it does I am going to accept that eternity seems implausible as to unlikely, scientifically and objectively.
The problem is this 'infinite' that turns up in both QT and GR, we need a solution to singularities, if we find it - string theory being a possible candidate it will shine light and answer more questions, and if we take the pattern science is giving in making religious claims seem more and more unlikely with increasing amount of scientific understanding, it seems that the next step will indeed make the claims even more ridiculous, particularly divine eternity and indeed god itself, if 'it' so can be called 'it'.
I don't think I moved any goalpost, as my position is essentially the same as I originally stated. You have failed to provide what I asked for, which is a credible and qualified source that supports your statements about eternity and its linkage to quantum fluctuation and/or string theory. Also, I repeat that string theory is not sufficiently mature for you to make any unqualified claims about eternity based upon it.
It is, it suggests certain realities in which it can describe what we call 'eternity' based on what string theory postulates, all you need is an objective mind to consider it, the mathematics involved with probability and the physics of how the universe works. String theory is accepted as a creation of theoretical physics which is a very reputable profession and has had a tremendous amount of work on it by very educated and experienced professors, I offered it as one solution, I also offered others, such as Hawking-Hartle State of the D-1 Dimensional space without time, the big crunch/big bang repetition theory.
As for Quantum Fluctuations it states the energy state of the universe giving it the information it has which means it will create a set number of probabilities based on the information contained in the system that is the universe and the laws of physics we have. Some lecturers at Nottingham University explain this simply in this video in Googolplex:
Googol and Googolplex - Numberphile - YouTube!
It is a mathematical concept and it is all there black and white in Quantum Mechanics and Probability Theory that is is exactly what would happen if the universe we large enough on space and time scales and had the right amount of energy, seeing as the Big bang/big crunch theory offers that each universe may not be this large in space or long in duration as time yet with enough repetitions of big bangs/crunches the system would repeat, thus if true refuting divine eternity.
So here is the result:
If the Hartle-Hawking theory is true = No eternity
If the Big Bang/Crunch repetition is true = No eternity
If String theory is true = No eternity
All point to the same result and these are the most we have, that is enough for me until another theory comes along, the same goes for evolution theory, quantum mechanics, psychology etc. I accept what current science suggests with the observations we have and the implications of the theory predict. That is all.
Enough about me now, what are you offering in return to all of this then Harold? Are you holding that there is eternity and hiding behind what we don't know for sure? Or do you have no stance and are you challenging me for the sake of challenging me, nitpicking as described by Neverfly and to which I agree with?
On a personal note I think you have an agenda with me, you don't like my style and how I question things and you don't like my anti-non rational stance that people hold on the universe, (god, afterlife, heaven etc).
I also sensed a pissy attitude in this post:
You will likely hide behind this being a joke which is what I was fine with I actually enjoyed the laugh that came with it, but if it is part of this anti-quantime agenda that you keep bringing up with because of your own personal issue up your ass with me then I do have a problem with this, your argument has been contested by other members as well.God is an entity sometimes taking the form of an invisible elf or flying spaghetti monster, who dominates the thoughts of certain atheists, forcing them to start new threads about him on TheScienceForum every couple or three days.
I can put this down to misunderstandings by you and perhaps a bit of ambiguity on my part but on the whole I have challenged you to reply to me before and have replied numerous times to you clarifying my point and you have ignored and taken an ad hominem stance on me numerous times. It's getting annoying. I haven't failed to provide anything, you have failed to understand.
Last edited by Quantime; January 18th, 2013 at 06:50 PM. Reason: Spelling, adding content
What I am offering is a suggestion to stick to solid science fact, and not to go off on ridiculous fanciful speculations. Sorry, but I don't have any ridiculous fanciful speculations to offer instead.
I have an agenda with people who pretend to have knowledge which they do not possess.On a personal note I think you have an agenda with me, you don't like my style and how I question things and you don't like my anti-non rational stance that people hold on the universe, (god, afterlife, heaven etc).
Well, now with that video you posted, I know what a googolplex is. You still haven't supported your assertions about eternity. Show me a video with the word "eternity" in it.I also sensed a pissy attitude in this post:
You will likely hide behind this being a joke which is what I was fine with I actually enjoyed the laugh that came with it, but if it is part of this anti-quantime agenda that you keep bringing up with because of your own personal issue up your ass with me then I do have a problem with this, your argument has been contested by other members as well.God is an entity sometimes taking the form of an invisible elf or flying spaghetti monster, who dominates the thoughts of certain atheists, forcing them to start new threads about him on TheScienceForum every couple or three days.
I can put this down to misunderstandings by you and perhaps a bit of ambiguity on my part but on the whole I have challenged you to reply to me before and have replied numerous times to you clarifying my point and you have ignored and taken an ad hominem stance on me numerous times. It's getting annoying. I haven't failed to provide anything, you have failed to understand.
Earlier you accused me of trolling, which I find ironic. This thread you started looks like a troll to me. You have no intention of seriously considering any concept of God, so why post the thread. You want people to propose their notion of God so you can start an argument about it. Basically it looks to me like a game of whack-a-mole.
Quantime, before you respond to the above, you might consider Harolds words. I post this because I was defending you from Harold- so I think it might make you shake your head and go, "Wait, what?"
The point is valid:
It does look like Whack a Mole.
The point is valid:
Just because Harold doesn't want to debate the religion thing in this sense, doesn't mean others don't want to and if he dislikes the debate- stay out of it. He may have seen it all before- doesn't mean everyone else has seen it all before. It comes up as a google hit for someone else as something new.
You're over-doing it and he's over-reacting to it and it makes sense you're going to bounce right off of each other.
Yes! That is precisely the point. In fact if it was argued that this universe was designed then such a designer may also have been an advanced alien race. Alan Guth and Ed Farhi theoreized that it might be possibile to create a universe from our own universe. Such a universe would be called a child universe. But it wouldn't require an omnipotent being to do so.
Speaking about an alien race creating life on Earth -That was precisely the premise of the movie Prometheus. Cool movie. It was the sequel to Alien.
Carl Sagan aluded to it in his book, "Contact" where the good doctor discovered "a perfect circle" written into the fundamentals of the universe.Yes! That is precisely the point. In fact if it was argued that this universe was designed then such a designer may also have been an advanced alien race. Alan Guth and Ed Farhi theoreized that it might be possibile to create a universe from our own universe. Such a universe would be called a child universe. But it wouldn't require an omnipotent being to do so.
Speaking about an alien race creating life on Earth -That was precisely the premise of the movie Prometheus. Cool movie. It was the sequel to Alien.
The movie is one of my very favourites and I can't believe now that I never read the book. From this single mention of "a perfect circle" (name of a brilliant band as well), I will soon rectify that oversight.Carl Sagan aluded to it in his book, "Contact" where the good doctor discovered "a perfect circle" written into the fundamentals of the universe.Yes! That is precisely the point. In fact if it was argued that this universe was designed then such a designer may also have been an advanced alien race. Alan Guth and Ed Farhi theoreized that it might be possibile to create a universe from our own universe. Such a universe would be called a child universe. But it wouldn't require an omnipotent being to do so.
Speaking about an alien race creating life on Earth -That was precisely the premise of the movie Prometheus. Cool movie. It was the sequel to Alien.
The point about intelligent design is that even though an alien race or even a vastly superior singular alien being could have created our universe, it would be disingenuous to search for it specifically for the reasons stated. Things like irreducible complexity halters scientific advancement instead of serving it.
As usual, the movie does the book no justice.
Don't be such a Tool. Keenan has nothing to do with Astronomy.
In the case of Unicorns, I know they exist in legend, and the Wikipedia. I don't know which came first, the name or the animal. Myths and stories are an important part of culture, they do exist.I'm confused. You just said that Unicorns do exist simply because they're named.
As for the above statement.
If I was to create a concept for the sole purpose of giving it a name. It would exist as a sort of name concept, its usefulness may be to prove a point with little or no influence beyond that.
Consider that "Energy" is a derived quantity. Before the middle of eighteen hundreds the word did not exist (at least not in the context that we know it now ) The word was used to help describe an observed phenomena of nature (hence the first law of thermodynamics) Before that things ran on "force" the way they still do. someone could argued that energy does not exist, and only force is real.
For the purposes of this discussion I am taking the position that everything noticeable or conceivable has an existence of some sort. That it would be more productive to sort out in what ways these things exist than to deny their existence. If something is found to be just a product of ones imagination, I would like to think that a scientist would find that in itself curious. How is it that someone came to imagine this? Maybe there is a pattern here? Maybe some underlying principle? A dogmatist would readily deny it because it does not fit their model of reality or agree with their system of proofs.
Returning to the subject of this thread. The notion of god, which may be only some nebulous thought form with no real existence can still do some scary righteous things in the world at large. To me, that alone is tangible evidence for its existence. while Unicorns only entertain children.
Good points- I see what you mean. Although I will say there is a fine line between something existing and the effect that the belief in the existence of something will have.
Yes. The technical way of expressing is: they don't, in fact, exist.
The usual way is that someone comes across an idea/ object/ feeling/ whatever and gives it name for identification. It's rare that anyone says "Hey I've just thought of a new name, what can I attach it to?".I don't know which came first, the name or the animal.
Yes, myths exist.Myths and stories are an important part of culture, they do exist.
Which isn't how it happened.If I was to create a concept for the sole purpose of giving it a name.
Whatever that means.It would exist as a sort of name concept
In other words according a concept the same standard of reality as you would a rock. I.e. not the actual truth. Okay, now I know where you're coming from - La La Land.For the purposes of this discussion I am taking the position that everything noticeable or conceivable has an existence of some sort.
Here's a point for you to ponder on: is it the notion of god that does "scary righteous" things in this world, or is what people do in the name of that notion?The notion of god, which may be only some nebulous thought form with no real existence can still do some scary righteous things in the world at large. To me, that alone is tangible evidence for its existence. while Unicorns only entertain children.
Dywyddyr, I disagree- though I may have missed his point completely...
The way I read it was that the belief in something (that doesn't exist) can have real world effects that do exist.
That's exactly what I suggested in my final sentence: is it the notion of god that does "scary righteous" things in this world, or is what people do in the name of that notion?
I.e. the "effects" are what people do in the name of that belief - not what the "object" of the belief itself does, nor what the belief itself does.
If I kill in the name Wibble the Overlord Hamster how many people do I have to murder before Wibble achieves reality?
The answer is: no matter how many deaths occur, Wibble will never become real. But the effects of my belief, perpetrated by me, will always be real
God is beyond science.If it is defined then GOD must be under science because the tools we will use to define GOD will only the science.Thus,the contradiction arises with the statement "God is beyond science".
I have, I applied probability theory and quantum mechanics to the concept of eternity which make eternity, specifically divine eternity unlikely. Coupled with explaining how accepted theories such as the big bang imply no eternity.What I am offering is a suggestion to stick to solid science fact, and not to go off on ridiculous fanciful speculations. Sorry, but I don't have any ridiculous fanciful speculations to offer instead.
I don't lie, I like to think I am knowledgeable and often people on this forum agree that I am and that if I do state something I back it up. Which I have and I am coming to understand that perhaps it will take time to consider all the information I have given you and to understand it to see where an eternity seems unlikely. I have been perhaps over-doing it as Neverfly stated, but I have to overdo it because these aren't easy concepts to comprehend. If someone stated evolution is true and someone had never heard of it, it would take time to convince them and would be overwhelming, even if the evidence was right there.I have an agenda with people who pretend to have knowledge which they do not possess.
I am trying to meet a middle ground but it seems an equal amount of stubbornness is present so this is me removing this stubbornness to clarify any ambiguity in my statements as best as I can, what I have offered is all that I can offer. I know that from your own understanding you will likely reach a conclusion different to mine, I can't change that but please don't accuse me of not knowing something or claiming false knowledge because you do not understand it, that isn't fair.
I understand that if I am wrong I hope to be corrected on the issues I am wrong. I have no agenda of pretending to know things I don't, if I don't and I am wrong and someone informs me I am, I correct myself accordingly. I have no agenda, that is another accusation against me by you.
I can't show you an atom if you want me to show it to you either. The video was to explain the Quantum Fluctuations and arrangement of probabilities in that if the big-bang/big crunch event continues to occur then it will repeat the same occurrences based on QT and probability theory, thus making eternity such as heaven and hell, or perhaps anything a human can conceive as eternity in any sense, unlikely based on the framework of what we know. This might change with more knowledge.Well, now with that video you posted, I know what a googolplex is. You still haven't supported your assertions about eternity. Show me a video with the word "eternity" in it.
I do actually have intention of considering god in a sense that is understandable which is why I am asking for a definition of God. My post of this thread was genuine and have been reading and been VERY interested in others responses as to what 'God' is, I am using this information to gain a better understanding on what god actually is to different people, atheist and theist. I am curious of this question because of the views I had learned from the misconception of atheists/theists threads. I am open minded, again this was an ad hominem accusation against me, an accusation which was again not justified and seems to be coming from personal grounds on your own part as I cannot see other than misunderstanding how it can come from anywhere else but from an emotional viewpoint.Earlier you accused me of trolling, which I find ironic. This thread you started looks like a troll to me. You have no intention of seriously considering any concept of God, so why post the thread. You want people to propose their notion of God so you can start an argument about it. Basically it looks to me like a game of whack-a-mole.
You're assumption couldn't be any more wrong, I enjoy debate and love handling peoples views intensely, that passion is not in malice even if you accuse that it is as often as you do.
I have considered Neverflys opinion that we are bouncing off each other but I can't help the feeling that what you are doing is coming across with this personal 'righteous' agenda of yours coupled with your making accusations of picking fights, falsifying knowledge and trolling which again are completely unfair and unjustified.
EDIT: January 20th. After a good nights sleep and a time to cool off I'm going to leave this conversation off on a compromise note in that communication between myself and Harold isn't functioning as well as it perhaps might be in other circumstances, some of Harolds points are perhaps justified more so than I am willing to admit as are mine. We seem to have both missed them and I want to offer a stalemate to this discussion. no bad feelings Harold.
Last edited by Quantime; January 20th, 2013 at 11:35 AM.
Which is some sort of definition, albeit not tremendously helpful.
It could lead to certain lines of questioning though.
Er, only if that definition includes scientifically-testable "parts".If it is defined then GOD must be under science because the tools we will use to define GOD will only the science.
For example a poem can be defined, but you tend, generally, not to use science to see if that definition works, nor if the poem is valid as a poem.
If God is beyond science, then he is beyond man and basically irrelevant.
I agree from your statement.There must relationship exist between science and God because God exist within us which is a causes of alive body.I think"God is science and science is God".Just observe the nature!,very systematise,this give the appearance of alive nature,not dead.
Isn't this reversing your earlier position?
That's an unevidenced assumption.because God exist within us which is a causes of alive body
So you ARE reversing your position.I think"God is science and science is God".
Thanks for the insight and responses everyone, I have my question answered and will be reveiwing these answers then will share my thoughts here with you soon.
The insinuation that faith cannot change is the most absurd and cynical statement I've ever heard you make. Faith is always evolving, from shephard's claims of a personal deity to Pantheism. Faith is evolving along with science, more and more people decide Abrahamic Gods are illogical as time progresses. I do not believe in a deity, though I cannot, through any means of science or logic, disprove the existence of a divine creator of the Universe.
No, he first stated there was a relationship between the two, and the relationship is that they are one in the same thing. Though I disagree with him, there are no contradictions within your quotations.Isn't this reversing your earlier position?
That's an unevidenced assumption.because God exist within us which is a causes of alive body
So you ARE reversing your position.I think"God is science and science is God".
Um, that's not an evolution of faith so much as a dissolution.
It is an evolution, the gradual development from Abrahamic beliefs to less personal deities. If you look at an earlier sentence in the post that you quoted, you will see clearly my mentioning of Abrahamic beliefs to pantheistic beliefs.Um, that's not an evolution of faith so much as a dissolution.
Please try to keep up:
Post #70
If god is "beyond" science then that implies that science can't reach him, therefore can't do anything about it. Hence no relationship.
Post #74
If there's any "relationship" there must be some sort of interaction - therefore science CAN address the question.
So it's evolving itself into extinction?
Evolving itself into a different manifestation. Abrahamic beliefs are changing into beliefs that are more difficult to be scrutinized by science. Faith, therefore, is not becoming extinct, but only Abrahamic beliefs.So it's evolving itself into extinction?
My intellect is also beyond a termites, does this mean that I don't have a relationship with said termite? If a deity created the physical laws required to create the universe, laws observed by science, then there is a relationship even if our science currently cannot grasp a definitive answer on the concept of the divine.Please try to keep up:
Post #70
If god is "beyond" science then that implies that science can't reach him, therefore can't do anything about it. Hence no relationship.
Post #74
If there's any "relationship" there must be some sort of interaction - therefore science CAN address the question.
Ah right. First you specify Abrahamic beliefs and now you switch to general faith.
Are the beliefs changing or are the justifications? The belief in god remains from the start...
Note that you had to limit your "beyondness" to intellect alone. The fact that we do have a relationship is what prevents us being completely "beyond".
If god is not accessible by science (e.g. beyond) then, as far as science is concerned, he's a meaningless concept - therefore no relationship. You cannot have a relationship with something you can't interact with in any way.If a deity created the physical laws required to create the universe, laws observed by science, then there is a relationship even if our science currently cannot grasp a definitive answer on the concept of the divine.
Any "relationship" must therefore be assumed, and/ or taken on faith, as must god himself.
I limited my example to intellect to make a more coherent point. If a deity exists beyond the realms of science, it has interacted with us in a one-way manner, therefore it is a relationship. Modern science theories are also subjective in terms of their relationship with the possibilities of divine interaction. I used Abrahamic beliefs as an example, my original quote involved my arguing that faith changes. Atheism is also assumed, and/ or taken on faith, as there's not convincing evidence concluding the non-existence of a deity, therefore the non-existence of God must also be assumed. If God interacted in any way with the physical laws of our universe, then there is a relationship, but science cannot currently observe it.Ah right. First you specify Abrahamic beliefs and now you switch to general faith.
Are the beliefs changing or are the justifications? The belief in god remains from the start...
Note that you had to limit your "beyondness" to intellect alone. The fact that we do have a relationship is what prevents us being completely "beyond".
If god is not accessible by science (e.g. beyond) then, as far as science is concerned, he's a meaningless concept - therefore no relationship. You cannot have a relationship with something you can't interact with in any way.If a deity created the physical laws required to create the universe, laws observed by science, then there is a relationship even if our science currently cannot grasp a definitive answer on the concept of the divine.
Any "relationship" must therefore be assumed, and/ or taken on faith, as must god himself.
I'll repeat my statement: If god is not accessible by science (e.g. beyond) then, as far as science is concerned, he's a meaningless concept - therefore no relationship. Plus, given the fact that HE (sagarkaran) also stated "I think"God is science and science is God", pretty much means he regards science as accessible to science - a contradiction of his previous claim.
Subjective in what way?Modern science theories are also subjective in terms of their relationship with the possibilities of divine interaction.
This is incorrect in large.Atheism is also assumed, and/ or taken on faith
Unfortunately (for your point) that's not specifically what atheism claims.as there's not convincing evidence concluding the non-existence of a deity
Then, once again, the "relationship" must be assumed - you cannot claim that there IS a relationship if you can't actually show that there is one.If God interacted in any way with the physical laws of our universe, then there is a relationship, but science cannot currently observe it.
My point on atheism isn't incorrect, and you used no evidence or logic to refute it. Likewise you cannot claim there is no relationship if you can't actually show that there isn't one, therefore atheistic claims are assumptions. Atheism is the lack of belief in the divine, of course there's also branches within atheism that do incorporate theistic properties. My point on the subjectivity of modern theories as they pertain to divinity. One can interpret the Big Bang and conclude there is no need for divinity, or one could also conclude that because the Universe had a beginning a deity would be a prerequisite. If god created the physical laws, it is essentially science, though if science cannot touch on the subject of god, it is also beyond scientific observations and therefore also beyond our understanding of science.I'll repeat my statement: If god is not accessible by science (e.g. beyond) then, as far as science is concerned, he's a meaningless concept - therefore no relationship. Plus, given the fact that HE (sagarkaran) also stated "I think"God is science and science is God", pretty much means he regards science as accessible to science - a contradiction of his previous claim.
Subjective in what way?Modern science theories are also subjective in terms of their relationship with the possibilities of divine interaction.
This is incorrect in large.Atheism is also assumed, and/ or taken on faith
Unfortunately (for your point) that's not specifically what atheism claims.as there's not convincing evidence concluding the non-existence of a deity
Then, once again, the "relationship" must be assumed - you cannot claim that there IS a relationship if you can't actually show that there is one.If God interacted in any way with the physical laws of our universe, then there is a relationship, but science cannot currently observe it.
It is, actually.
That would be because I simply matched my bare statement to your initial one. I.e. I fail to see any requirement to provide evidence or logic to refute a claim that didn't use it in the first place.and you used no evidence or logic to refute it.
Hitchens: 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
Re-read my comment - "Then, once again, the "relationship" must be assumed - you cannot claim that there IS a relationship if you can't actually show that there is one", but, yes, if a relationship cannot be shown to actually exist then any such "relationship" is totally meaningless and may be regarded as non-existent for all practical purposes. There's no real difference between a relationship that doesn't exist and a relationship that cannot be shown to exist in any way.Likewise you cannot claim there is no relationship if you can't actually show that there isn't one
Ah, here we go: what "assumption" is involved there? None whatsoever.therefore atheistic claims are assumptions. Atheism is the lack of belief in the divine
And therefore NOT science.though if science cannot touch on the subject of god, it is also beyond scientific observations and therefore also beyond our understanding of science.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; January 20th, 2013 at 07:25 PM. Reason: I swear someone has a bag of typos that they scatter into my finished posts.
I agree with you totally. That is how things usually work. I was only responding to the challenging example you provided. "…It may exist as a concept to gain a name, …" And I agree with you that it is rare, but a what if situation was worth considering.
Neverfly: you read it correctly.That's exactly what I suggested in my final sentence: is it the notion of god that does "scary righteous" things in this world, or is what people do in the name of that notion?
I.e. the "effects" are what people do in the name of that belief - not what the "object" of the belief itself does, nor what the belief itself does.
If I kill in the name Wibble the Overlord Hamster how many people do I have to murder before Wibble achieves reality?
The answer is: no matter how many deaths occur, Wibble will never become real. But the effects of my belief, perpetrated by me, will always be real
And I do tend to think it is what people do. I'm not ready to accept an external agency, an internal one is far more likely. I am only suggesting that it has to be looked at rather than discarded as a no-thing.
Consider that Wibble has achieved reality through your killing spree. You have become the object that you worship.
Have to be careful of what kind of god you create.
Here you start to agree with me and then...
You accept the external agency.Consider that Wibble has achieved reality through your killing spree. You have become the object that you worship.
What I'm saying is that, rather than attempt to study god (or even accept that there could be any such thing) or any attributes of god, we should be studying the belief and the psychology of that belief in such.
it becomes hard to study a belief when denying the object of that belief, or the place the object holds in a belief system, or the properties that are being attributed to it.
Hogwash. A person that does not believe in such can still discuss the psychology of the belief quite well.
He just won't necessarily discuss the belief whole promoting it.
...Or is that promote the belief while discussing it?
Whatever.
of course I m reversing my position because I disagreed from my first statement after "kalster" said.
You persistently (deliberately?) keep misinterpreting what I have said.
Did you yourself not say "I'm not ready to accept an external agency"?
Why should I accept "the object of that belief" when there is no evidence for that object?
Not accepting is NOT the same as denying.
I beg to differ. It is exactly on balance of the evidence that I lost my faith. The contrary evidence, the sheer copious amounts of it, reduced the notion of an Abrahamic god to be on equal footing with Zeus. As to whether an advanced being/s was responsible for the creation of our universe, i.e. some form of deist stance, then I'd have to say I am agnostic towards that at most, though it is probably not true.
Basically, define your god and I'll tell you what I believe regarding him/her/it.
For the purposes of investigation, the evidence is that people believe it. You do not have to accept it as an article of your personal faith, but you have to recognize it as it is presented in order to gain some insight as to what it is.You persistently (deliberately?) keep misinterpreting what I have said.
Did you yourself not say "I'm not ready to accept an external agency"?
Why should I accept "the object of that belief" when there is no evidence for that object?
Not accepting is NOT the same as denying.
This smacks of sophistry.
In fact I don't, at all. All that is required is that I understand/ accept that people believe it.
The investigation is of the belief and how/ why it occurs.
Should THAT investigation then indicate that there is some external agency causing (or being at the root of) the belief THEN will be the time to accept that there is something other than the psychology of belief to look at.
I am not suggesting that one should believe in it, that would introduce a bias. There is also a denial bias (a belief to the contrary)Hogwash. A person that does not believe in such can still discuss the psychology of the belief quite well.
He just won't necessarily discuss the belief whole promoting it.
...Or is that promote the belief while discussing it?
Whatever.
| « What moments/things make you think of that God exists? | Some things just get real old real fast. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
32Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
