chris1089 wrote:Read the rest of my post. You may be enlightened to find my explanation there
I did and found it irrelevant because its complete and utter baseless nonsense
How? What's wrong with my logic or axioms?
Reread your post and find the direct contradiction that I've already point out and you'll see.
As I also said in the ORIGINAL post, I wish you would just read it, this is not a contradiction, as God is not subject to our space-time continuum. Obviously an omnipotent God can create energy/matter. However, under normal circumstances, without the external influence of an omnipotent being, it can't.
So the universe at some point started existing. We do not yet know if that is just the way it is or if it requires some further explanation. However, I feel like logically it does not actually pose a problem to state the universe simply started existing. There are no actual logical problems with that statement, are there? There are no inconsistencies that arise from it that make no sense at all.
Saying the universe just started is physically acceptable. It does not defy any law of physics, it just states one new law. Saying god created the universe does the exact same thing except instead of stating that law it says god did it. If this simply was logically inconsistent, you could come up with an example that proves the inconsistency. Yet, I will assure you there will be no inconsistency found within our understanding of the world.
1 word, rhymes with go and contains the letter n. The law of thermo dynamics - energy can't be created or destroyed. E=mc^2, this means matter can't be created or destroyted. Therefore you can't get a universe from nothing. That is unless you have an omnipotent being, God, not confined by our space-time continuum, to created all matter and energy.
So you're allowed to make an exception in God yet I'm not allowed to simply state that energy can simply be somewhere at t=0 ? Basically logically if the universe simply has started to exist containing matter, which can simply be stated as an axiom (like you axiomatically state god is omnipotent), then there is no creation of energy. There simply is energy.
By the way, don't throw around simple physics terms around without knowing that they mean. For example, E=mc^2 actually literally means that matter can be created or destroyed, but you use that to argue that matter can be created or destroyed. So basically you don't know too much about physics and most definitely not anything about Einstein's famous E=mc^2.
No, it means that the total amount of energy and matter can't be changed. They can be converted from one to the other but they can't be lost or gained. So what you are really saying is you think the universe has existed in some form eternally, but has significantly changed to what we know it to be like now.
So what form did this matter and/or energy (as they are interchangeable) exist in?
I am not saying that. I'm saying time literally didn't flow before the beginning of the universe. I'm simply coming up with the axiom 'time magically started flowing', meaning that there is no before the universe. Before the universe doesn't exist according to my axiom, there is no before and thus no 'magical creation of matter'. There is no before the universe and thus nothing that needs to start the universe from happening. Actually this explanation was theorized by Stephen Hawking, who calculated that according to relativity, during the 'before the big bang' period time literally stood still. So there are no causal connections necessary, because for a causal connection there needs to be a before but this before might not have existed. There is no actual problem with a before not existing. In literally every physics calculation there never is a need for a before, you calculate things at some point in time and then calculate how those initial conditions progress in time. If there is no before, that doesn't mean physics are wrong it just means there is no before and thus no need to wonder how the universe was created or started flowing. It just did, such was the beginning of the known world. This is logically and physically completely possible and you can't refute it by mindlessly screaming '1st law of thermodynamics' or 'E=mc^2' and honestly I sincerely doubt you've actually worked with these laws or know how they were derrived. But I digress, again. The fact of the matter is that you have not actually shown how my made-up explanation can be proven wrong.
chris1089 wrote:Read the rest of my post. You may be enlightened to find my explanation there
I did and found it irrelevant because its complete and utter baseless nonsense
How? What's wrong with my logic or axioms?
Reread your post and find the direct contradiction that I've already point out and you'll see.
As I also said in the ORIGINAL post, I wish you would just read it, this is not a contradiction, as God is not subject to our space-time continuum. Obviously an omnipotent God can create energy/matter. However, under normal circumstances, without the external influence of an omnipotent being, it can't.
That's just absolute rubbish. You're just making things up since the world doesn't support the theory of God. Using your "logic" anyone can make any claim they want to about literally anything. You are neither being rational nor arguing in good faith.
chris1089 wrote:1 word, rhymes with go and contains the letter n. The law of thermo dynamics - energy can't be created or destroyed. E=mc^2, this means matter can't be created or destroyted. Therefore you can't get a universe from nothing. That is unless you have an omnipotent being, God, not confined by our space-time continuum, to created all matter and energy.
You try to defeat science with its own weapons. But science does not give absolute answers and does not claim to do so (in contrast to religion). What you refer to are theories and they are just "how we currently think the universe works". It might be that none of these theories is exactly true, but only in those circumstances that we were able to analyse yet.
It is a bit like accusing an ancient scholar of giving incoherent answers, because he cannot explain how lightning works -> clearly there has to be a god of thunder!
So your claiming that you have no ability to explain the world around us, and science, in your eyes, is not able to give coherent answers all the time. Yet you still believe in science to explain the world around us without a God at all. This is a far greater leap of faith than believing an omnipotent God created the universe and made life.
It seems like you do cherrypicking regarding my arguments. I do not claim to "believe in science to explain the world around us without a God at all". I just say that there is as much evidence for the existence of a God as it is for the absence of a God.
I even go a step further and ask you: Does it matter whether there is a God or not?
Also, why do you feel the need to compare "leaps of faith" with each other? Faith is faith, it is defined as believing in something which is not proved. There is no such thing as an "amount of faith".
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
what I really get excited about is the idea that time can be manipulated and that there must be a dimension in which all time is 0 and therefore the future is equal to the past.
Radix_Lecti wrote:what I really get excited about is the idea that time can be manipulated and that there must be a dimension in which all time is 0 and therefore the future is equal to the past.
If all time is zero time wouldnt flow so there is no notion of future of past right?
It's hard to fathom fully but there must be a point where all time exists in 1 single moment which would mean your future is destined or even that there would be room for a being existing outside time, maybe even giving advice.@chris1089
In any case, just thinking about Einstein realising time is past-present-future all at once and fixed, pre-destined already, excites me.
They are describing all the macro molecules found withing 'modern' cells preforming by chance in the same area and bumping into each other to form a cell with no steps in between, rather than criticising any legitimate hypotheses involving sequential steps that exist.
Such as. How do you say you we got from A-Z without God?
There are scientific hypotheses that exist, none of them have to do with what is described in the video. It's a bad video, sorry. I'm not going to waste hours researching and trying to explain these to you because I know the game you are playing. I can explain these and you will point out that I can't explain how this or that worked out and therefore because there are gaps in understanding it's impossible and you must be right without justification. If you are actually interested in the origins of life you will do the research yourself, but you are just interested in being right. Also your weird formatting makes it difficult to quote and reply to you.
chris1089 wrote:
That is simply not historically accurate, there are plenty of cultures who's creation myths don't involve a supreme god creating the universe. You can look it up, this is off topic. As well polytheism was the most common belief for thousands of years before so clearly polytheism must be the default and is therefore true until proven otherwise!Yes, the existence of God is already on the human mind. This is the "is there a God?" thread not the "Which God is there thread?" The suchness of many people believing in a thing is the same as an individual believing in that thing, repetition does not make truth so I am not impressed by the big number, I've seen bigger numbers before. And why are you demanding that I must explain what I just said we don't have a proven explanation for! Try to explain how your god created the universe.
I demand you explain as it is a flaw in your position that God doesn't exist - how did the world get here (assuming you believe it had a beginning. If otherwise we can discuss that.) I say "And God said, “Let there be light,”" This doesn't require more explanation, as I have already stated, due to God not being subject to our space-time continuum and being supernatural. He can use methods that can't be observed in our universe or explained using our science.
Sorry, the type of God that you are talking about which is an all powerful and knowing perfect being is not the same type of god described by many religions, as well the creation myths of the two most populous cultures in the world (Hindus and Chinese) are not based on a god creating the universe, and it is irrelevant anyways.
Also I never put forth an argument that god doesn't exist or mention the origins of the universe, I criticized that video about abiogenesis, but instead of defending it you want more. You want to attack the atheists and prove to yourself how certain you are that you are right and that the other things that you associate with your beliefs are too. I am not emotionally invested in whether or not god exists It's a lot easier to have discussions when you're not obsessed with being right. You cannot simply define something into existence. You are claiming that it is impossible life to exist or for the universe to exist without divine intervention, but you do not have enough knowledge of the universe or how reality functions fundamentally to make that claim, no one has enough knowledge to make that claim. Why does the cause of the universe need to be personified as an intelligent being acting deliberately rather than just 'something outside time and space'? Why do you think that the universe as we know it is the be all and end all of physical reality? I prefer explanations that are simple. You want to be right for free while demanding the highest standard of evidence from anyone who disagrees.
Radix_Lecti wrote:what I really get excited about is the idea that time can be manipulated and that there must be a dimension in which all time is 0 and therefore the future is equal to the past.
Why does time take time? Why does a billion years take so long to pass? Just because our brains make it feel that way? Why can't it all be over in an instant and within that instant our minds create the illusion of a lifetime?
Radix_Lecti wrote:It's hard to fathom fully but there must be a point where all time exists in 1 single moment which would mean your future is destined or even that there would be room for a being existing outside time, maybe even giving advice.
In any case, just thinking about Einstein realising time is past-present-future all at once and fixed, pre-destined already, excites me.
You know, you could maybe use a little bit of awareness of what your capabilities are. I dont think there are many, if any people here that have a proper understanding of relativity. I would be reasonably qualified which has only made me aware that I wouldnt be able to make statements like yours. But as far as I can tell you cant mske statements like yours either.
momuuu wrote:[ You know, you could maybe use a little bit of awareness of what your capabilities are.
Touche, sir. Perhaps I myself am a victim of the Duning-Kruger effect. But tell me where I go wrong?
AFAIK Einstein theorised time passes differently and as such you might view one now and I in a spaceship another now, but then all time already exists and the only difference is how we move through it or experience it. http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow ... -pass-0128
Also if infinite dimensions exist next to ours, then there must be one where you exist outside space-time.
treating the past, present, and future as materially identical, the theory is consistent with the laws of physics
Goodspeed wrote:Turns out that for some it's hard to accept that the universe is complicated and we don't have all the answers. We don't need all the answers.
Are you addressing me? I think this is rubbish. I don't claim to have all the answers. I claim to have some answers that others don't have and would be beneficial for them to know, considering the eternal significance of these answers.
Goodspeed wrote:Turns out that for some it's hard to accept that the universe is complicated and we don't have all the answers. We don't need all the answers.
Are you addressing me? I think this is rubbish. I don't claim to have all the answers. I claim to have some answers that others don't have and would be beneficial for them to know, considering the eternal significance of these answers.
Well, your "answers" are as weak as any other answers which rely solely on faith. It is only you who considers these as being of eternal significance.
Even if your answer "God did it" was right, there is still the question, which you do not want to talk about: Does it make a difference whether there is a God or not?
There is plenty of new questions arising from your answer and all of them can, again, only be answered via faith. It is just a large improvable construct of faith. Why is it of eternal significance? Because you put faith in the assumption that some God cares for you if you do good deeds.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.
Goodspeed wrote:Turns out that for some it's hard to accept that the universe is complicated and we don't have all the answers. We don't need all the answers.
Are you addressing me? I think this is rubbish. I don't claim to have all the answers. I claim to have some answers that others don't have and would be beneficial for them to know, considering the eternal significance of these answers.
You have asked people several times to explain the origin of life and origin of the universe, implying that "we don't know" is not an acceptable answer.
Shit got too hot one day so it blew up and now we call it the universe. Where'd that shit come from? dunno it was already there. Are we part of that shit? you betcha. Do we have a way of knowing what is outside the great turd? no, we are stuck in this shit.
Hidddy_ wrote:Shit got too hot one day so it blew up and now we call it the universe. Where'd that shit come from? dunno it was already there. Are we part of that shit? you betcha. Do we have a way of knowing what is outside the great turd? no, we are stuck in this shit.
I still think there is a high possibility of anything existing outside the good ol' Space-Time Continuum http://news.mit.edu/2015/book-brad-skow ... -pass-0128 and that therefore you could make the argument for that 'anything' to be called 'a Higher Being' who/which would then be all-knowing.
Personally I lean more towards a Buddhist/Hindi cyclical view of time and karma, but that would also mean Time is not a fixed linear concept.
saveyourskill 
Radix_Lecti 
Jam 
Hazza54321 
