|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
Equating God with some equations?
Not quite the same.
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 Equivocation is a common fallacy for those who are not scientifically literate. The rest I've already explained to you.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
AS posted:
"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? Well, at least we agree that it is circular. Without God, it may be the best you have.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
All,
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? I already explained a false dichotomy to you. For a long time we didn't know what caused lightning. That did not justify a belief that "God did it". You could swat down a dozen scientific idea's on how the Universe came into being, and you would still not have provided any evidence for your God, just evidence against those specific wrong idea's.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
The evidence leads me to believe in a Creator.
TF
Well and good. 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. All the best to you and yours, GB GB, go grill yourself a big fat steak. As I've mentioned before, at this point Krauss's idea is a hypothesis, not a theory, If we'd demonstrated all the various points we'd be discussing the Theory of a Universe from Nothing, however, at this point we are not.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
AS posted:
"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? Well, at least we agree that it is circular. Without God, it may be the best you have. I did not agree the scientific position is circular. Drawing from observation is not the same as drawing from the same book that's been edited, redacted, and sanitized for 25 centuries to prove itself.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
AS posted:
"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? Well, at least we agree that it is circular. Without God, it may be the best you have. I did not agree the scientific position is circular. Drawing from observation is not the same as drawing from the same book that's been edited, redacted, and sanitized for 25 centuries to prove itself. OK, you're evidently a scientist. How did the universe come into existence? TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
AS posted:
"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? Well, at least we agree that it is circular. Without God, it may be the best you have. I did not agree the scientific position is circular. Drawing from observation is not the same as drawing from the same book that's been edited, redacted, and sanitized for 25 centuries to prove itself. OK, you're evidently a scientist. How did the universe come into existence? TF Yes, I'm a scientist. If you are asking how do I believe, based upon the current evidence did the Universe came into existence, you will get one answer. If you are asking do I KNOW how the universe came into existence, the answer is I don't know. However, that in no way lends credence to your unsupported assertion that "God did 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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
I assume you mean not how, but what? At this point, I think the Krauss hypothesis is the best supported, but it still needs more work. As for much of string theory, just because you can mathematically define something in a way that it could exist, doesn't make it true. Until string theory hypothesis can make a prediction that can be confirmed by observation and experimentation, it's just a bunch of pretty math.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,576 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,576 Likes: 7 |
Another angle on AS above statement:
"As for the theorized existence of an atheist, just because you can define something in a way that it could exist, doesn't make it true. Until atheistic hypothesis can make a prediction that can be confirmed by observation and experimentation, it's just a bunch of dodging and weaving denial."
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
Another angle on AS above statement:
"As for the theorized existence of an atheist, just because you can define something in a way that it could exist, doesn't make it true. Until atheistic hypothesis can make a prediction that can be confirmed by observation and experimentation, it's just a bunch of dodging and weaving denial." CCCC, Yes, Atheist do exist. Consider this, all babies are born atheist. A, is without, theist is belief in god(s). Since babies have no knowledge of god(s), since they have not been taught about them, they cannot have a believe in them. In order for babies to believe in a god(s), they must first be taught about god(s). Consequently, all babies are atheist.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,225 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 28,225 Likes: 1 |
I ignored this thread when it first surfaced...a week ago!.
900 posts, it's too late now. How much of this thread has been pure religious discussion, how much of it raw insult?
Thread has a life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,264 Likes: 7
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,264 Likes: 7 |
Another angle on AS above statement:
"As for the theorized existence of an atheist, just because you can define something in a way that it could exist, doesn't make it true. Until atheistic hypothesis can make a prediction that can be confirmed by observation and experimentation, it's just a bunch of dodging and weaving denial." CCCC, Yes, Atheist do exist. Consider this, all babies are born atheist. A, is without, theist is belief in god(s). Since babies have no knowledge of god(s), since they have not been taught about them, they cannot have a believe in them. In order for babies to believe in a god(s), they must first be taught about god(s). Consequently, all babies are atheist. Ahhh, I see said the blind man... So let me get this straight, Intelligent life can come from nothing, but a divine awareness could not? hmmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
About 90/10, maybe 95/5.
A few zingers here and there, but not that many raw insults.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,264 Likes: 7
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,264 Likes: 7 |
I ignored this thread when it first surfaced...a week ago!.
900 posts, it's too late now. How much of this thread has been pure religious discussion, how much of it raw insult?
Thread has a life. Ya, but it's hard to discount the entertainment value factor.
Last edited by tndrbstr; 09/06/15.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,576 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,576 Likes: 7 |
Another angle on AS above statement:
"As for the theorized existence of an atheist, just because you can define something in a way that it could exist, doesn't make it true. Until atheistic hypothesis can make a prediction that can be confirmed by observation and experimentation, it's just a bunch of dodging and weaving denial." CCCC, Yes, Atheist do exist. Consider this, all babies are born atheist. A, is without, theist is belief in god(s). Since babies have no knowledge of god(s), since they have not been taught about them, they cannot have a believe in them. In order for babies to believe in a god(s), they must first be taught about god(s). Consequently, all babies are atheist. AS, you seem to make yourself an easy mark once you get in over your head. Try these: 1. How on earth can you know that babies have no knowledge of God. How did you develop that special insight and knowledge power? Try "theory". 2. While you are in the realm of theory there, does not your statement: "All babies are atheist" then equal "all atheists are babies"
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Entertainment value may have just gone up a notch with CCCC's last post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,081 Likes: 4 |
Entertainment value may have just gone up a notch with CCCC's last post. Nice fallacy of composition, isn't 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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Entertainment value may have just gone up a notch with CCCC's last post. Nice fallacy of composition, isn't it? Fine example of what a Ph.D. and brewskis can do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,141 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 17,141 Likes: 4 |
AS, are you still at it with this thread? It is amazing how insecurity, whether conscious or not, can motivate one.
|
|
|
|
|
507 members (1lessdog, 1badf350, 25classic, 1beaver_shooter, 222Sako, 257 roberts, 66 invisible),
2,317
guests, and
1,194
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,400
Posts18,506,951
Members74,000
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
