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

#211    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:15 PM

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


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.
When one says that "space is flat", one doesn't mean that the universe is flat like a "skin of a balloon" as you say, rather "flat spacetime" refers to what is know as Minkowski space.

In relativity, the three spacial dimensions are combined with a time-like to create the four dimensionalspacetime, which in special relativity is described by Minkowski space. However, one can only use Minkowski space to describe the universe where it is locally flat, that is where there is not significant gravitation. Where there is significant gravitation, we say that spacetime has become curved.
Spacetime is curved.

Quote

Three premises are in order...
  • Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  • The universe had a beginning
  • Therefore the universe had a cause.
1.    True, but not true in quantum physics. Quantum physics, from which our universe would have arose, is probalistic, not deterministic. Meaning that things are governed by probabilities. The vacuum of space is frothing foam of virtual particles that randomly pop into and out of existence. Very much not having any real cause.
2.    Evidence points to this, that the universe had a beginning, but this is because of our interpretations of data. It could be that our interpretations are wrong.
3.    As I stated in point #1, the postulated singularity that lead to the big bang would have likely been governed by quantum physics not regular physics, meaning it would have been governed by probability. Quantum physics shows the random, causeless nature of extremely small things in our universe.

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?

Think about it, what could explain that 1st cause? What do we know about this 1st cause in light of the evidence we do have?

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).

There is nothing you have said here that could not also be explained in an equally valid way using the multiverse theory.

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.

That is why it is a someone and not a something.

We simply do not know what could fit into this category. It could be that our universe exists in a higher dimensional space of some kind. There could be many different types of amazing and unfathomable things that exist outside of our space time bubble. We simply do not know. Why are you religious type people so afraid to admit that we just do not know? Just because we do not know or do not understand does not mean God must be behind something.


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.

1.   Fine tuning is easily explained in a multiverse governed by probability. If there are infinite universes, then one of those universes will have the fine tuning we see, because we can only exist in a fine tuned universe, even if the odds of such a universe are 1 in a trillion, we will ALWAYS observe the universe to be fine tuned, because we could NEVER observe a universe without fine tuning. Say this universe collapses eventually, then goes bang again? Over and over creating itself then destroying itself. And each time the ‘tuning’ is different. We still will ALWAYS observe a fine tuned universe no matter what. Because we would never come into existence in any other type of universe.
2.   See point 1 above.
3.   You are failing to realize that because we will only ever exist in a universe that is fine tuned, for our purposes the probability of such a universe is 1 for 1, it will exist, because it does exist. Even if the probability is 1 in a trillion trillion, we will still ALWAYS observe that 1 in a trillion trillion universe. So this is just a pointless argument.

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.

Yes! I totally agree, I cannot prove that our universe arose from chance any more than anyone else can prove that it was designed. That is the core part of my argument. All I am trying to say is that it is OKAY to say that YOU DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. No amount of belief or faith will bring me to know for sure. I will likely never know. And I am okay with that. Just recognize that your belief is not evidence for anything.


#212    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

This statement cannot be classified in any light but self denial..... if you want to argue about natural processes then at least make a case for it.

I will ask again... What are the probabilities that "natural processes" created the universe?

Where did these natural processes come from?

The universe was created from literally nothing!

Can you concieve the implications of that statement?

Given that we have no other universe to compare to. I would say that the probability that natural processes 100% will form a universe like ours, because it has. We do not know what the universe was created from, we think it may have been created from a singularity (based on complex mathematics). But that is just theory. We simply DO NOT KNOW. You saying that the universe was created from literally nothing is a belief that you have based on science that you obviously do not understand. It is no more valid than your belief in God, or my belief in Santa Claus.


#213    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

A 'fine tuned' universe simply means that all the physical constants line up to create the conditions for a universe in which life can exist.

I apologize for being a pain in these backside, but do you actually understand what you are saying?

How is it possible for the constants to line up just right to permit life in this universe? Do you know how very improbable that is? If you take the time to read some of the posts before you got involved you would know that the probability is so remote that if I had to write it down the list of zeros would be so long that it would take generations to actually write them out.

Quote

You do not understand me. I do not REJECT the POSSIBILITY of a designer. I am simply stating that a designer is not necessary. And there are many real alternatives that are no less valid than God. Like the multiverse theory for one. No less evidence for it, requires belief- see same evidence as there is for a creator God. Ever since mankind learned how to think we have been trying to figure out what made us, what made our world. To ancient man fire, volcanoes, lightening were created by God as they did not understand it. Now we know that volcanoes and lightening exist because of the physics of the world. Just because we do not understand something does not mean that God created it and in fact that attitude implies that we should just accept that we do not understand and move on. I think that we need to keep prodding, keep looking, keep questioning.

According to logic a designer is absolutely necessary, as I explained to Liquid Gardens in the post before yours. The universe had a cause. If nothing existed before that cause brought the universe into existence, then that cause can only be external to this universe. As I explained, the only things that could concievably exist are immaterial (not made of matter or energy) and also be beyond space and time (since neither existed as well), that leaves us with two things:

1. Abstract objects
2. an unbodied mind

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

That is why it is a someone and not a something. That is why it was not a natural process, or a random coincidence, no such things existed before time, space and matter. Or... you can apply to the existence of a multiverse as so many others do, to explain these facts away.

I am all for prodding away and questioning the reasons why and how, we can do that and we will progress in knowledge which is always a good thing, even if I know who actually did it, I still want to know the how and why! I respect science for that and am all for the unbounded knowledge that we will eventually have that will allow us to go out there and see this universe for ourselves.

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


#214    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:11 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I apologize for being a pain in these backside, but do you actually understand what you are saying?

How is it possible for the constants to line up just right to permit life in this universe? Do you know how very improbable that is? If you take the time to read some of the posts before you got involved you would know that the probability is so remote that if I had to write it down the list of zeros would be so long that it would take generations to actually write them out.

No pain! This is why I am a member of this site :)

You are making a flawed assumption. You assume that the constants could be different than what they are. We DO NOT KNOW if this is the case, or if some other higher natural laws are at work that we do not yet understand. A lack of understanding is not evidence for God. So calculating probabilities for numbers that we do not fully understand is garbage science. We cannot prove or disprove anything in doing so. Even if these numbers could be different in different universes. The fact that we exist does not prove anything, because we could only exist in a universe that has the constants of ours. So you see? There could be five billion trillion other universes for each one like ours, we just DON'T KNOW. We do not know if our universe is the only one, we do not have anything else to compare our universe too, so you are just speculating.

Quote

According to logic a designer is absolutely necessary, as I explained to Liquid Gardens in the post before yours. The universe had a cause. If nothing existed before that cause brought the universe into existence, then that cause can only be external to this universe. As I explained, the only things that could concievably exist are immaterial (not made of matter or energy) and also be beyond space and time (since neither existed as well), that leaves us with two things:

1. Abstract objects
2. an unbodied mind

More assumptions. You are assuming that the universe had a cause, quantum physics shows that at very small scales spacetime is probablistic, not deterministic, meaning that the postulated singularity that expanded into the universe would have been governed by probability, which means that it could, actually, have spontaneously created our universe for no reason other than simple probability. According to logic, a designer is not at all necessary.

You or I have no idea what could or could not, might or might not exist outside of the universe. You are just speculating, we simply do not know. Again you are basing you argument on speculation and assumption. A logical fallacy.

Quote

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

Again this entire argument is based on speculation, and assumptions, not on hard science.

Quote

That is why it is a someone and not a something. That is why it was not a natural process, or a random coincidence, no such things existed before time, space and matter. Or... you can apply to the existence of a multiverse as so many others do, to explain these facts away.


This is your opinion, not fact. You do not know this for a fact. You might have faith in it, you might believe in it, but that does not make this fact. The fact is, the multiverse theory is just as valid as the creator theory.

Quote

I am all for prodding away and questioning the reasons why and how, we can do that and we will progress in knowledge which is always a good thing, even if I know who actually did it, I still want to know the how and why! I respect science for that and am all for the unbounded knowledge that we will eventually have that will allow us to go out there and see this universe for ourselves.

Kudos to that! I simply admit that I do not know, what I believe in is irrelevant, because it is my belief and I cannot prove it, disprove it, or make you see it how I see it. It is irrelevant. Objective truth is what I seek, and indeed objective truth is the only that can be proven to another. I admit I do not know, I concede that there could be a God, but I also concede that there might not be a God. What is wrong with this view? Why are religious people so threatened by the unknown?


#215    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 08:55 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

When one says that "space is flat", one doesn't mean that the universe is flat like a "skin of a balloon" as you say, rather "flat spacetime" refers to what is know as Minkowski space.

In relativity, the three spacial dimensions are combined with a time-like to create the four dimensionalspacetime, which in special relativity is described by Minkowski space. However, one can only use Minkowski space to describe the universe where it is locally flat, that is where there is not significant gravitation. Where there is significant gravitation, we say that spacetime has become curved.
Spacetime is curved.

And that is exactly what I was not saying, I was not talking of Minkowski space nor the localized curvature of space by a gravitational object like star. I'm talking about the actual shape of the universe we live in.

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.../uni_shape.html

What this means that in the hypothetical case of another universe where the shape is different, such as space with a much higher degree of curvature, instead of the 0.4 % margin of curvature in ours, and we add  to that a different physical laws of physics, the very ratio of PI would be different from that of our universe. All smooth surfaces are locally very close to Euclidean (if you look with a big enough magnifying glass, any smooth surface seems flat). But as you go to a bigger and bigger area, the properties become more and more distorted if the surface has a finite Gaussian curvature: for instance, the sum of angles of a triangle is no longer 180°, and the circumference of a circle is no longer 2 pi r. The smaller the curvature, the larger the region you need to get a given amount of distortion.

A good example of this to spill some coffee on your paper and leave it out in the sun. The next day it will be all warped; you won't be able to lay it flat.  Warp is a good word for this effect.  You can change the shape of a warped sheet, flip it inside-out by pushing down the bumps and pushing up the troughs, roll it up; but you can't make it flat. The warp is the thing that stays the same through all this. But what actually has happened?  When the coffee is absorbed in the paper and later dries out, it changes the distance between neighbouring fibres in the paper.  We get a region which is too big to fit inside its surroundings, if we stuck with the geometry of Euclid.  For sheets of paper embedded in our 3-D world, this can be accomodated by the region bulging out, being curved in the everyday sense. But the crucial thing for the warp is not the bulging out, but the fact that the grid of distances between neighboring fibres is no longer consistent with the rules of planar Euclidean geometry.

See: http://www.jb.man.ac...smo/metric.html

Quote

1. True, but not true in quantum physics. Quantum physics, from which our universe would have arose, is probalistic, not deterministic. Meaning that things are governed by probabilities. The vacuum of space is frothing foam of virtual particles that randomly pop into and out of existence. Very much not having any real cause.

And where exactly would any particles have come from before there was a big bang? Everything and that means, even those particles did not exist before the big bang, there was no quantum foam. That is what the word nothing means.

Quote

2. Evidence points to this, that the universe had a beginning, but this is because of our interpretations of data. It could be that our interpretations are wrong.

No that is not the interpretation of the data, that is exactly what the latest data is telling us, the model of the universe must fit the observed data and the only model that does that, is with a universe that had a beginning. I've posted a number of papers by Alexander Vilenkin that demonstrate exactly this issue when a number of people were contesting this statement.

Quote

3. As I stated in point #1, the postulated singularity that lead to the big bang would have likely been governed by quantum physics not regular physics, meaning it would have been governed by probability. Quantum physics shows the random, causeless nature of extremely small things in our universe.

The latest data tells us that there wasn't even a singularity there. That is exactly what I mean when use the term "nothing".

See: the following video...


Quote

There is nothing you have said here that could not also be explained in an equally valid way using the multiverse theory.

Except that the multiverse theory is not even a hypothesis, it is merely an explanation that scientists use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis. Even scientists admit that. It is untestable at this time, which lays it exactly at the same level as believing God did it. Except there are more arguments for God, then a multiverse.

Quote

We simply do not know what could fit into this category. It could be that our universe exists in a higher dimensional space of some kind. There could be many different types of amazing and unfathomable things that exist outside of our space time bubble. We simply do not know. Why are you religious type people so afraid to admit that we just do not know? Just because we do not know or do not understand does not mean God must be behind something.

I have no fear of saying I don't know, but that is where the odds come up, the odds are that it was a designer, much more so than a multiverse.

Again I post a video, because it becomes easier to let someone else explain it than having to do it again for the tenth time in the same thread.


Quote

1.   Fine tuning is easily explained in a multiverse governed by probability. If there are infinite universes, then one of those universes will have the fine tuning we see, because we can only exist in a fine tuned universe, even if the odds of such a universe are 1 in a trillion, we will ALWAYS observe the universe to be fine tuned, because we could NEVER observe a universe without fine tuning. Say this universe collapses eventually, then goes bang again? Over and over creating itself then destroying itself. And each time the ‘tuning’ is different. We still will ALWAYS observe a fine tuned universe no matter what. Because we would never come into existence in any other type of universe.
2.   See point 1 above.
3.   You are failing to realize that because we will only ever exist in a universe that is fine tuned, for our purposes the probability of such a universe is 1 for 1, it will exist, because it does exist. Even if the probability is 1 in a trillion trillion, we will still ALWAYS observe that 1 in a trillion trillion universe. So this is just a pointless argument.

By saying the above you show me that you have no conception of what 10120  actually means... it means that there would need to be more universes in this multiverse than there are atoms in our universe...by a factor of at least 40. just to raise the probability of a universe such as ours arising by chance so that highly improbable (actually impossible) becomes minimally probable. Do you realize what you are asking me to believe here?

We aren't talking of a billion to 1 chance we are talking of something that exceeds the human minds capacity to imagine.

Quote

Yes! I totally agree, I cannot prove that our universe arose from chance any more than anyone else can prove that it was designed. That is the core part of my argument. All I am trying to say is that it is OKAY to say that YOU DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. No amount of belief or faith will bring me to know for sure. I will likely never know. And I am okay with that. Just recognize that your belief is not evidence for anything.

No, it is not proof, but evidence, yes it is that.

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


#216    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Given that we have no other universe to compare to. I would say that the probability that natural processes 100% will form a universe like ours, because it has. We do not know what the universe was created from, we think it may have been created from a singularity (based on complex mathematics). But that is just theory. We simply DO NOT KNOW. You saying that the universe was created from literally nothing is a belief that you have based on science that you obviously do not understand. It is no more valid than your belief in God, or my belief in Santa Claus.

In the case of probabilities you are very far from correct. As I stated earlier in another post to LG, the fact that we have the universe we have does not mean we succeeded against all odds, the odds are such that the only word to account for the concept is "impossible".

Edited by Jor-el, 10 April 2013 - 09:25 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


#217    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:13 PM

Quote

And where exactly would any particles have come from before there was a big bang? Everything and that means, even those particles did not exist before the big bang, there was no quantum foam. That is what the word nothing means.

Again, we don't know. We don't know what if anything existed before the big bang. We can only observe the universe and try to infer what may have occurred before the universe based on what we observe. We DO NOT KNOW. We don't know if our universe exists in some kind of higher dimensional space, or if it is the only thing in existence like it. We don't know that it was nothing. We used to think that space was nothing, now we know that it is a dynamic environment of a frothing quantum foam.

Quote

No that is not the interpretation of the data, that is exactly what the latest data is telling us, the model of the universe must fit the observed data and the only model that does that, is with a universe that had a beginning. I've posted a number of papers by Alexander Vilenkin that demonstrate exactly this issue when a number of people were contesting this statement.

Yes the latest data is telling us that the universe had a beginning. But who's to say it is not cyclical in nature? Nobody knows for sure. This is not evidence for God. The beginning of the universe could have been caused by some kind of natural phenomena in the higher dimensional space in which the universe exists. We don't know.

Quote

Except that the multiverse theory is not even a hypothesis, it is merely an explanation that scientists use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis. Even scientists admit that. It is untestable at this time, which lays it exactly at the same level as believing God did it. Except there are more arguments for God, then a multiverse.

Just as the God theory is not even a hypothesis. It is merely an explanation religious people use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis either. Scientists also admit this. It is totally untestable at this time as well. There are more arguments negating God, than there are for a multiverse as well.

Quote

I have no fear of saying I don't know, but that is where the odds come up, the odds are that it was a designer, much more so than a multiverse.

Again I post a video, because it becomes easier to let someone else explain it than having to do it again for the tenth time in the same thread.

Yeah I have seen the video's. Nothing that I was not already aware of. If you consider that whatever exists (if anything) outside our universe may be infinite., even odds of 10^210 is a small number. An eventual certainty.

Quote

By saying the above you show me that you have no conception of what 10120  actually means... it means that there would need to be more universes in this multiverse than there are atoms in our universe...by a factor of at least 40. just to raise the probability of a universe such as ours arising by chance so that highly improbable (actually impossible) becomes minimally probable. Do you realize what you are asking me to believe here?

We aren't talking of a billion to 1 chance we are talking of something that exceeds the human minds capacity to imagine.

I totally understand what 10^120 is. I am simply stating a logical fact. That in the face of infinity, odds of 10^120 mean that it is an eventual certainty. Infinity is hard to comprehend I know, even harder to comprehend that your outrageously large number. But infinity means that any probability no matter how remote, is an eventual certainty.

Quote

No, it is not proof, but evidence, yes it is that.

Evidence:

Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Verb:
Be or show evidence of.

As you can see, belief itself is NOT evidence. Evidence would be something that backs up the belief. The belief itself is not, and cannot be, evidence unto itself. Your belief in God is no more evidence for God's existence than another person's belief that there is no God is evidence for God's non-existence.


Edited by Einsteinium, 10 April 2013 - 09:16 PM.


#218    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:15 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

In the case of probabilities you are very far from correct. As I stated earlier in another post to LG, hte fact that we have the universe we have does not mean we succeeded against all odds, the odds are such that the only word to account for the concept is "impossible".

As I just stated in my last post. In the face of infinity. Even the smallest odds are an eventual certainty. You seem to not understand this, and seem to think I do not understand the odds. You base these odds on nothing more than assumptions and flawed science for one, and you are failing to account for the fact that infinity trumps ANY odds no matter how large the odds may be. In an infinite place, no matter what the odds are for something to happen, that something will eventually happen.


#219    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

No pain! This is why I am a member of this site :)

You are making a flawed assumption. You assume that the constants could be different than what they are. We DO NOT KNOW if this is the case, or if some other higher natural laws are at work that we do not yet understand. A lack of understanding is not evidence for God. So calculating probabilities for numbers that we do not fully understand is garbage science. We cannot prove or disprove anything in doing so. Even if these numbers could be different in different universes. The fact that we exist does not prove anything, because we could only exist in a universe that has the constants of ours. So you see? There could be five billion trillion other universes for each one like ours, we just DON'T KNOW. We do not know if our universe is the only one, we do not have anything else to compare our universe too, so you are just speculating.

Well then my speculation if you insist on calling it that falls far shorter than yours in a multiverse. And yet the logical fallacy of that speculation is that we still won't know if God is the creator of the multiverse, but I don't need to go there. There is but one universe that we know exists, this universe not only has the fine tuning but also has something else which dominates the entirety of this universe from the quantum foam right up to the very structure of galaxies. It is evident in our very DNA, it is evident in nature, in architecture,in our concepts of music and beauty, and you cannot ascribe a chance factor to it because it is so regularly portrayed everywhere you look, that is the golden ratio.

Quote

More assumptions. You are assuming that the universe had a cause, quantum physics shows that at very small scales spacetime is probablistic, not deterministic, meaning that the postulated singularity that expanded into the universe would have been governed by probability, which means that it could, actually, have spontaneously created our universe for no reason other than simple probability. According to logic, a designer is not at all necessary

Again, the most recent findings, dispense with a singularity of any kind. There was nothing there. You are trying at all costs to say that there was something there, and that is your error. There was no spacetime, there were no particles , there was no singularity. There wasn't even probability.

Quote

You or I have no idea what could or could not, might or might not exist outside of the universe. You are just speculating, we simply do not know. Again you are basing you argument on speculation and assumption. A logical fallacy.

No I am basing my argument on the evidence of fine tuning, on the golden ratio and on the probabilites admitted by scientists themselves of the universe coming about like it did purely by chance. It is the very reason for the existence of the multiverse speculation, because it isn't even a theory or a hypothesis based on any evidence whatsoever.

Quote

Again this entire argument is based on speculation, and assumptions, not on hard science.

If that makes you sleep easier, then sure go ahead and believe that.

Quote

This is your opinion, not fact. You do not know this for a fact. You might have faith in it, you might believe in it, but that does not make this fact. The fact is, the multiverse theory is just as valid as the creator theory.

As you have faith in your speculation of a multiverse. At least my theory doesn't need to resort to Hectillions upon hectillions of other universes to artificially inflate the odds.

Quote

Kudos to that! I simply admit that I do not know, what I believe in is irrelevant, because it is my belief and I cannot prove it, disprove it, or make you see it how I see it. It is irrelevant. Objective truth is what I seek, and indeed objective truth is the only that can be proven to another. I admit I do not know, I concede that there could be a God, but I also concede that there might not be a God. What is wrong with this view? Why are religious people so threatened by the unknown?

Well that is your stance, I see no reason to take the skeptic standpoint on this issue. That is why I am opposing the naturalistic viewpoint on this thread, it strains credulity.

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


#220    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 09:30 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

As I just stated in my last post. In the face of infinity. Even the smallest odds are an eventual certainty. You seem to not understand this, and seem to think I do not understand the odds. You base these odds on nothing more than assumptions and flawed science for one, and you are failing to account for the fact that infinity trumps ANY odds no matter how large the odds may be. In an infinite place, no matter what the odds are for something to happen, that something will eventually happen.

Sorry Einsteinium, that is BS. It is the equivalent of another argument held by others on this thread about making a square become circle. If you understand the odds and you have to rely on a multiverse to get you those odds, then who is making the logical fallacy here?

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


#221    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Well then my speculation if you insist on calling it that falls far shorter than yours in a multiverse. And yet the logical fallacy of that speculation is that we still won't know if God is the creator of the multiverse, but I don't need to go there. There is but one universe that we know exists, this universe not only has the fine tuning but also has something else which dominates the entirety of this universe from the quantum foam right up to the very structure of galaxies. It is evident in our very DNA, it is evident in nature, in architecture,in our concepts of music and beauty, and you cannot ascribe a chance factor to it because it is so regularly portrayed everywhere you look, that is the golden ratio.



Again, the most recent findings, dispense with a singularity of any kind. There was nothing there. You are trying at all costs to say that there was something there, and that is your error. There was no spacetime, there were no particles , there was no singularity. There wasn't even probability.



No I am basing my argument on the evidence of fine tuning, on the golden ratio and on the probabilites admitted by scientists themselves of the universe coming about like it did purely by chance. It is the very reason for the existence of the multiverse speculation, because it isn't even a theory or a hypothesis based on any evidence whatsoever.



If that makes you sleep easier, then sure go ahead and believe that.



As you have faith in your speculation of a multiverse. At least my theory doesn't need to resort to Hectillions upon hectillions of other universes to artificially inflate the odds.



Well that is your stance, I see no reason to take the skeptic standpoint on this issue. That is why I am opposing the naturalistic viewpoint on this thread, it strains credulity.

I do not have faith in the multiverse theory. I don't even think it is a good theory. But I also think that simply stating "God MUST be the answer!" because we do not understand something is lazy and stains the face of human reasoning and logic. The latest findings point that maybe there was nothing, no singularity, okay, but those are just the latest findings. We still don't know very much, findings could come out next year that show that in fact, there was something.

Fine tuning is not evidence for a creator. It just is not. It IS however, evidence that we are lacking understanding, and we need to dig deeper to search for the answers. Someone else said that in the past people were told "God is over the next hill" They got there, no God. So "God is over those mountains" Got there, no God. "God is over the ocean" got there, no God. "God must be in the sky!" Created instruments to look, no God. God is always the thing that is unknown, unseen, 'over the next hill' 'when you die you will meet him' etc. And when we don't find God there..Where then will you say he must be next? When we find one day (hypothetically) that the golden ration, PI, etc. are all derived from a higher physics that we currently have no understanding of, and that it makes perfect sense, where then will you point and say, "God is over there" God will always exist because there will always be things we cannot fully explain in the minds of men. Does that mean God exists or does it mean we are all scared of the unknowable and scared of death so we create God in our minds because the thought of God comforts us? I think the odds are about 50/50, but that is only my opinion.


#222    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 09:37 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:


Again, we don't know. We don't know what if anything existed before the big bang. We can only observe the universe and try to infer what may have occurred before the universe based on what we observe. We DO NOT KNOW. We don't know if our universe exists in some kind of higher dimensional space, or if it is the only thing in existence like it. We don't know that it was nothing. We used to think that space was nothing, now we know that it is a dynamic environment of a frothing quantum foam.

Yes the latest data is telling us that the universe had a beginning. But who's to say it is not cyclical in nature? Nobody knows for sure. This is not evidence for God. The beginning of the universe could have been caused by some kind of natural phenomena in the higher dimensional space in which the universe exists. We don't know.

Just as the God theory is not even a hypothesis. It is merely an explanation religious people use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis either. Scientists also admit this. It is totally untestable at this time as well. There are more arguments negating God, than there are for a multiverse as well.

Yeah I have seen the video's. Nothing that I was not already aware of. If you consider that whatever exists (if anything) outside our universe may be infinite., even odds of 10^210 is a small number. An eventual certainty.

I totally understand what 10^120 is. I am simply stating a logical fact. That in the face of infinity, odds of 10^120 mean that it is an eventual certainty. Infinity is hard to comprehend I know, even harder to comprehend that your outrageously large number. But infinity means that any probability no matter how remote, is an eventual certainty.

Evidence:

Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Verb:
Be or show evidence of.

As you can see, belief itself is NOT evidence. Evidence would be something that backs up the belief. The belief itself is not, and cannot be, evidence unto itself. Your belief in God is no more evidence for God's existence than another person's belief that there is no God is evidence for God's non-existence.


No go, again the argument from infinity... and the reliance of a multiverse, that is your way of beating the odds. In a card game we would call that cheating by adding cards to the table.

As I said evidence, not proof. Proof needs to be incontrovertible, I admit I do not have that, but evidence yes that I do have, no matter how much you try to deny it by inventing a way out by the argument of a multiverse and infinity.

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


#223    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:40 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Sorry Einsteinium, that is BS. It is the equivalent of another argument held by others on this thread about making a square become circle. If you understand the odds and you have to rely on a multiverse to get you those odds, then who is making the logical fallacy here?

You, because you are basing your so called 'odds' on a bunch of assumptions. The main assumption being that those constants could be different anyways. We don't know this, the only observation we have is of those constants being what they are.

It does not require a multiverse. Only for infinity to exist, and probability to exist outside of the universe as we know it. Infinity is a mathematical fact, and probability is an observed, verified phenomenon. God is not. For example we do not know if the quantum foam exists only in the universe or outside it as well. We don't know if our universe has a boundary. It could be that our universe is infinite in all directions. It could be that big bangs happen because of random chance in the quantum foam every 10^2000 years of our time, even in that event, our existence is an eventual certainty- given the one assumption- that infinity exists in time and space.


#224    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

View PostJor-el, on 10 April 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

No go, again the argument from infinity... and the reliance of a multiverse, that is your way of beating the odds. In a card game we would call that cheating by adding cards to the table.

As I said evidence, not proof. Proof needs to be incontrovertible, I admit I do not have that, but evidence yes that I do have, no matter how much you try to deny it by inventing a way out by the argument of a multiverse and infinity.

You have evidence for the universe being an amazing, precision tool as it were. That does not mean that God created it, or that it was designed. Although I like the idea that it was! Its just a belief, no more valid than any other person's belief in the non-existence of God.

And besides, adding God into the mix is not adding cards to the table? There are untold numbers of cards that we have not even discovered yet. Your calling the fine tuning evidence for God is like me saying that because I got dealt 4 Aces in a hand at one time it must be a miracle, but without even knowing what cards or how many cards are in the deck.

Edited by Einsteinium, 10 April 2013 - 09:48 PM.


#225    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 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 10 April 2013 - 09:46 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 10 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I do not have faith in the multiverse theory. I don't even think it is a good theory. But I also think that simply stating "God MUST be the answer!" because we do not understand something is lazy and stains the face of human reasoning and logic. The latest findings point that maybe there was nothing, no singularity, okay, but those are just the latest findings. We still don't know very much, findings could come out next year that show that in fact, there was something.

Fine tuning is not evidence for a creator. It just is not. It IS however, evidence that we are lacking understanding, and we need to dig deeper to search for the answers. Someone else said that in the past people were told "God is over the next hill" They got there, no God. So "God is over those mountains" Got there, no God. "God is over the ocean" got there, no God. "God must be in the sky!" Created instruments to look, no God. God is always the thing that is unknown, unseen, 'over the next hill' 'when you die you will meet him' etc. And when we don't find God there..Where then will you say he must be next? When we find one day (hypothetically) that the golden ration, PI, etc. are all derived from a higher physics that we currently have no understanding of, and that it makes perfect sense, where then will you point and say, "God is over there" God will always exist because there will always be things we cannot fully explain in the minds of men. Does that mean God exists or does it mean we are all scared of the unknowable and scared of death so we create God in our minds because the thought of God comforts us? I think the odds are about 50/50, but that is only my opinion.

I have no answer for that, but I am not an unreasonable person, if the time comes where evidence becomes proof, I will again join the ranks of atheism. I long ago lost the fear of death and if my death is to be the final chapter in existence, then that will be what it will be. I won't regret my life.

But man , I would regret never having the opportunity to see the universe for myself.

But I sincerely believe that you will find that the answers will confirm rather than deny the evidence of a creator, designer whom we could call God.

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users