Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#241    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,332 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:45 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 11 April 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

I'm going to ramble a little here, but I hope some of you will stick with me cause I do have something to say.  That all this doesn't prove the God of Abraham etc., exists is clear enough; if He were responsible for all this why didn't he mention it anywhere?  (Of course that's a little trite, how would the Hebrews have had any idea what he was talking about, but Job does seem to otherwise present a chance to mention relative forces and eons of deep time.  After all, the Hindus and Buddhists and Zoroastrians came up with such ideas.

It does, however, seem to indicate either design or great coincidence, but neither requires intelligence.  Natural processes can produce wonderful design, as can mind that does not exist with thought (I'm getting Taoist here, one of the things that makes me sometimes not such a good Buddhist -- the Buddhist does not concern himself with where in the sky the moon might happen to be).  If the Tao is, then all this makes perfect sense, as does human mind and intelligence and the sentience of the flatworms.  Indeed, even existence as opposed to nothingness makes sense.  Now the last thing a Taoist will admit is that his belief makes sense.

Who said that the designer in question is the God of the bible? I never said that, I may believe it personally but I never said it anywhere in the discussion. There is one item though that I feel needs to be addressed in your post...

You say that that it may indicate design but it does not necessarily indicate intelligence. Systems do congregate into symmetry and apparent design, without intelligence, but always requires input from energy to do so.

In a closed system where there is no input of energy from an outside source, a system will always move toward maximum entropy (0º Kelvin) and thus maximum disorganization (Heat death of the universe). This is the case of our universe.

In an open system, of which as an example we could use the multiverse (or even our own planet, which receives energy from on outside source like the sun), our own universe would invariably not suffer a move toward entropy, since new energy would leak into our present universe, either by collisions with other universes, or even when conjoining with another universe and thus would ultimately decrease entropy rather than increase it.

Now if we know that that all the energy (matter, dark matter, energy and dark energy) was originally created by the big bang, which is actually a creation from nothing ( no singularity needed) and we know that if we add all the positive and negative matter and energy together, the result is Zero, and we also know that we live in a closed system (evidence of increasing entropy is an established fact within the universe) where did the energy come from that allows sytems to congregate into this apparent design you speak of?

You say that systems do proceed to lessen entropy naturally (as long as there is energy available) but you cannot explain where that energy initially comes from in the case of the beginning of the universe.

And none of these natural systems can account for the golden ratio which pervades the universe from top to bottom (literally), none of these naturally occuring systems can and do account for those "physical constants" of the universe being so precise which had to exist in the form they did right at the moment of the big bang. If they had not been there at that precise moment, we would not have the universe that we know now, if we had one at all, so these constants did not evolve in any way, they were immediately there at the very beginning.

Which barring the idea of countless multiverses and infinite tries allows us to only accept one answer, that the mind purposefully and with intelligence chose the parameters of this universe.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#242    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

View PostJor-el, on 11 April 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Oh and why are those items, examples of precision "machines" (which they are not, a machine is manufactured, made or designed)?

Each of those systems mentioned, are not machines, they are interlocked reactions subjected to the laws of physics. You strike a match and it burns, if it is wet, it doesn't. Hydrogen and oxygen, produce heat and water in combustion, which is merely a chemical reaction based on those same laws.

Just like we only exist because the universe is old enough at this time to be producing population I stars, wheras the very 1st generation of stars (population III stars) had no other elements besides helium and hydrogen. Ours has a relatively large ammount of heavier elements than the older original stars, most of whom are gone now in supernovas, fusing the lighter elements in to heavier and heavier elements with each generation.

I'm afraid that to call something that is merely following the established laws of physics and chemistry (like a fire or a river flowing downstream) a "precision machine" is erroneous.

Those questions you ask are the questions science is asking, and they are good questions, we can, as I said earlier ask the why and the how, the answers will provide 99% of our knowledge, we don't have to deny God for science to work. The only question that is answered by "God", is the who.

Hence why I put machine in quotes. A machine is defined as: 'an apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task'. And apparatus is defined as either: 'the equipment needed for a particular activity or purpose', or 'The organs used to perform a particular bodily function'. So you see. A machine could be a biological system not created by man, by definition.

The point that you seemed to miss was that there are plenty of examples in nature for precision energy converting natural processes that work beautifully like clockwork abiding by natural laws which we can discover. It may not be a 'who'. What if God is an energy field, what if we are all part of God, not separate in any way? What if God is pure consciousness, the intent guiding the universe? The universe and all of us might be an extension of God, not a separate creation apart from God. These are all questions that we do not have answers for. You think it all REQUIRES a who. What if WE are the who? What if we are the latest attempt of the universe, of God, to understand itself? What if we are God? What if all of life is a part of God?

Rambling on here, but a 'who' may not be necessary. We humans like to think that conscious intent is behind everything, and we have frequently been wrong about that. Volcanoes used to be attributed to God, lightening, but we now know that these are just natural  phenomena, it may be that the universe itself is yet another natural phenomena that we just do not yet understand. There is no 'who' behind a volcano erupting, that is just ridiculous. But yet some still think that there is a 'who' behind the universe itself. This may be just as wrong as the idea of a 'who' behind the volcano.

Notice I said, "May be" As of now, Its up to you! Pick your opinion, but recognize that your opinion is no less/more true than any other person's opinion.

Edited by Einsteinium, 11 April 2013 - 08:13 PM.


#243    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 11 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Which barring the idea of countless multiverses and infinite tries allows us to only accept one answer, that the mind purposefully and with intelligence chose the parameters of this universe.

Or it could be that there are higher natural laws that we simply have not discovered yet that lead to our universe. Just because we cannot YET explain where the 'energy' came from to create our universe in the first place does not mean it was God. It could in fact be evidence in and of itself for a multiverse. M-theory postulates that our universe may be a giant membrane, and when membranes collide huge amounts of energy are released, causing a 'big bang'. It does not have to be a 'mind' that purposefully chose the parameters of this universe. Don't take it from me. One of the smartest men alive in physics today says,

"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.
Stephen Hawking

Prof. Hawking: "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence."

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."


#244    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,332 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:51 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 11 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Or it could be that there are higher natural laws that we simply have not discovered yet that lead to our universe. Just because we cannot YET explain where the 'energy' came from to create our universe in the first place does not mean it was God. It could in fact be evidence in and of itself for a multiverse. M-theory postulates that our universe may be a giant membrane, and when membranes collide huge amounts of energy are released, causing a 'big bang'. It does not have to be a 'mind' that purposefully chose the parameters of this universe. Don't take it from me. One of the smartest men alive in physics today says,

"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.
Stephen Hawking

Prof. Hawking: "If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence."

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

Ah the great Stephen Hawking who also said:

We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge,


S. Hawking – L. MLODINOW, The Grand Design, 5.

So scientists are the new priesthood and and Philosophy is dead hey?

I quoted this earlier in the thread and it shows how presumptious the man is. In this very quote while stating that philosphy is dead is uses philosphy as the vasis of his argument.


Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way… The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.


Stephen Hawking, The Grand design

So even he admits that design is apparent, with his only way out of the design issue being an untestable supposition that explains it away, the multiverse. So who created the multiverse? He seems to forget that either way, God is still the creator. So basically he is asking you to believe him...



So to reiterate, Hawking is smart, but not real smart. What he does have is an opinion that some of you take to be gospel... the existence of a multiverse.

Edited by Jor-el, 12 April 2013 - 05:52 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#245    Esoteric Toad

Esoteric Toad

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:06 PM

Does anyone ever stop and think that no matter how advance we become it may be completely unknowable regarding the 'beginning'? No gods/god. Simply put our brains my be incapable of understanding 'everything'. JMO.


#246    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,332 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:56 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 11 April 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Hence why I put machine in quotes. A machine is defined as: 'an apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task'. And apparatus is defined as either: 'the equipment needed for a particular activity or purpose', or 'The organs used to perform a particular bodily function'. So you see. A machine could be a biological system not created by man, by definition.

The point that you seemed to miss was that there are plenty of examples in nature for precision energy converting natural processes that work beautifully like clockwork abiding by natural laws which we can discover. It may not be a 'who'. What if God is an energy field, what if we are all part of God, not separate in any way? What if God is pure consciousness, the intent guiding the universe? The universe and all of us might be an extension of God, not a separate creation apart from God. These are all questions that we do not have answers for. You think it all REQUIRES a who. What if WE are the who? What if we are the latest attempt of the universe, of God, to understand itself? What if we are God? What if all of life is a part of God?

Rambling on here, but a 'who' may not be necessary. We humans like to think that conscious intent is behind everything, and we have frequently been wrong about that. Volcanoes used to be attributed to God, lightening, but we now know that these are just natural  phenomena, it may be that the universe itself is yet another natural phenomena that we just do not yet understand. There is no 'who' behind a volcano erupting, that is just ridiculous. But yet some still think that there is a 'who' behind the universe itself. This may be just as wrong as the idea of a 'who' behind the volcano.

Notice I said, "May be" As of now, Its up to you! Pick your opinion, but recognize that your opinion is no less/more true than any other person's opinion.

As I said before, I may be wrong regarding the being, but not the intent or the intellect of the designer. Opinions are well and good, as long as we recognize them to be exactly that, opinions, but opinions are shaped by other things, and some people will prefer almost anything rather than the existence of a creator and designer of the universe. I wonder why this option is anathema to them.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#247    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,332 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:57 PM

View PostEsoteric Toad, on 12 April 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

Does anyone ever stop and think that no matter how advance we become it may be completely unknowable regarding the 'beginning'? No gods/god. Simply put our brains my be incapable of understanding 'everything'. JMO.

An option that is not available to scientists, no matter what, it is what drives them.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#248    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:40 PM

View PostJor-el, on 12 April 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

As I said before, I may be wrong regarding the being, but not the intent or the intellect of the designer. Opinions are well and good, as long as we recognize them to be exactly that, opinions, but opinions are shaped by other things, and some people will prefer almost anything rather than the existence of a creator and designer of the universe. I wonder why this option is anathema to them.

That is what I am trying to show is that your opinion is no better than my opinion. The existence of a creator and designer is quite the opposite of anathema to me. In fact, it is the preferable option in my opinion. But that does not make it fact.


#249    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,332 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:13 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 12 April 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

That is what I am trying to show is that your opinion is no better than my opinion. The existence of a creator and designer is quite the opposite of anathema to me. In fact, it is the preferable option in my opinion. But that does not make it fact.

And as I stated earlier, I never said I had proof... I said I had evidence that indicated that the universe is an artifact, but that evidence as yet cannot be called proof, for that to happen many questions need to be answered.

The whole point of my intervention in this debate was to demonstrate that while I may not have incontrovertible proof, the other side has even less than I do.

And while I used the term anthema in my post to you, it was not directed specifically to you, but rather to those that for some reason will always try to deny the existence of a creator, no matter what evidence is put in front of them. Hawking himself I believe falls under this category and so do Dawkins among a few others. They would prefer a scenario with alsmost any explanation no matter how improbable, than accept the possibility that what they are seeing in the universe, are signs that it is an artifact and that thus a maker and designer exists.

Edited by Jor-el, 13 April 2013 - 08:14 AM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#250    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:02 PM

Hi Jor-el

I've fallen a little behind and Einsteinium has provided a lot of the same replies I would have; I may be somewhat repetitive here with what he's already said more clearly than I can so please forgive, I've done a quick read-through of your back-and-forth though.

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

We had not resolved it since you never actually answered the question i posed in my response to you, you sidestepped it, but that doesn't resolve the issue. I wanted a categorical yes or no answer from you in regards to the question I asked, not a run around (no intention of insult, just my understanding of our debate). The question was specific, and I will repeat it again... Do you deny that the total ammount of energy in the universe adds up to zero?

No, I don't deny that, I have no basis to deny that.  I deny what I apparently misunderstood you saying, that there is no energy in the universe; we both agree there is.  And I disagree with using the word 'truth', which of course scientists do not, when describing what our current theoretical hypotheses are concerning subjects that are on the very edge of our understanding.

Quote

My sources are on record, it is the very Astro Phycisists, Cosmologists and other scientists who I am quoting, or was that not apparent? Every single piece of data I have shared is taken from their quotes on the matter. None of them deny the fine tuning, they try to explain it in their theories, the essence of their theory of a multiverse is essentially an explanation for the fine tuning they have themselves identified. They have been the ones providing the probabilites... Why do you think I've been adding videos lately, it is so that you can actually hear them stating those probabilities for yourselves. All the scientists on those videos are not believers, they are atheists, self confessed atheists, yet none of them deny either the fine tuning or the probabilities they themselves calculated.

Emphasis mine.  When I asked for some evidence or indication that any of these constants can have any different values at all, you did not provide any and instead just repeated that some scientists think that it is improbable that they have the values that they do; I already knew that.  Maybe there is some evidence, I don't know, like I had said I've had trouble finding it in the past.  Scientists, especially I'd expect those that are working in the domain of theoretical physics, probably evaluate all kinds of propositions based on 'if this is true'.  Isn't that largely what string theory has derived from, if you assume these strings exist then string theory is a good theory and ties up (I think) some problems that we have with the current models, but of course suffers from the fact that we have no evidence that these strings actually exist?  There are cosmologists on record who suspect that fine-tuning may be an illusion also, so?

Quote

As for the matter of Pi, have you never wondered what kind of universe would exist if all the laws of physics were actually different? Pi works in our universe only because space is flat, if space were curved, the value would be different. But again don't take my word for it.

Of course I've wondered, but I've never thought for a second that I should believe that what kind of universe I can imagine has any probability of all of actually being able to exist.  Yet another gigantic assumption that I think is being made in the fine-tuning argument is the assumption that we can change these constants and all of the natural laws apply and work the same way they do in this universe.  What is the basis and justification for that assumption?

Quote

If all things material came into existence after the big bang and nothing existed befoer the big bang (as demonstrated in the video I provided for you earlier above) what was that 1st cause?

The way I'm reading it, we might be equivocating a little on 'nothing' in this statement.  I don't know that we can really discuss 'causes' without assuming some type of 'time', so keep that framework in mind with my following sentences (unless of course that assumption is the flaw in my statements here).  I don't think that 'the universe came from nothing' translates to what we usually mean by 'nothing existed before the big bang'; the latter statement implies that nothing ever existed before the big bang.  If something can come from nothing, then can't that something also become nothing, isn't that an implication of 'the energy of the universe nets to zero', and also what I thought might happen if universes are configured in such a way that a 'big crunch' occurs?  Thus it could be cyclical, something becoming nothing becoming something forever, and thus this cycle could have always existed, just like God is asserted to have?

Quote

The 1st cause must be immaterial (it is not comprised of anything material which did not yet exist) and it must be beyond space and time (neither of which existed as well).

No, it doesn't have to be immaterial, scientists have no idea how or if 'nothing' applies outside of our universe, or that our universe contains all the 'material' that exists.  They have just said that, given our current hypotheses, our universe didn't necessarily have to come from something.  We don't know what exists outside of our universe, including whether there is some kind of meta- or other space-time.  If you really want to adhere to the 'truth' that nothing existed before the big bang well then I guess we've settled that god then didn't exist, since god is 'something'; if you want to make an exception to that 'truth', then to be consistent you then have to allow for other 'somethings' to exist.  You can't have it both ways without special pleading.

Quote

There are only 2 things that can possibly fit into this category...
1. Abstract objects
2. an unbodied mind

That means intelligence existed before matter, mind existed before matter, mind existed before the universe.

Whoa whoa, it doesn't mean that at all.  You just listed that a non-mind fit the category and then immediately say essentially, 'therefore intelligence existed before matter', that leap really does require some fleshing out.

Quote

Yes I do, I have already mentioned this in this very thread a number of times although not necessarily to you.
There are 3 things...
  • Fine tuning
  • The Golden ratio
  • The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

#3 seems to be really just a restatement of #1; the fine tuning argument in this context relies on the probabilities being unlikely, if they are not, the fine tuning argument doesn't really have much to do with dieties.  As I thought you had already admitted, fine tuning, assuming it's not an illusion, can currently be explained by invoking a largely unevidenced multiverse or a largely unevidenced god, so on it's own, it doesn't lead us to favor one over the other.  I've searched this thread for all your references to the golden ratio, and I honestly don't know what you are talking about with your invocation of 'coincidence' here.  I looked also on wiki and unlike a lot of other entries, the golden ratio one does not include a blurb concerning why this might be an argument for a god.  You seem to think that it is remarkable or improbable that we should find the golden ratio so prevalently in nature, on what basis exactly?  Please provide your explanation of what you were actually expecting, and on what basis.  You were expecting some other ratio?  If you have no ground for expecting any other values in these different areas of nature, then where does the 'coincidence' come from?  Right now, this seems like someone long ago stating, 'isn't it remarkable that so many mammals in arctic regions have white fur?  We know that mammals can have fur of all different colors, and it just so happens that every animal in snowy regions has white fur?  The odds are huge against that.'.  But of course, the odds are not huge against that, they're actually quite favorable.  But again, I'm not sure the details on the 'golden ratio, therefore God' argument so not sure if that's an accurate analogy.

And if I can make a request, please do not reply to my questions of this nature with videos.  It is entirely cool and legit to back up what you say concerning science with quotations and videos, and I appreciate you taking the time to find and post them as many are interesting.  And it's great that you post videos that are essentially, 'here's something that you might also find interesting concerning this topic', again, thanks for your trouble. But the problem with them is two-fold.  First, I usually am asking very specific questions and my question may be discussed, and then only indirectly, in just a small portion of the overall video so I'd rather not slog through 7 minutes of discussion if my point is only addressed indirectly in 1 minute of it.  Most importantly though, I'm more interested in having a conversation with you, not youtube.  I realize though that you may have gone over many of these questions before in previous conversations where you detailed your argument, so feel free to either just paste those responses or just let me know that they actually exist and where I might find them and I'm happy to search for myself and try to track them down.

Quote

I said exactly the same earlier to you and that is why I said that it was a matter of what you prefer to believe, since neither are testable. Am I wrong?
It is a matter of where you are willing to place your belief, (your faith if you will) in either of these the chances are even, 50/50

Unless someone can prove one over the other, both hold equal wheight and have equal claim to Occams razor, as I explained to EightBits.

I don't disagree that neither are testable, but it absolutely does not follow that the chances are even, we don't know.  I'm going to use chance to determine a number between 2 and 12 (this range of values may indicate to you how I'm likely going to determine this number) but not let you know how I'm going to do that; it doesn't follow at all that we should think that the likelihood of, oh let me just choose a number at random, a 7 coming up being 1 in 11.  And I disagree, Occam's razor has to do with the evaluation of two propositions neither of which requires proof, but that may be tangential to our conversation here.  Regardless, you have made clear that your argument is not that the odds are even between the multiverse and god explanations, you have specifically stated that you find god to be a better explanation.

Quote

Now in regards to your question, the answer is 67% and even I found that surprising...

It is truly amazing what one finds on the internat nowadays... :tu:

Ha, indeed!  And of course as we all know, if it's on the internet, it must be true!  ;)

Quote

You can say that, it is what some scientists say as well, who also reject the same dichotomy presented by the information they have. However I have not found one iota of discussion regarding the possibility that the constants are interrelated in any way... if you find anything regarding that issue, please I would like to know as well.

Agreed, it would be very interesting to have that type of information, I haven't seen anything either.  But this seems to be a very relevant point to resolve prior to arguing how other universes may work, probabilities of constants having values, etc, at least to avoid the kind of errors as seen in the 'white fur in the arctic is an unlikely coincidence' analogy above.  A lot of the scientists you have quoted seem to always include the words 'if' and 'seems to be' and other hedging words, but these aren't always reflected in your translations.

So in sum, the main dispute I have with you is that god is a better explanation than a multiverse.  I think it's actually the opposite, the multiverse at least posits more of something we do know exists, a universe, which gives it a leg up on god.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#251    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

View PostJor-el, on 12 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Ah the great Stephen Hawking who also said:

So scientists are the new priesthood and and Philosophy is dead hey?

I quoted this earlier in the thread and it shows how presumptious the man is. In this very quote while stating that philosphy is dead is uses philosphy as the vasis of his argument.

Jor-el then said:

Quote

So even he admits that design is apparent, with his only way out of the design issue being an untestable supposition that explains it away, the multiverse.

I think you really need to decide whether Hawking's thoughts are relevant or not, because right now your argument here seems to be indulging in a little confirmation bias.  Some of his statements are bull because you find him 'presumptious' (can I just wave away your quotes from physicists if I can find something presumptious they said?), but you're more than happy to accept some of other statements despite this.  And not-so-remarkably, the statements that are bull are the ones that just happen to disagree with your opinion and the ones that are not bull are the ones that agree with you ('even he admits design is apparent').

Quote

So who created the multiverse? He seems to forget that either way, God is still the creator. So basically he is asking you to believe him...

No, he's not, that's what priests do.  He's explaining his theory and opinion.  Again, you seem to not see the following words when you then try to restate what his position is:  'if', 'appear to have', 'could'.  Those are not the words of most clergy.  But in a way, you are also just demonstrating that as far as God is concerned, this whole discussion is moot.  You can play the, 'but what created that?' game endlessly.  If we show that the multiverse does exist, is that going to be evidence against god's existence?  I sincerely doubt it, it just means he created some other way.  The reason you could respond with that is that the god hypothesis is unburdened by having any evidence for it's existence with which we could compare to find something inconsistent.  I'm personally not too impressed with largely unfalsifiable positions, which is unlike atheism which can be refuted in myriad ways.

Quote

So to reiterate, Hawking is smart, but not real smart. What he does have is an opinion that some of you take to be gospel... the existence of a multiverse.

Ha ha, yes yes, they dole out awards and employ people as professors at Cambridge just if they are smart, not real smart. If I can find a quote from Paul Davies indicating that he believes Hawking is 'real smart', can I just ignore all your quotes from him because Davies is then presumptious?  And please quote anyone here who takes the existence of the multiverse as 'gospel' while using that word consistently with how priests take things as 'gospel'.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#252    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:21 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

No you haven't got it at all.  Think about it a little without your dogma.

What does it mean? Are you afraid of the theistic dogma that God does exist? Can you think about anything without your dogma that God does not exist?


#253    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:28 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The theological infinite God is a logical impossibility.  The various creator gods that people have invented are myths that don't stand up to any sort or rational or ethical scrutiny.

The virtual environments we create are heading in that direction, and, what makes me suspect it, is its obviousness (if it is possible the odds that we are in one are overwhelming, and it sure seems possible) combined of course with the improbability of the universe as we see it.

The other possibility, and the one worth pursuing (since if we are in a virtual environment we can presume it is such that we cannot prove it), is that there is either some natural selection of cosmoses going in that tends to select in favor of universes that can have life in them (a number of theories of this sort are out there) or there are beings in another cosmos popping off big bangs, perhaps for no reason than to allow others the chance to exist.  (Doing this would not be all that unimaginable -- just manipulate some virtual particles in the right way and it is self-sustaining -- the only thing is once you have popped one off it goes on its own without any way for you to influence it -- a sort-of deist universe.

Of course we could also be just a chance bit of good luck.  Given enough tries at it (and one presumes the universe has an infinite number of these), we are bound to happen now and then.

Is it logical to say that the universe caused itself into existence? I don't think so. Why? Because for something to cause itself into existence is entirely impossible because it must exist to do so. Since it does not exist it can't do so. Therefore, the Creator is implied.  Now, if the probability of God is a myth in your opinion, how can the BB have happened if the cosmologist Carl Sagan referred to it as "Our modern myth of the BB?" ("Cosmos" p. 285)

Ben


#254    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:32 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I can see us living in some boring utopia somewhere hooking into various virtual universes in order to get some excitement into our lives, or perhaps as a punishment for some offense, or perhaps to get a degree in Twenty-fist Century history.  Then when we die we disconnect and go back to the utopia.

Don't worry Frank, when we die there is no utopia where we are all gone to.


#255    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Well I wouldn't say they are on record that in other universes they can have different values; we don't know that these other universe even exist.  We just strongly suspect it.  It is imaginable that deep connections may exist that force all the physical constants to have the values they have, but it seems more likely that these values are "set" based on unknown factors at the birth of a given "universe."  Indeed, some blend of these may be most likely.

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Well I wouldn't say they are on record that in other universes they can have different values; we don't know that these other universe even exist.  We just strongly suspect it.  It is imaginable that deep connections may exist that force all the physical constants to have the values they have, but it seems more likely that these values are "set" based on unknown factors at the birth of a given "universe."  Indeed, some blend of these may be most likely.

Although I find no feasibility for the existence of parallel universes, the idea of multiverses diminish nothing from the concept that something cannot cause itself into existence. The Creator is still implied, no matter how much you wish it weren't.

Ben





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users