"So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. "
So, we looked at the universe and we described it and based on what we observed and noting how it behaved we assumed that gravity and the physical laws were somehow present and therefore we got a spontaneously created universe.
And you don't think that is circular???
You choose not to understand and you choose to deny. You hold fast to your belief and defend it with old fashioned religious fervor.
TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
Maybe in the same way God could not exist until we though him up.
One step for you, please continue
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
What science defines as empty space has mass. If you want to understand it better, you might also want to read up on quantum fluctuations, and virtual particles.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
An absurdly long thread on topics no one can truly understand by people who don't understand their own positions fully, yet want to convince the others and themselves that they have all the answer - all in an attempt to prove who is the most/least honest.
Only on the Campfire...
The simple truth of all the "atheist"/"believer" positions is that none of us TRULY know what is or is not out there. We believe we do, based upon whatever faith we hold dear, but none of us know.
If we were truly honest with ourselves and others, that is what we'd have to admit and be comfortable with as our basis.
In the end, honesty comes down to the individual regardless of "belief".
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
TF,
You began your post with not one, but two logical fallacies. First you presented an False dichotomy, presenting something from nothing, and your Creator as the only two options for the beginning of the universe. These are not the only two ideas currently floating around, so it possible both of these are wrong, and some other idea is correct. It's for this reason that even if Krauss's universe from nothing is dis-proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the correct answer is your God.
Next you committee the fallacy of equivocation. You claim the title is a lie, but Krauss clearly defines what, in scientific terms, he means by "nothing". It's very common for terms to have different meaning in science then they do in common everyday usage. Another example of this is the different definitions of the work "theory" that we've discussed before.
As for your discussion about the laws of gravity, again you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Our scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE, they are not PRESCRIPTIVE. Nobody passed a law in congress and said "this is how the universe shall act". Instead, Scientist observed the natural world and wrote laws that DESCRIBE what they observed. The universe does what it is going to do, we just have methods to describe it.
So we can rephrase your quote of Hawkings as "given our understanding of gravity",....
As for your grade school understanding of gravity, there is a lot more to it then that. As a couple of examples, gravity can act in strange way within a singularity, and gravity can produce negative energy. This negative energy from gravity, couples with a flat universe, is one of the necessary conditions for the current "universe from nothing" hypothesis to be mathematically plausible.
Next you strawman that "concepts" of distance and mass are required before the big bang, however a concept is just an abstract idea. The mass of empty space if real, regardless of whether we are here to conceptualize it or not.
As for energy, I guess you missed the part where gravity can create negative energy. What happens when you have the same amounts of both positive and negative energy in the universe? The result is a Universe with zero total energy. According to our current models, such a universe could be self creating, because it would be consistent with the principle of conservation of energy, since no energy is either created or destroyed. As I understand it, these are the condition leading to spontaneous creation discussed by Hawkins.
So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. These scientist are not proving the Bible with the Bible, they are supporting a current concept with past observations.
Really, you whole post if little more then one long argument from ignorance, which you wrap up with an argument from personal incredibility, and it the process you present zero evidence for your God.
You attack me instead of the idea and the content of the post. Typical of you. So many words. So little meaning.
Let me ask you. How did the universe come into being?
Seems like you are saying, well we don't know but that is here is not evidence of a Creator. Well, the universe is here, what is that evidence of?
The only comment I made about you personally was that you had a grade school understanding of gravity, which seems consistent with your previous post. Everything else was clearly directed at your argument.
As for how did the universe come into being, which is more dishonest, to say you don't know, or to claim you know with certainty, that which you have no evidence to support?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
What science defines as empty space has mass. If you want to understand it better, you might also want to read up on quantum fluctuations, and virtual particles.
"What science defines as empty space has mass."
Is that right?
OK, so where did the empty space come from and why does it have mass. This is certainly not "nothing."
I get it, "science" is defining "nothing" as "something" so we can show the universe came from "nothing."
If that is so, it is remarkably "circular."
TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
The issue is not the lack of evidence. The issuse is there is no is evidence they will accept. If the evidence points to intelligence, it will be rejected.
One could satirize the atheist's rejection of evidence of an eternal Logos could be demonstrated by the following:
Atheist, "I see no evidence for the number 4."
Reasoning, "It appears that 3 + 1 = 4"
Atheist, "You simpleton, you are delusional. You have not provided any evidence for the number 4."
We have plenty of evidence for the number 4, it is a label we've attached to a certain quantity. We can demonstrate 3+1=4, by placing 3 objects on a table, then placing one more of the same object with that group, demonstrating the concept of 4. Unlike your God, 4 can be demonstrated.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
Maybe in the same way God could not exist until we though him up.
From an evolutionary view, is it also reasonable to think that God existed "before" man was capable of thinking him up?
I have posted before the evidence of a creator. Some of you have dismissed that evidence and ask for proof. Think about that for a moment. Dismissing evidence. Anyway, let’s go on.
OK, then let’s go back to the beginning. Did “something come from nothing” or is there logic to believing a “creator” made the heavens and the earth?
Magic Larry is dismissed for the many reasons, including the fact the the title of his book is a misleading lie.
So. what about Hawking and Mlodinow who argue against the reality of God and against the idea that God is necessary for the universe to exist?
As I have said, Hawking dismisses the idea of god and claims he can produce the universe given the law of gravity. Wait a minute, the law of gravity has to exist BEFORE the universe comes into existence?
The law of gravity, in simple terms, says that “every point of mass attracts every other single point of mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.” Further, the force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.” This has to be there first.
So, given that there is the concept of mass and given that there is a concept of distance and given that there is this energy THEN we can start creating.
So, this stuff and relationship has to EXIST before the universe can begin.
Now, what did Hawking say about this? Look at this:
“...as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists. why we exist.”
Here is more:
“...According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Thier creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universe arise naturally from physical law.”
So, it goes like this: You first assume physical laws and relationship about mass, that gives rise to Spontaneous Creation which yields the Universes which arise naturally from physical laws.”
Get it? Physical Laws yield Spontanous Creation which yields Universe which arise from Physical Laws.
So, this is circular reasoning. Further it all begins with a HUGE and UNSUBSTANTIATED assumption regarding the pre-existence of the law of gravity and the concept of distance.
Folks, most of you can see how silly this sounds. But to the one grasping for any idea that can preclude a “creator” these flaws are easily overlooked and discarded.
My view, based on the evidence? Magic Larry and Hawking are less than honest. They are both selling books and preying on weak minds and itching ears.
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
btw, not only the concepts of mass and distance and "force" presumed. Do you think Hawking presumed time as well?
TF,
You began your post with not one, but two logical fallacies. First you presented an False dichotomy, presenting something from nothing, and your Creator as the only two options for the beginning of the universe. These are not the only two ideas currently floating around, so it possible both of these are wrong, and some other idea is correct. It's for this reason that even if Krauss's universe from nothing is dis-proven, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the correct answer is your God.
Next you committee the fallacy of equivocation. You claim the title is a lie, but Krauss clearly defines what, in scientific terms, he means by "nothing". It's very common for terms to have different meaning in science then they do in common everyday usage. Another example of this is the different definitions of the work "theory" that we've discussed before.
As for your discussion about the laws of gravity, again you don't understand basic scientific concepts. Our scientific laws are DESCRIPTIVE, they are not PRESCRIPTIVE. Nobody passed a law in congress and said "this is how the universe shall act". Instead, Scientist observed the natural world and wrote laws that DESCRIBE what they observed. The universe does what it is going to do, we just have methods to describe it.
So we can rephrase your quote of Hawkings as "given our understanding of gravity",....
As for your grade school understanding of gravity, there is a lot more to it then that. As a couple of examples, gravity can act in strange way within a singularity, and gravity can produce negative energy. This negative energy from gravity, couples with a flat universe, is one of the necessary conditions for the current "universe from nothing" hypothesis to be mathematically plausible.
Next you strawman that "concepts" of distance and mass are required before the big bang, however a concept is just an abstract idea. The mass of empty space if real, regardless of whether we are here to conceptualize it or not.
As for energy, I guess you missed the part where gravity can create negative energy. What happens when you have the same amounts of both positive and negative energy in the universe? The result is a Universe with zero total energy. According to our current models, such a universe could be self creating, because it would be consistent with the principle of conservation of energy, since no energy is either created or destroyed. As I understand it, these are the condition leading to spontaneous creation discussed by Hawkins.
So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. These scientist are not proving the Bible with the Bible, they are supporting a current concept with past observations.
Really, you whole post if little more then one long argument from ignorance, which you wrap up with an argument from personal incredibility, and it the process you present zero evidence for your God.
You attack me instead of the idea and the content of the post. Typical of you. So many words. So little meaning.
Let me ask you. How did the universe come into being?
Seems like you are saying, well we don't know but that is here is not evidence of a Creator. Well, the universe is here, what is that evidence of?
The only comment I made about you personally was that you had a grade school understanding of gravity, which seems consistent with your previous post. Everything else was clearly directed at your argument.
As for how did the universe come into being, which is more dishonest, to say you don't know, or to claim you know with certainty, that which you have no evidence to support?
Do you mean that you do not know how the universe came into existence but there is no evidence to support the idea of a creator?
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
Nice assertions, but that's all they are. This kind of goes back to my earlier reply to Gus, I think it was in the Pope thread, how the purpose of such responses such as the above are to squash inquiry.
As for the basic concept typically behind the "eternal God", that he's eternal because everything else requires a creator, it's just a case of special pleading.
TF, it's Labor Day weekend. I think you need another beer so we can hear your best arguments. Heck, I'd buy you one, but I don't think you are anywhere around here.
Considering all the abuse I've give you, I think you've earned it!!
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
edit to add: But, you believe what you choose to believe. Believe in a Creator or believe in equations. You will choose won't you.
If gravity were only an equation, the basic physical Universe, as we know it, would be a strangely different.
Gravity may well be, by another name, God.
Seems that according to Hawking, gravity did not exist before the Spontaneous Creation. How could a relationship between mass exist before the mass existed. It could not be defined until after mass was created.
Nope, it is still circular.
Maybe in the same way God could not exist until we though him up.
From an evolutionary view, is it also reasonable to think that God existed "before" man was capable of thinking him up?
Depends.
If the thing we now now call gravity is God, yes.
If God is the supernatual entities with magical powers that can be petitioned by us in hopes of changing fates we want to avoid, no.
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
The question is, for lack of a better phrase, wrong-headed.
The reason. The question could be phrased, "You believe a Creator (God) created you. Who created the Creator (God)?
If the above is a legitimate question, the question could also be rephrased. "You believe that the universe created you. Who created the universe?"
The question becomes a circular argument (or more apply put) an "I-got-you" question for those who do not want to believe in a Creator who has always been. Yet many of the same people are perfectly willing to accept that whatever material it was that created our universe...and us...has always been.
The presumption of a who prejudices the question. A more neutral way to ask it would be "how did the Universe/Creator come into existence", since it does not presuppose an intelligent agency.
As for the empty space and resulting mass behind the universe from nothing, nothing requires me to believe it existed in that preexisting state for all of eternity. When you think about it, if empty space is unstable, that idea would be inconsistent with the principles behind the Universe from Nothing. At this point, it appears that is another question to be studies by science.
As for the Theist claim that God always existed, it's just another undemonstrated assertion.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/05/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
"So are you saying that God is an obligant symbiont? First I've heard of an Omnipotent being as such."
There was no logical way to assume your question from my post.
A part of my job was giving depositions for the Company I worked for, so I have a built in aversion to folks "putting words in my mouth." I was schooled by some really good lawyers.
But I'll address your point:
I don't believe the Creator of all there is NEEDS anything from one of His critters.
I'm convinced that He created us with a direct link to the part of Him we can communicate with. That's not ALL of Him, it's just the part we can access.
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
Ah yes, one of the mysteries that our simple minds cannot grasp.
His ways are above our ways and there are some concepts and ideas that we on earth cannot comprehend. It would be foolish to think that mere man could grasp the fullness and depth of God.
God is eternal. He always was and will always be. He is as Plato might say, the "Prime Mover."
Sorry if that is not sufficient, it is the best I can do.
If you can make the hypothesis that God has always existed, why can't someone else hypothesize that gravity has always existed?
Fair question, and I thank you for what seems to be an offer of friendly discourse. Please allow me to answer this way. One can offer evidence for both hypothecies. In the end, one chooses what she/he believes or accepts.
I would, if I may, like to suggest, in the spirit of friendly discorse, that when it comes to the subject of gravity, we have evidence of what it does...however, do you know of any evidence of what it is?
I guess you haven't' been paying attention to the scientific community, and the recent evidence for this little thing called the Higgs Boson.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
You have not "searched" for God in the only place He can be.
Your studies of various religions was an exercise in futility if your true aim was to find God.
So are you saying that God is an obligant symbiont? First I've heard of an Omnipotent being as such.
Curdog, lets consider what you are saying.
If God can only exist within a person, he is not omnipresent, nor can he exist outside space and time. Since by your definition he cannot reside outside space and time, you've disqualified him as the first cause.
There is a huge difference between WHERE God CAN be....... and the only place He can be FOUND.
He IS everywhere.
But one can only "find" Him inside one's self.
He can only respond to an open mind. Not because of any limitation on His part... but because of OUR limitations.
He can't be comprehended...He can be apprehended.
But only when one has enough humility to open his mind to the possibility.
Your demands for evidence are similar to a flea demanding that the elephant reveal himself, when he has spent his entire life living on that elephant.
Again, you use a false analogy. The flee experiences the elephant every day, just like we experience the earth every day. I know you won't like this example, but it's more like me asking the magic leprechaun who lives in the tree in my back yard to reveal himself to me.
As for an open mind, one should not open their mind so far that it falls out of their skull.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
"So there is nothing circular about this logic. We observed the universe, we described what we observed and those observations are consistent with spontaneously created universe. "
So, we looked at the universe and we described it and based on what we observed and noting how it behaved we assumed that gravity and the physical laws were somehow present and therefore we got a spontaneously created universe.
And you don't think that is circular???
You choose not to understand and you choose to deny. You hold fast to your belief and defend it with old fashioned religious fervor.
TF
That is the current evidence we have.
Do you have evidence to dispute it?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Still remains the question of where your Creator was sourced from. No?
Steelhead asked this question earlier but I did not see where any theist had come forth with any plausible response.
The question is, for lack of a better phrase, wrong-headed.
The reason. The question could be phrased, "You believe a Creator (God) created you. Who created the Creator (God)?
If the above is a legitimate question, the question could also be rephrased. "You believe that the universe created you. Who created the universe?"
The question becomes a circular argument (or more apply put) an "I-got-you" question for those who do not want to believe in a Creator who has always been. Yet many of the same people are perfectly willing to accept that whatever material it was that created our universe...and us...has always been.
The presumption of a who prejudices the question. A more neutral way to ask it would be "how did the Universe/Creator come into existence", since it does not presuppose an intelligent agency.
As for the empty space and resulting mass behind the universe from nothing, nothing requires me to believe it existed in that preexisting state for all of eternity. When you think about it, if empty space is unstable, that idea would be inconsistent with the principles behind the Universe from Nothing. At this point, it appears that is another question to be studies by science.
As for the Theist claim that God always existed, it's just another undemonstrated assertion.
As for the atheist supposition that empty space is unstable, it is just another undemonstrated assertion.
AS, in the interest of enjoying the Holiday Weekend, please allow me to interject an attempt at humor into the last part of your statement..."it appears that is another question to be studied by science."
To quote one of our most infamous presidents, "That depends on what your definition of is...is.
I do sincerely wish for everyone who has labored on the topic, a most enjoyable and satisfying holiday.
I personally feel the need to disengage and enjoy my family.
