1. 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!

Featured Preternatural vs Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by nPeace, Jan 12, 2019.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Agreed. They pointed out the flaws quite well.
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    It's not reasonable to think that a clock requires winding up every second. It nonetheless required a cause to get it started, so I fail to see how that supports an argument for an uncaused event.


    Good 'cause you are the one who suggested it was possible.
    So indeed it seems you were not only speculating, but you threw in something you don't believe in. Why was that... for argument sake?


    Please explain what gave you that impression.
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You haven't explained or shown any evidence for why you say these are hoaxes, nor have you given any scientific explanation for them.
    You have just made claims.

    So you don't believe the scientific method is the path to all truth. Good. You had given me the impression that you were of that opinion.
    I don't understand your last statement. Are you requesting something, or just stating something?
     
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I accept that scientist make many assumptions. Whether they assume that the laws are fixed, or whether they assume not doesn't matter to me,
    That's a "dark matter" for them... not me.
    Contrary to what you say though, many scientists agree on fixed laws.

    Whether you admit it or not, there are problems with all evolutionary models. How significant those problems are does not matter to my argument, and I am not even focusing on biological evolution.
    Everyone, by now, knows that evolution is not restricted to one field.
    There was mention of one in the video, and I focused on that.

    What you are describing, seems to me, to be exactly what was being looked at in the debate - What science would look like without evidence.
    I agree too with what was said - some scientists are "pig headed". Like for example, when they insist their views about something is right, despite the fact that they cannot test and observe these concepts.
    Yet, they are happy to dismiss logical argument that can't be tested and observed.

    How do we tell the difference between science and "science"?
    What is your opinion on the question raised... Is it true that "Evidence used to mean everything in science"?
     
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The uncaused event is the decay itself: the timing of that event is completely underdtemined. This is in contrast to ordinary clocks where the ordinary laws of physics *do* determine when they will strike.

    maybe the issue is the definition of the word 'caused'. how do you define it? By my definition, if A causes B, then every time A happens, B will happen.

    I said it is *possible*. I don't think it is the case, but it is still a possibility.I see infinite regress as the most likely case.


    Well, you never acknowledgd the content of the post, for one. You went off in what I see as a completely different direction, ignoring the relevance of what I said, for another.

    And you haven't given nay reason to take the claims seriously at all. Instead of anecdotal statements, what actual evidence do you have?

    No, the scientific method is the path for all *knowledge* about the real world. If the method cannot be used, then we cannot have knowledge.

    I am addressing one of the types of claims in one of your links.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,658
    Ratings:
    +5,196
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    If you consider evolution 'not a matter for your argument, why bring it up? No there are no significant problems with science of evolution. If you fell there are cite the problems from peer reviewed scientific sources.

    There should be no difference between science and "science" The theories, hypothesis and theorems that are well supported by falsifiable verifiable evidence, like the science of evolution, have a sound foundation universally accepted in science. Theories and hypothesis that have limited or no evidence may be conditionally accepted or put on hold until more evidence, information and research becomes available, or later discarded, or modified into a more viable hypothesis.

    Science is most definitely evidence based in falsifying theories, hypothesis, and theorems.
     
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't think the issue has to do with definition.
    We both know what 'first' means, and what 'cause' means.
    We both understand there is a first of everything, or do you see things differently?

    Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.

    Can you identify the first cause in the animation below?
    [​IMG]

    Of course, if you like, you can create a repeatable cause within, but it's not the first cause, nor will it lie in the past, if it is repeatable, and required to produce the effect. Unless you want to get technical. In that case, i am technically referring to the beginning of all beginnings... but let's leave out the technicalities for now.

    On this topic, I was listening to an interesting interview - very interesting,
    The video is here, if you are interested.

    My question is this though, if you don't mind.
    If time had a beginning, in your opinion, would that not mean that automatically time existed from the beginning, that is, if we are viewing time as - to our best understanding - the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.?

    Would you mind giving a little explanation and demonstration of what you mean by that, please?

    Sorry if you think I ignored the post. What should I have said?
    I acknowledged that, according to scientists "something is there / not there. They call it Dark Matter." Then I went on to show the comparison of our observations that something is there / not there, and we call it God, and I gave an example of events that are not explained by naturalistic, or scientific methods - these are what you claimed are not real, or have been shown to be explained naturally.
    I am yet to see support for those claims.

    I gave many. Some with many eyewitnesses, and testimonies.
    Did I give too may at once. Would you like me to isolate one at a time?

    By the real world, you mean the world around us - natural things. Understood.

    Which one?
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I have no interest in discussing biological evolution on this thread.

    The physics community has debated the various multiverse theories over time. Prominent physicists are divided about whether any other universes exist outside of our own.

    Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.

    Multiverse - Wikipedia
     
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I see things differently. I don't think there has to be a first when it comes to things in the universe. or, for that matter, for the universe itself.

    if time extends infinitely into the past, there was no first point in time.

    Good, although I disagree with the last statement. In particular, causality only makes sense when there is some sort of 'connection' and these connections are defined by physical laws. That means that the physical laws themselves cannot be caused. It also means that all causes are *physical* causes and occur within the universe. And, finally, that means that it makes no sense to talk about the 'cause of the universe'.

    Limited to that animation? Sure. The finger flick. But more generally? The cause was someone programming this video, or their being born, or teir parents being born, or, going back further, the multiple events constituting the Big Bang. We don't know if time goes back before that, but if it did, so might causality.

    Why do you think there was a 'beginning for all things'? That is the crucial issue here, after all.

    On this topic, I was listening to an interesting interview - very interesting,
    The video is here, if you are interested.



    I'm having some trouble figuring out what you are asking. But we can look at the totality of all space and all time as a single entity (called spacetime). That entity is uncaused (because causalion is within it), so it 'just exists'.



    Sure, i see it as likely that time did not have a beginning (that the Big bang was a transition stage and not the actual beginning of time). In this case, time goes infinitely into the past, as does the physical universe, matter, energy, and causation. There would be an infinite sequence of causes with no beginning.

    I showed the distinction is given a number of different lines of evidence, supported by observation and testing, for the existence of dark matter.

    The events you gave are poorly reported (only personal testimony, not detailed observations) with poor understanding of surrounding forces and events. As such, the evidence is, at best, questionable and, given the context, completely insufficient to show that there is anything unusual going on.

    Sorry, eye-witnesses, especially those not trained for observation, who do not know the more general context, and are ignorant of the laws of physics are NOT reliable in such situations.


    The claim that people 'mysteriously disappear'.
     
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,003
    Ratings:
    +11,639
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    And I think it a good idea to ask for some sort of observational test for at least the underlying theory that uses one of the multiverse concepts. I've seen one model that allows for observational tests (because of gravitational influences between 'universes'). I also find it interesting that most attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity lead naturally to some sort of multiverse. Those attempts can, in some cases, be tested in *other* aspects and that can give some weight to those proposals.
     
  11. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    Of course gods are used to fill in the gaps, and always have been.

    Where does lightning come from? Indra / Zeus / Perun / Thor
    How does the sun rise and set everyday? Apollo rides it across the sky in his chariot / Jóhonaa'éí carries the sun across the sky on his back / Ra travels across the sky in his sun boat
    Where does rain come from? Horus / Adad / Yu Shi / Tlaloc
    Why is that person acting erratically? They're possessed by demons / God is punishing them for past sins
    I could go on and on and on ....

    One can't help but notice that thanks to scientific investigation, we have discovered natural explanations for these things that don't require any gods whatsoever.

    It is a filler.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    A couple of years ago, I went to see Penn & Teller's show in Vegas. It was one of the best I've ever seen.
    They showed us how they could read the minds of random audience members. They appeared to accurately read the minds of several audience members. One after the other and they were right every time! Then they showed how they had merely tricked us into thinking they'd read our minds, just using some very simple skills and suggestions.
     
    #52 SkepticThinker, Jan 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  13. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,658
    Ratings:
    +5,196
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Than do not mention it.
    Actually, by far most physicists and cosmologists support the multiverse hypothesis, but also realize the limits of the presence evidence, The following is a fairly complete list of those for or against the multiverse, and some alternatives.

    Scientists support in the multiverse – All published in peer reviewed journals in physics and cosmology

    Alexander A. Antonov
    Arvind Borde
    Sean M. Carroll
    Jean Dalibard
    David Gross university of California Santa Barbara
    John Donoghue of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    Hugh Everett III
    Brian Greene
    Ben Gripaios
    Griffiths, David J
    Alan Guth
    Stephan Hawking
    Thomas Hertog Belgian cosmologist at KU Leuven University
    Sabine Hossenfelder Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
    Dmitri Kazakov
    Greg Kestin Harvard University,
    Stéphane Laving
    Audrey Mithani
    Hitoshi Murayama
    Yasunori Nomura Berkley Center for Theoretical Physics.
    Sir Martin Rees Britain’s astronomer royal
    Veronica Sasnz
    Tom Shanks of Durham University
    Leonard Susskind of Stanford
    Max Tegmmax
    Alexander Vilenkin
    David Wallace
    Frank Wilczek

    Clara Moskowitz - Senior editor American Scientific Not a PhD.

    Belief in a cyclic universe from preexisting energy using string theory

    Paul Steinhardt
    Neil Turok


    Oppose or extremely skeptical of a multiverse. Note: Most of these scientists and philosophers have a strong theist orientation, and support the Discovery Institute or AIG, and Intelligent Design

    Jim Baggott - DPhil in chemical physics at the University of Oxford
    Luke A. Barnes
    Bernard Carr
    Paul Davies
    George Ellis University of Cape Town
    Dr Simon Friederich, a philosopher at the University of Groningen
    David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara
     
    #53 shunyadragon, Jan 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,658
    Ratings:
    +5,196
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Methodological Naturalism by definition can only falsify theories, hypothesis and theorems based on evidence of our physical existence, and not claims of 'truth' nor philosophical and theological questions beyond our physical existence.

    Scientists who believe in atheism or agnosticism do not make these claims as supported 'truth' claims. The are making an assumption of Ontological Naturalism not based on science.
     
    #54 shunyadragon, Jan 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Of course, you think there is an explanation that though metaphysical in nature, is anything but an intelligent designer. Enjoy your search. ;)


    I'm actually not inclined to ask what makes sense, as I know I will only get some philosophical conjecture.
    I saw it all in the video I linked.


    I'm not saying I can prove it, but I feel quite confident that time and causality goes right back to the beginning.


    All the evidence keeps pointing in one direction - intelligent designer / creator. All the evidence point to the Bible as the source of true knowledge about that designer. So I think having two witness testimonies that corroborate, is convincing enough for me. Especially when everything else offered is merely speculative, and gravely incoherent.


    Spacetime, I assume is time and space known to man, but I go beyond this, and causation takes place both outside and inside, but I can only speculate on space, since that may be one of those things beyond my ability to fathom.


    So you don't hold to the view that time was created, but you believe it's infinite. Hmmm.
    We agree partly on some things apparently. I believe the beginning and end are the same, so the beginning is actually infinite, but there must be a beginning to all other things, so that is what I am referring to when I talk about beginning.

    You realize though that cosmologist accept - apparently not all - that according to the standard model, the physical universe began to exist.
    If you believe the universe always existed, what is your explanation of the cause of the expansion, and how do you view the myths... oops :D presented on the formation of the solar systems?
    Also, what empirical evidence do you have to support your position?


    I appreciate that. Thank you.


    I promise, I will put together something better for you. It's just that I have not had enough time.


    You guys, go ahead and knock yourselves out. I'll be watching from the sidelines with my popcorn, and a smirk on my face. :smirk:
     
    #55 nPeace, Jan 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    There is a dead man on your list.

    Thank you for that.
     
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Once again, you are wrong.
    Once again, you make claims without any supportive evidence.
    Once again, I am pointing this out to you.
    ...but will that change anything? Will you go and return wit any evidence to verify your claims?
    It's left to be seen.
     
  18. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,982
    Ratings:
    +3,831
    No, I am right. The gods I mentioned were believed to exist by human beings throughout history.

    What supporting evidence do you require? Are you not aware that many other people have worshiped many other gods throughout history and attributed just about every aspect of nature to them? Things we now know have perfectly natural explanations - no gods required.
    Hell, we have people TODAY attributing natural disasters to gods.
    Hurricane Katrina: Wrath of God?


    How is it that you think I'm wrong? You never actually mentioned that part.

    P.S. I don't make claims without supporting evidence. If you think I have done that, please point out where you think that happened.
     
  19. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,658
    Ratings:
    +5,196
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    His peer reviewed papers and research still exist and referred to in later research as a primary source for the support of the multiverse.. This documents the fact that the multiverse is by far the dominant view of physicists and cosmologists in recent history'

    The view of the scientists is not that the universe had an absolute beginning, but a temporal beginning from a singularity in a greater timeless quantum world of a multiverse.

    Why do you keep harping on the the scientists supporting a beginning, since their view does not support your agenda.

    Pretty much documents that the present consensus of physicists and cosmologists is independent of religious belief nor non-belief.
     
    #59 shunyadragon, Jan 17, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2019
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,718
    Ratings:
    +1,313
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Oh, I see. You don't understand.

    Case A.
    Event : Lightning strikes.
    People react: Oh. My God.
    Event : Thunder rolls.
    People react : Oh. God.
    Me narrating : And so the word God was coined as people who did not understand various phenomenon named them God. Then they went about distinguishing their God - "God of Thunder. God of Lightning." They even began competing, and some preferred one God over another.

    Case B
    Me narrating : People believed in God - one true and living God.
    Over time people started inventing their own god(s) - making them of wood and stone, so they could see them.
    They began attributing certain events to their gods, and inventing gods for everything in nature.
    These practices were passed on for generations, and altered, to become various superstitions, myths, and legends.
    So when lightning struck, an individual having these superstitious beliefs would associate that event to one of his many gods - lightning god or nature god, or whatever.
    However , those that worshiped the true God, did not believe in such superstitions.

    In either case, belief in God came first. However that belief was distorted, and whatever beliefs were invented, doesn't change that fact.
    This is no different to the case with hurricanes. People believe different things. Some attribute everything under the sun to God, why? They believe in a God.
    Some others believe in God but don't attribute everything under the sun to that God.

    It's just a case of different beliefs.
    Take your belief for example... You believe that the diversity of life must be attributed to an unknown imagined organism for which it's origin is also an unknown imagination.
    In fact you attribute every blessed thing in existence to an unknown imagination - whatever it is.
    Some people call it nothing , but whatever it is, it is something. :eek:

    It seems to me you are saying things happened as Case A describes it, because to quote you, "Of course gods are used to fill in the gaps, and always have been". Then at the end you put in bold font, "It is a filler." Or maybe you are leaving out the one important fact. I am saying to you no it did not happen that way.
    If I am mistaken, and you are saying it happened different to case A and B, please explain exactly how it happened, and provide evidence to support that claim.
    In any case, please provide evidence to support your claim.

    You do make claims without supporting evidence. You just made one.
    Where is your supporting evidence for that claim?
     
Loading...