waitasec
Veteran Member
correction; gets you from there
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective morality
- Thread starter KlLLUMINATI
- Start date
correction; gets you from there
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You are most definitely blowing this out of proportion. Read any current books on physics and the nature of time and you will find there is no concept overwhelmingly embraced by anyone. It has nothing to do with their belief, or lack thereof, in God but rather their belief in science. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of them professed a belief in God before taking up science.
A significant number of physists believe that time is nothing more than an emergent property of change. "About Time : Einstein's unfinished revolution" by Paul Davies is a particularly good read. Since no one has ever experienced anything other than the here and now, I am strongly inclinced to agree with them. If this is the case, then nothing can exist independant of time unless it is completely unchanging. Doesn't that makes it a little difficult for the Christian God, or any other God for that matter, to speak anything into existence?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I am currently reading a book on the the science of God again just because we have been discussing this subject. The author has 2 Doctorates in Physics and something else. For most of scientific history there have been two camps concerning time. One defined by Newton and another defined by Leibniz and Kant. They were both very well supported until about the 60s or 70s and then a trend in discoveries started to eliminate the infinate time camp. I even gave you a quote by a very secular Hawkin's to illustrate that it is not the God issue that is causing this shift. If I am wrong then a hurdle must be over come that can't be. You must explain how an infinate number of seconds could be crossed in order to arrive at now or as in your other definition an infinate number of previous events be crossed to arrive at this one. Unless you can the issue is academic.
I think you are getting side tracked with semantics. Let's call time duration then. No matter what it is or isn't the universe can't be eternal. For one thing the universe is headed for heat death. If it were eternal it would have already reached that point. It also is becomeing less and less dense in general. If it were eternal it would have already arrived at a point where everything is so spread out as to be unrecognisable. The only counter to this is oscillation for which no evidence exists or probably even could and it only kicks the can down the road a bit further. I have never seen a non believer not agree that time isn't infinate before in the many debates I have had or seen. You see it all eventually I guess. An eternal universe is as impossible as an honest politician. I kid, I kid.
An eternal universe is as unlikely as an eternal creator, so there is more counters than oscillation. Saying something has a beginning isn't as easy as sticking an eternal creator in front of it. We simply don't know what was before expansion and we don't know if time even existed prior to expansion.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Being that an eternal universe is apparently impossable and probability has no way to evaluate the NECESSARY creator this is not correct. There are no counters at all that have even a slight bit of evidence other than God. Most of them are of a nature that evidence even if true will always be impossible to have. They made their counter arguments that way on purpose in my opinion but that is another subject.
Don't know, even if true does not justify denying a creator. The truth is philosophy makes a creator necessary for a creation to be created. I will agree that the creator is open for debate. However philosophy has laws that dictate rough requirements that any creator must have. The description of God by men long before and unaware of what these requirements would be gave a description of God that is an exact match for what philosophy says he or it must have. That makes God the leading candidate for the creator even if scientists are mad because they can't get get any grant money for research because science is impotent in this regard as in all of the most profound issues humans face. Your claims seem more rooted in a pre commitment or preference of an ideology than based on any principles indicated by any principle of acedemia.
Since an eternal creator is impossible and improbable I don't see why it can't be correct.
But God isn't showing any evidence either. Pure speculation to what we know nothing about.
Right like a god that creates himself?
The counter argument for atheists will be different from someone with a different theological concept.
Yes it does because an eternal creator makes the chicken or egg question even worse and unanswerable.
Only when you word it like that. I prefer existence rather than creation. The philosophy is perplexing when considering nothing, not even god, comes from nothing.
OK.
By whose philosophical standards, western or eastern. Eastern philosophies are the ones standing the test of time against science.
No it makes the unknowable tao a more leading candidate than yahweh or allah. Science isn't trying to find god, religious people are.
Ditto. The irony of your remark is not lost me. It becomes philosophy once the limits of scientific knowledge is reached.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What? Prove or even invent a reason a creator can't be eternal. Philosophy suggest a creator must exist, must be eternal, and is absolute.
The greatest expert on evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf) says the opposite. I will go with the founder of Harvard law.
The bible says he is uncreated. At least ineffectively argue against what I am actually claiming.
Regardless not a single one has a single scrap of evidence nor ever will have.
No it does not. You are not familiar with philosophy I assume. The creator is the only solution to the problem and the problem must have a solution to exist as a problem. Narrows it down doesn't it.
That is why God always existed. People knew this 400 years ago how?
Eastern philosophy can't even survive it's self. Look up Ravi Zacharias on the subject. He presented a case so overwhelming the Eastern Philosopher gave up and conceeded. Western philosophy is the dominant one and has been for some time. I can even prove eastern core philosophy wrong.
The unknowable isn't a thing. It isn't a candidate. It is nothing. NO THING. If your bias forces you to reject the likely candidate, and that candidate meets every known criteria, and there are no competitors then I can't help. Nor can reason, logic, or common sence.
Is this fourth grade? I know you are but what am I. Several field of deduction make God a very likely candidate for the creator. Not a single one rules him out nor offers an alternative. You would save much time if you just said you do not like the idea of God and have determined based on that to exclude him up front without reason. I can at least respect that even if I can't agree and it would make shorter posts.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You're mistaken if you think I am arguing for either an infinite or oscillating universe. Besides, "infinite" and "eternal" are not the same thing. The phrase "finite but unbounded" would be a better description of how I view both time and the universe.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Maybe you should expand on what laws and requirements these are.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Finite can't be finite without bounds. It is limits that make finite finite. Can you please post whatever intellectuall gymnastics you found that make this work. I think this is desolving into semantics. I think my claims even if not technically the perfect terms (however they are) are still quite obvious. Symantics do not affect my claims.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Only if forced as it would take a while. Let me give a layman version and see if you still require it. A mouse is not a suffecient cause for the construction and detonation of a nuclear device. So by that we can easily understand that the capability of the cause must be suffecient to explain the effect. For the creation of the universe omnisience and omnipotence are just about what the doctor ordered. Unless something is comparable to these things then it is the mouse and can't cause the effect. It is also necessary that whatever created time, space, and matter be independant of their existance. God is again the only candidate known. There may be others but as of right now there is not a single scrap of evidence for any others and science usually adopts the most likely as it's hypothesis unless of course that involves a God in any capacity shape or form. Mostly they prefer baseless fantasy to a God of any kind even when in the worse case they are equivalent. Also necessary is that whatever the prime mover or first cause creator of everything that has began to exist must by necessity have no beginning. If you can't agree with these simple principles then I do not think a more in depth explenation will help. They are inescapable and there are far more than these.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Earth has a finite surface area, yet no matter how far or wide you search you will not find any end to it.
Even Einstein considered a finite unbounded universe possible.
Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory
1robin
Christian/Baptist
The surface of the Earth has a limited surface area, a limited circumfrence, doesn't extend past a certain distance from the center of the globe. It is definately bounded. Lets say that time is whatever you say it is. What does that mean for this discussion? This idea with the exception of Einstien seems meritless and meaningless but I am no expert. Can you make it meaningfull?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
A challenge! :woohoo:
Your concept of "sufficient" is seriously lacking. We can create and detonate a nuclear device with nothing more than gravity and a sufficient quantity of hydrogen.
This is what I was really looking for you to explain but I guess it will have to wait.
You are making an unsupported assumption that time and space were created.
We observe the results of undirected, vacuous natural forces at work all around us and you think that an unseen and unknowable intelligent creator has the most evidence?
A finite and unbounded universe must also by necessity have no beginning, so no first cause is required.
Is that an escape clause?
camanintx
Well-Known Member
While the volume is bounded, the surface area is not. You can travel in a straight line in any direction you choose and never have to stop.
That's simple. While a finite and unbounded universe may have only been around for 14 billion years, it would never have a beginning so no first cause is required.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I only dig up very involved things based on the likely hood that it will be understood and be productive. I will consider whether that is the case.
Neither of which a mouse can accomplish. So if I stuck you in a room with a bag of Hydrogen you could construct and detonate a nuclear devise. Not even remotely possible. Nuclear detonations require great precision in construction and timing. They are very very hard to get right. For example we spent more on the manhatten project that can be concieved. It took 1/10 of all the energy that the US produced and sophisticated equipment that didn't exist had to be made to create just the fissionable material. This is just silly. The cause must be capable of the effect. No escape. Find me an example of a nuclear device being constructed and detonated successfully that didn't involve teams of brilliant scientists and factories of very skilled workers.
We are dealing with complexity of un imaginable sophistication. There are many parameters of the creation of the universe that are balanced on a razor's edge. Even most secular scientists agree with this. A slight difference in any one and life of any kind and in many cases the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Our brain is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. There is no known source to explain this sophistication other than intelligence. That intelligence would necessarily have to be independant from the creation in order to create it. If you can't grasp these things why am I going to bother looking up rigorus philisophical laws that are more abstract that these simple examples? There is no incentive.
It is impossible that they have always existed. An infinate series of events or seconds can be traversed and we would never get here or now. The universe is proceeding towards heat death if infinate it would have reached it by now. The fact that every single scrap of data supports a finite universe is why the infinate concept of time has been gradually abandoned. There isn't much more obvious than this. That is why fantasy is the only option to avoid the Godly implications of this fact.
It is even worse than this. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history and they are taught as fact and Christ denied. Of course natural law exists, what has that got to do with anything? The fact it does exist is an argument for God. Those laws and forces are rational. Nature can't produce or percieve rationality without the intelligence it can't produce. In fact nothing can't produce anything and that is where we were at one time.
You have yet to show that this exists or that your conclusion follows from the premise you have not defined.
Yes, I do not bother proving things to anyone who either can't grasp them or refuses to. The claims I made I did not invent they are the result of hundreds of hours watching and reading transcripts from professional debates and 190 sem hours in engineering. Plus 20 plus years of apologetic and critical research. I know very well what the principle understandings in theses subjects are and can recognise the lack of ability or willingness to comprehend them. By the way spelling is not well known by me so ignore the type Os please.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
It would have to be a very large bag. Start with cloud of about 20 x 10^30 kgs of hydrogen (that's about 10 times the mass of our sun) and a gravitational constant of about 6.6 x 10^-11 (m/kg)^2. Eventually the cloud will collapse to the point that hydrogen begins fusing into helium and a star is born. Soon the helium will begin fusing into carbon and oxygen and eventually, enough carbon and oxygen form that the star implodes on itself and produces the largest nuclear detonation ever seen, releasing as much energy as our sun produces in its whole lifetime. No mouse required.
This is probably the weakest argument for God that there is. Always reminds me of a story about a puddle.
First, we have no idea how any of these parameters came to be so how can we say what range of values they may have taken? Second, if these parameters didn't produce a universe capable of supporting life, who would have been around to notice?
Just because something isn't created doesn't mean it is infinite.
Nature is full of examples of emergent properties. How much does a single electron weigh? What is the temperature or color of a single molecule? When matter first existed, all you had were atomic reactions. Eventually, molecules formed allowing chemical reactions to take place. Eventually those chemical reactions became so complex that life began. As life became sufficiently complex, consciousness appears and as consciousness becomes more complex, intelligence prevails. It's actually a very simple and elegant pattern if you just put aside your preconceptions and look at all the evidence objectively.
Apparently you didn't read or understand Chapter 31 of Einstein's book on Relativity. If you prefer philosophy over physics, I would ask you to read the following paper.
A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)
I could say the same but then neither of us would be here.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
And this interplanetary mouse accomplished this how? I said specifically to avoid this type of diversion and wasting of time, the CONSTRUCTION and detonation of a nuclear device. Diverting to something that has no relation to the issue is meaningless. Even in your irrelevant comparison where did all this stuff come from? Nothing produces nothing. Nothing does not produce hydrogen, mass ,gravity, energy, heat or any of the other thousands of natural laws and components needed.
Then why is it acknowledged by people far smarter than me and you put together? I just saw an episode of Searching for truth where this English neuroscientist goes around the world and discusses these very issues with the greatest scientists, philosophers, and theologians alive. They all considered fine tuning real but the non believers he talked to tried to get out of it by using the same fantasies I posted. Not one suggested it didn't exist and that it wasn't profound so your credability was not helped by this assertion.
How they came to be has no effect on the implications of their existance. The fact that the chances that it should have produced a trillion universes that didn't have any life at all is the whole point. It is not proof but the implications are not debateable. We should not be here. The universe as we know it should not be here. In fact nothing should be here.
If it exists and at no time didn't exist it's presence is infinite. That is kind of what the words mean.
I am ok with this. I also note you said matter began to exist.
That is true to a certain extent. I have heard that there is no known force that could have produced anything beyond Iron, as Iron is the highest element that can be generated by fusion. I am no chemist but maybe you can comment.
Now your getting to some impossible stuff. The chance that random reactions would produce life has been estimated by several secular scholars as around 1 X 10^80. That is the equivalent of picking at random a certain atom in the universe. There isn't enough time in 1000 universes like ours to make this even remotely likely. However that isn't the big problem. This first life form would have to pop on the sceen with a fully intact system that allowed reproduction. This is another 1 X 10^whatever. If you know probability two consecutive events are multiplied together to get the chance of both occuring. This makes the impossible simply absurd. It just keeps getting worse. You basically said that if we take a puzzle and break it up and throw it in a box and shake it up we find that two and maybe three pieces go together and so if we shake long enough then eventually all will go together. Not hardly but it would take a long time to explain. This man has explained it very well:
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith
- Creationist
- Chemist
- Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
- Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
- D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
- F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
- Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 Golden Apple awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
- Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
- Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
- Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
- NATO three-star general
- Lecturer
- Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film/video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be (shown widely throughout North America, Australia, and televised nationally in South Africa, Russia, and throughout the former Soviet Union).
As you can see he is qualified and then some to discuss the issue. Search for type in type out systems and his name and you will find out why your conclusion is impossible based on your premise.
See above.
No, you said that Einstien thought this might be possible. That is a far cry from showing it true or even likely. That is what I asked for. Your link might well have said the musings of a self caused cat. Nothing produces nothing. By nothing I mean no natural law, no quantum physics, no energy, no matter, no beef, no nothing.
That might be true. However I do not think I said that about you specifically but can't remember and don't care.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
I showed you how a nuclear device could come to exist without any intelligent guidance. If you are going to to require intelligence as one of your preconditions then you are always going to prove intelligence.
Because they want to believe the theological implications of a fine tuned universe.
If you are going to claim that parameters are so finely balanced that had they been any different life wouldn't exist, then you need to know what range of values they could have taken on and that requires knowledge of how they came to be.
NO, infinite means without beginning or end. If at no time something doesn't exist, whether or not it had a begining or end, then it is eternal.
[/quote]Now your getting to some impossible stuff. The chance that random reactions would produce life has been estimated by several secular scholars as around 1 X 10^80. [/quote]
That is the odds of life randomly coming into existence fully formed. That is not what biologists claim.
Who says there was nothing? Energy is constant and always exists. Doesn't basis physics tell us that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form?
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
You would actually consider a function of natural law a device?
- A thing made or adapted for a particular task, esp. a mechanism or electronic instrument
Many of them have no religious affiliation. Maybe most. Next.
It is only necessary to know the rough probabilities of what could have happend. They claim to know far more based on far less. They only start this hair splitting, and requireing a dissertation for every simple claim when the implications are inconvienient. I will demostrate. This is what they appeal to in order to counter fine tuning.
The MIT physicist says that the fine-tuning is real, and is best explained by positing the existence of an infinite number of universes that are not fine-tuned the so-called multiverse
The conjecture that there are many other worlds [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.
MIT physicist explains the challenge of cosmic fine-tuning for naturalism « Wintery Knight
So faith based on nothing is alright if it conflicts with the bible and denies what is known, but if evidence and faith are cosistent then that is not allowed if it confirms the bible.
Atheists dont care about science as something that determines what they should or should not believe. If science proves that they are accountable to God, then they invent speculations and hope in those speculations against the science as with the multiverse or the aliens seeding the Earth with life or the unobservable, untestable hyper-universe that spawned this universe.
MIT physicist explains the challenge of cosmic fine-tuning for naturalism « Wintery Knight
No it isn't, it concerns the very first biological system that can be called alive. I didn't say what that was and so you had no idea what I was referring to.
That is not true. Energy is not shown to exist outside temporal natural law. In fact natural law can exist without energy existing. If energy always existed why hasn't it already reached what therodynamics makes inevitable. The equal distribution of it. IN fact the universe appears to have started in a wound up state as far as energy goes. What wound it up? It does not wind it's self up and can't. It irreversably unwinds.