If you see a miracle, will you then believe?

[FearGod]

There's no "north of the north pole", just like there is not "before" the big bang.
The origins of the universe = the origins of space time. It happened, whatever it was, at T = 0.
There is no "before" time.

It seems like semantics, but it's actually physics.
I'm not even gonna pretend I can wrap my puny human mind around that, but that is what physics tells us.

It's extremely counter-intuitive. But advanced physics tends to result in counter-intuitive things.
Relativity, quantum mechanics,... It's a total clusterf... But it is what it is.

You didn't explain anything regarding what was before the singularity and what made
it started at T=0.

 

[FearGod]

Nice dodge once again. Nobody is saying otherwise.
But you asked if we can "see" electro magnetic waves, as if it is analogous to not being able to "see" supernatural things.

But your analogy is incorrect. We CAN "see" (ie: observe) electromagnetic waves. So much so that we actively use them in all kinds of technology. We know about them. We can manipulate them. We can use them, generate them, to have devices do our bidding.
They are as much documented manifesting aspects of reality as this coffee mug here on my desk.

We can't say the same about your supernatural things. Not even a little bit.

Your analogy fails miserably.

We can detect it today, but we weren't able to do so 200 years ago, similarly we
weren't able to know about the unseen bacteria 400 years ago.

Not able to detect doesn't mean that this thing isn't existing, but only we can't detect it.

 

[FearGod]

To be honest, I doubt he knows as much as you.

You're speaking as if you think yourself a scientist, I won't be surprised to know that
you're working in laundry.

 

[FearGod]

You are the one who's claiming to know what was "before" time.
Up to you to come up with facts to support your claims.

So far, all you have are bare assertions piled on. "beliefs".

I do not need to show facts since you can't do as well.

There are well motivated arguments in scientific fields like physics, supporting all those options. Enough to warrant and justify exploring those ideas.

There is exactly 0 reason to explore the idea of any supernatural shenanigans.

Yes it's very natural, all matter and energy started from a single point going to zero volume, amazing, but these things are natural to you, scientist as you're understand it better than us.

No because there is no reason to consider that option.
You could ponder an infinite amount of "options", only really limited by the depth of your imagination, but you'ld spend a lifetime thinking about nonsensical junk. You should start from the actual evidence / data and go from there, and try not to include entities in your explanation for which you have exactly zero evidence.

If you think that the universe just happened to be so, and the solar system just
happened to be so, and life on earth just happened to be so, and life evolved
to several types and all of these just happened to be so, no plan, no design,
but it just happened to be due to unplanned .events

That being said, what evidences you're looking for other than things goes
in thas way with no plan or design or any scientific process of any kind.

What evidence / data warrants the exploration of supernatural ideas?
Additionally, how can such ideas be tested? Because after all, to evaluate the level of accuracy of an explanation, you will have to test it against reality...

The same can be said, how can we find out what really happened before singularity?

Bacteria and stones demonstrably exist.
Not sure where exactly you are trying to go with those two though...
But at least they demonstrably exist. So that's something, right?

So you believe what you can see and detect?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn't explain anything regarding what was before the singularity and what made
it started at T=0.

I'm explaining to you how everything we currently know about physics tells us that asking what was "before" the "singularity", is a nonsensical question.

I don't know about the origins of the universe, nobody does, and never pretended otherwise.
I can only tell you about what we do know. And what we do know, is that it is rather nonsensical to talk about "before time".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can detect it today, but we weren't able to do so 200 years ago , similarly we weren't able to know about the unseen bacteria 400 years ago.

But we can today. So you can come back with your claim in the future, when you can detect supernatural things in equally verifiable manner. Until then, your claim is unfounded and unverifiable.

Not able to detect doesn't mean that this thing isn't existing, but only we can't detect it.

And the exact same can be said about Thor, leprechauns, unicorns, extra-dimensional aliens, undetectable dragons, etc.

This is a feeble attempt at trying to shift the burden of proof.

Not being able to detect X in any way, only means that X is indistinguishable from things that don't exist.
It doesn't make X likely, plausible or even only possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're speaking as if you think yourself a scientist

My comment was not about you know as much as me. I was talking about someone else. And it was obviously a joke also.

I won't be surprised to know that you're working in laundry.

Not that it matters, but you are wrong.
I'm a software engineer and worked as a programmer for a small decade followed by a few years a business analyst and software architect.

And today I have my own software company.


Not that it matters what I do. I'm not making any appeals to my supposed qualifications, so...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not need to show facts since you can't do as well.

I'm not the one making claims about it. You are. That gives you the burden of proof.

Yes it's very natural, all matter and energy started from a single point going to zero volume, amazing, but these things are natural to you, scientist as you're understand it better than us.

You have just replied to a post of mine where I said the exact opposite. That it in fact is instead extremely counter intuitive and practically impossible to wrap our human heads around it.

So no, I don't consider it "natural" or "logical" or "intuitive", or whatever word you wish to use to convey the same idea, AT ALL.

In fact, I explicitly stated that advanced physics has a nasty habbit of coming up with verifiable answers that are completely counter-intuitive. Like relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein himself thought these things were so ugly, so unelegant, so absurd sounding that he in fact assumed that he must have made a mistake. The idea of a black hole, predicted by his very own theories, he considered laughable and "impossible".

And then we actually found black holes, looking exactly like his predictions said it would.

If you think that the universe just happened to be so, and the solar system just
happened to be so, and life on earth just happened to be so, and life evolved
to several types and all of these just happened to be so, no plan, no design,
but it just happened to be due to unplanned .events

I have no a priori thoughts / beliefs about it. I just follow the evidence.
And fallacious arguments from awe or incredulity aren't helpful either.

That being said, what evidences you're looking for other than things goes
in thas way with no plan or design or any scientific process of any kind.

Whatever evidence is available. And you need to understand that the explanations of science are concluded from the evidence. Not the other way round. Science doesn't start with the answers before even asking the questions. That is what religion does.

The same can be said, how can we find out what really happened before singularity?

1. you didn't at all answer or even address the question. let me repeat: What evidence / data warrants the exploration of supernatural ideas? And how can those ideas be tested?


2. as it stands, the idea of "before the singularity" is nonsensical. Just like "north of the north pole".

3. if you are asking about "what's the origin of the universe?" my answer is that I don't know.

So you believe what you can see and detect?

"see and detect", in the broad sense of those words, sure.

 

[FearGod]

My comment was not about you know as much as me. I was talking about someone else. And it was obviously a joke also.



Not that it matters, but you are wrong.
I'm a software engineer and worked as a programmer for a small decade followed by a few years a business analyst and software architect.

And today I have my own software company.


Not that it matters what I do. I'm not making any appeals to my supposed qualifications, so...

Aha Bill Gates, hi sir

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Aha Bill Gates, hi sir

I wish.

 

[FearGod]

I wish.

If you persist, you can do even better, never despair.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you persist, you can do even better, never despair.

Not a chance in hell.
I do not have the funds, the intellect or the business opportunity to achieve even only a fraction of what that dude did.

 

[Milton Platt]

If someone came to you and told you that God exists and you should follow
some instructions in order to be safe in the afterlife, and if it happened that you
asked him for a proof for God's existence and he showed you one such as
healing a blind man and letting him to see.

Will you believe that God exists if you know that the miracle was real or you'll still disbelieve?

How would I know it is a miracle?

 

[Clara Tea]

Few recognize the ongoing miracle(s) in modern times. Some say that we are in the end times (all life on earth is about to end) because they do recognize the miracle.

The miracle is that Revelation is coming true. God said that if you attack Iraq, you will suffer (example: Revelation 15 is seven plagues).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If someone came to you and told you that God exists and you should follow
some instructions in order to be safe in the afterlife, and if it happened that you
asked him for a proof for God's existence and he showed you one such as
healing a blind man and letting him to see.

Will you believe that God exists if you know that the miracle was real or you'll still disbelieve?

Yes. But his existence isn't an issue for me, though. His being a creator and anything like that isn't a motivation for knowing him. People's character and examples should be worth the other person's time and acknowledgement. That person's existence does not mean anything without being a good example to follow. That. And I'm not a follow type of person. So, if I followed him it wouldn't be something I want to do but something I'm forced to do.

 

[FearGod]

Yes. But his existence isn't an issue for me, though. His being a creator and anything like that isn't a motivation for knowing him. People's character and examples should be worth the other person's time and acknowledgement. That person's existence does not mean anything without being a good example to follow. That. And I'm not a follow type of person. So, if I followed him it wouldn't be something I want to do but something I'm forced to do.

Similar to the way that we're forced to obey the law and to stop for the red light

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Similar to the way that we're forced to obey the law and to stop for the red light

I don't see it that way. I don't feel like I'm forced to obey the law. If I run a red light, then " I " put myself at risk for my life and someone else's life. So, I'm guided by my own morals. Following traffic light laws are societal laws, but I'm sure with or without societal laws, we would wait until the coast is clear before attempting to cross the street. I'm not forced to follow the law. I do so for my safety and others not whether or not I'll get a ticket or so have you.

If god exists, that doesn't mean I would follow him. I would (like the traffic light) have to make some sense out of people's claim about the abrahamic god in order to know if I'm benefiting myself and others. Getting a "ticket" for not believing in god isn't an internal motivator. I don't even see it as a law like traffic lights. It's just irrelevant in how I live with or without god's existence.

 

[FearGod]

I don't see it that way. I don't feel like I'm forced to obey the law. If I run a red light, then " I " put myself at risk for my life and someone else's life. So, I'm guided by my own morals. Following traffic light laws are societal laws, but I'm sure with or without societal laws, we would wait until the coast is clear before attempting to cross the street. I'm not forced to follow the law. I do so for my safety and others not whether or not I'll get a ticket or so have you.

If god exists, that doesn't mean I would follow him. I would (like the traffic light) have to make some sense out of people's claim about the abrahamic god in order to know if I'm benefiting myself and others. Getting a "ticket" for not believing in god isn't an internal motivator. I don't even see it as a law like traffic lights. It's just irrelevant in how I live with or without god's existence.

If you don't follow the law you'll be punished, that's why you follow the law,
if there will be no punishment then I'll agree with you it's up to you whether
to stop or go as caring about the safety of others and yours, according to
your view they should cancel punishment and leave it to our moralities.

 

[MNoBody]

I don't see it that way. I don't feel like I'm forced to obey the law. If I run a red light, then " I " put myself at risk for my life and someone else's life. So, I'm guided by my own morals. Following traffic light laws are societal laws, but I'm sure with or without societal laws, we would wait until the coast is clear before attempting to cross the street. I'm not forced to follow the law. I do so for my safety and others not whether or not I'll get a ticket or so have you.

If god exists, that doesn't mean I would follow him. I would (like the traffic light) have to make some sense out of people's claim about the abrahamic god in order to know if I'm benefiting myself and others. Getting a "ticket" for not believing in god isn't an internal motivator. I don't even see it as a law like traffic lights. It's just irrelevant in how I live with or without god's existence.

the only real goal of such laws as I see it are in the idea of being mindful of your environment, spatial awareness...
since you share the road [the commonwealth] and it is not just yours alone.
Cause no harm, be safe when engaging in risky activities.
the punishments are for the unmindful.....who will not be concerned about a symbiotic flow, shared space.
but the trend of enforcement to punish when there is no harm is highly questionable and shows them to be addicted to revenues, using the law for purposes it was not intended for.
legal malpractice, in other words.
we share a world and do dangerous things in it,
so we need some system to achieve that...
obviously it is a crappy work in progress,
which is why the noahide injunction to build a just society.....makes sense then.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you don't follow the law you'll be punished, that's why you follow the law, if there will be no punishment then I'll agree with you it's up to you whether to stop or go as caring about the safety of others and yours, according to your view they should cancel punishment and leave it to our moralities.

It would be up to my moralities first. I don't want to hurt others or myself, so that internal law would be the first I follow. Societal law I'm not forced to follow. I can break the law and suffer the consequence of "my" actions. So, in that sense, I set myself up. Luckily, the laws of society match up with my law not to hurt anyone in regards to safety and defense.

I know many convicted people have different morals than those of their law and then there are those who want commit an illegal offense but don't because of legal consequences. That's just not me, though.

Why do people feel they need to follow the law to make good decisions on behalf of themselves and others?

Shouldn't people be more aware of their own consequences for their actions and not ones set for them from an outside party?