Faith and Reason. My thoughts on God, science and the world

[smackababy]

My argument doesn't fall apart at all. If God isn't the creator, he isn't "God", as there can only be one -- like there can only be one President of a country at a time, one King, one "Lead", and God doesn't share his authority, in scripture anyway.

Secondly, I was taking about the Solid State theory, and how the Hubble telescope completely falsified it, IIRC, so correct me if I am wrong, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy There can easily be more than one person in charge of a country. It has been around for a very long time.

 

[Retro Rob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarchy There can easily be more than one person in charge of a country. It has been around for a very long time.

I think you missing my point.

 

[Retro Rob]

Beginning in this form. In these dimensions as we understand them.

We simply do not know (and perhaps cannot know) if there was a caterpillar state or if we exist in another stage within a system we simply have not created the tools to understand yet.

Just blanketing such vast complexity with god(s) is intellectually lazy.

How is that lazy? I for one, enjoy and actively read to understand how our universe works despite my opinion.

Yes, some people use religion as a crutch, but am I'm fairly confident that the same people publishing articles on the universe have deeply held creator God beliefs as well.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One by one:
So the universe is infinite? Then why do I keep hearing about how old it is?

Because cosmologists simplify things for journalists, and then journalists distort or outright misrepresent those simplifications, such that when a common person like yourself hears mention of the age of the universe in conventional media, you are misled into believing things that simply are not true.

When people talk about the "age of the universe," they are really talking about the "time since the Big Bang." We still aren't able to say with confidence what could be "before" the Big Bang, but the most current cosmological models treat our timeline since the Big Bang as simply a localized patch of spacetime that exists within a much larger manifold.

The bottom line is simply this: we don't know that "nothing" exists "before" the Big Bang, so we cannot say that the Big Bang is any kind of "beginning." The Big Bang is a singularity, and like any singularity, there exists a horizon between us and the actual singularity itself. A horizon is something beyond which we cannot see, just like when you are looking a the tops of the mountains or the edge of the ocean.

Now, when you look out at the horizon on the ocean or the tops of the mountains, do you conclude that the world must begin at the horizon because you cannot see beyond it? Do you assume that nothing exists on the other side of the mountains?

Because according to the Bible (which according to earlier discussion has never been proved wrong) God was always here.

Why is that answer acceptable for your God but not acceptable for the universe?

He was not created as he is the original Creator.

But you don't know this. You simply believe it because it was told to you by someone in whom you put your trust. Do you think that they reached this conclusion independently, or do you think they also just believe it because it is what they have been told?

If the universe is finite, it had to start somewhere, some time.

No, not really. Spacetime could be like the surface of a sphere. Finite, but without an origin.

Since you can't make something out of nothing, that is basically what you have argued.

Afraid not.

If you are now calling all the scientists wrong who claimed that the universe stated at the big bang, then I question how anything scientific can be believed if it can be changed to fit your argument.

I haven't changed anything. I simply have a deeper understanding of the facts pertinent to this discussion. I hope you will take the time to deepen your own understanding.

 

[Paul98]

How is that lazy? I for one, enjoy and actively read to understand how our universe works despite my opinion.

Yes, some people use religion as a crutch, but am I'm fairly confident that the same people publishing articles on the universe have deeply held creator God beliefs as well.

The problem is that you will be unable to understand how the universe works, until you get rid of your preconceived notions of how you think it should work.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God has no beginning.

How is that possible?

For believers, the Bible has always spoken of God being "eternal", always existing.

Vedic Scriptures have always spoken of the universe always existing. So what?

Someone that goes by the name of Hubble is the reason why you can't say the universe always existed, and plenty in science throughout the 20th century did say the Universe always existed, not because of evidence, but due to the fact "beginning" agrees with theists views, and Genesis 1:1.

Yeah, Rob, it's all just one big conspiracy. Those nasty mean scientists with all their book lernin' are just dead set on taking your god away from you.

Give me a break. 🙄

 

[Paul98]

I didn't know God has a beard and wears clothes, as those are indicative of physical beings, which God is not. I have no clue what he looks like.

Yes, thanks, I did mean Steady State, my bad. My point in bringing that up is that they've concluded that the universe expanded from a point, 14 billion or so years ago, which means it had a beginning.

No, all it says is what happened after the expansion started. It says nothing about the beginning. Sure the expansion had a beginning, but we don't know what happened before that.

I also wouldn't say the universe expanded from a point, that gives the false impression that it was an expansion in space, rather than of space. Since it's an expansion of space time, what happened "before" may not even be a valid question if time didn't exist. Also if space is infinite and the expansion happened everywhere in space and continues to expand, it was never was small, it went from something we don't know to infinite and expanding.

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem is that you will be unable to understand how the universe works, until you get rid of your preconceived notions of how you think it should work.

Sure, math tells you something works, but it can't tell you who or what originated it -- all you're studying is its existence.

Even if I study how a car engine operates and get it to a science, does that give me a designer by name, location, or even if the person is male, female, their age, or where they live? So, that means I have to look outside current mathematical equations.

The main reason why I read the Bible has nothing to do what science can't explain.

I've found answers to questions I've pondered, so extra-scienctific knowledge is what I've found.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't know God has a beard and wears clothes, as those are indicative of physical beings, which God is not. I have no clue what he looks like.

Yes, thanks, I did mean Steady State, my bad. My point in bringing that up is that they've concluded that the universe expanded from a point, 14 billion or so years ago, which means it had a beginning.

This is not accurate. The universe expanding from a point 14 billion years ago says nothing as to what came before that. If you accept that "the universe" is a collection of mass, energy, and space, the only thing the big bang tells us is that mass, energy, and space were concentrated in a single point at that time. It in no way precludes the existence of that singularity before the time of the big bang.

There is literally no argument against the eternity of mass and energy that is not even more applicable to a creator being.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is not accurate. The universe expanding from a point 14 billion years ago says nothing as to what came before that. If you accept that "the universe" is a collection of mass, energy, and space, the only thing the big bang tells us is that mass, energy, and space were concentrated in a single point at that time. It in no way precludes the existence of that singularity before the time of the big bang.

There is literally no argument against the eternity of mass and energy that is not even more applicable to a creator being.

I said nothing about "before the Big Bang"....I was only saying it started from a point and the universe wasn't always here.

If something wasn't always here, it logically "began".

 

[Paul98]

Deleted as I didn't think it really helped things.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I said nothing about "before the Big Bang"....I was only saying it started from a point and the universe wasn't always here.

If something wasn't always here, it logically "began".

Spacetime was always here.

 

[Paul98]

I said nothing about "before the Big Bang"....I was only saying it started from a point and the universe wasn't always here.

If something wasn't always here, it logically "began".

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about the bang it's self. You say the universe wasn't always here, how do you know this?

The problem is that you are trying to use your logic on things that you are unable to comprehend. As I showed before just because you find something logical doesn't mean it is. This is not something I am just saying to make a point this is a fact. Looks like you continue to ignore all evidence that you are incorrect, and that what you think is logical is not.

as I posted before twice and you never responded to it lets try this again

Lets test some of this logic.

In spaceship A's frame of reference if the earth is moving away from at it .6c in one direction, and a spaceship B is moving away from it at .6c in the opposite direction. Through our normal thinking In the earth's frame of reference we would think that would mean that spaceship B is moving away from us at 1.2c. But this is not what happens.

We like to think what is happening "now" is universal, that everyone will agree on what is happening now. We may not see what happened during that now till the light reaches us. But if there is something a light year away from us as when we see the light a year from now we then can know know what happened while we were doing something a year ago. You would think everyone would agree with this. This is not true, and for things that to you happened at the same time for someone moving with respect to you depending on the events will happen at different times. To you the "now" that is happening a light year away, for them will have already happened or will happen in the future.

How about light, if there is a spaceship moving towards me at .9c. The light moving away from the spaceship for me is moving at c, and only .1c faster than the spaceship. For the spaceship that same light is moving away from it at c.

How about the double slit experiment. Observation changes the way the particles move. They move as a wave before hitting the detector screen. Even single particles moving through act as a wave, unless you observe it then they act as a particle.

 

[moonbogg]

I find myself a little suspicious about my own existence sometimes. It doesn't seem like it should be possible, but here I am with no answers. All I am left to do is try my best to enjoy my time, maybe help some people enjoy theirs along the way and not waste too much time chasing my tail trying to find a god that isn't there.

 

[Paul98]

Even if I study how a car engine operates and get it to a science, does that give me a designer by name, location, or even if the person is male, female, their age, or where they live? So, that means I have to look outside current mathematical equations.

This analogy is flawed because we know car engines have designers, we can look at the design and even make one ourselves. We can see someone design an engine.

There is no evidence that this earth, the universe, humans have a designer. Now if there really is a designer there will be evidence and we can look for it. Then the problem becomes if you do find evidence of the creator it will just open the question to where did this creator come from, who designed it?

 

[Retro Rob]

This analogy is flawed because we know car engines have designers, we can look at the design and even make one ourselves. We can see someone design an engine.

There is no evidence that this earth, the universe, humans have a designer. Now if there really is a designer there will be evidence and we can look for it. Then the problem becomes if you do find evidence of the creator it will just open the question to where did this creator come from, who designed it?

Calm down and understand what I mean. This analogy isn't designed to point to a creator, but its to point out complex math ON ITS OWN doesn't give us a designer of a car engine -- we look outside of math.

Now you're correct, we can easily find this out concerning a car engine, but still, we look outside of complex equations, was my point.

 

[Paul98]

Calm down and understand what I mean. This analogy isn't designed to point to a creator, but its to point out complex math ON ITS OWN doesn't give us a designer of a car engine -- we look outside of math.

Now you're correct, we can easily find this out concerning a car engine, but still, we look outside of complex equations, was my point.

The physics directly leads to what we see around us. So did your creator simply create the matter/energy and the physics of the universe then let it run? The math isn't doesn't create what is around us, it explains it.

 

[smackababy]

I think you missing my point.

No, my point is you were completely wrong about political systems. Also, there is no evidence that there is only one God. Your entire basis is that one book (out of billions), written by men, makes a claim that that you believe.

 

[Retro Rob]

The physics directly leads to what we see around us. So did your creator simply create the matter/energy and the physics of the universe then let it run? The math isn't doesn't create what is around us, it explains it.

I don't know, but I assume He did. At least, this is what I believe.

To your second point, you're exactly right and essentially what I've been saying. So by believing in a creator, that doesn't detract one inch from the math used to explain things around us, so for a person like me, I believe God created these things, which is explainedby our current math in deep detail, and this math doesn't explain away a creator -- it only explain what we see, feel, etc.

I often hear "ok we explained how the universe works, so we've explained away the need for god"... when in actuality, you've only explained how the universe works!!!!

Knowing how long the world has been has no bearing on my faith either way since my faith isn't tied to what science can or cannot explain.

 

[fskimospy]

I said nothing about "before the Big Bang"....I was only saying it started from a point and the universe wasn't always here.

If something wasn't always here, it logically "began".

There is no reason to believe the universe wasn't always here though, it was just compressed into a singularity. Something doesn't begin simply because it starts to expand. You could say the expansion of the universe began then, but you absolutely cannot say the universe began then.

Therefore, once again, there is literally no argument you can make about mass and energy that is not far more applicable to an infinitely more complex creator deity. This is just logic.

 

[Paul98]

I think the biggest problem I have with these "God"'s is that they aren't logically consistent. It's not a claim that is supported by evidence. The implications are not followed through, and then if you find something contracting it doesn't change anything other than the "God".

 

[Paul98]

I don't know, but I assume He did. At least, this is what I believe.

To your second point, you're exactly right and essentially what I've been saying. So by believing in a creator, that doesn't detract one inch from the math used to explain things around us, so for a person like me, I believe God created these things, which is explainedby our current math in deep detail, and this math doesn't explain away a creator -- it only explain what we see, feel, etc.

I often hear "ok we explained how the universe works, so we've explained away the need for god"... when in actuality, you've only explained how the universe works!!!!

Knowing how long the world has been has no bearing on my faith either way since my faith isn't tied to what science can or cannot explain.

My point is that if you believe in the math and physics explaining everything around us. Then you should believe at the point of the big bang the creator created he laws of physics and the matter/energy. This is contradicted by your dismissal of evolution. It also doesn't have to do with people creating something so there has to be a creator of everything. As the physics leads from the big bang to us without any external "God" making any changes or specifically designing something other than the basic physics and mass/energy.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no reason to believe the universe wasn't always here though, it was just compressed into a singularity. Something doesn't begin simply because it starts to expand. You could say the expansion of the universe began then, but you absolutely cannot say the universe began then.

Therefore, once again, there is literally no argument you can make about mass and energy that is not far more applicable to an infinitely more complex creator deity. This is just logic.

Ok -- the universe in its current, expanded form wasn't always here. In other words, our universe wasn't always 14 billion years old....

To your second point, we have evidence more and less complexity can come from complex things. Humans are complex beings and can make very simple things (pulley) and extremely complex things (like car engines, and micro chips).

 

[jackstar7]

Ok -- the universe in its current, expanded form wasn't always here. In other words, our universe wasn't always 14 billion years old....

To your second point, we have evidence more and less complexity can come from complex things. Humans are complex beings and can make very simple things (pulley) and extremely complex things (like car engines, and micro chips).

I'd describe the structure of snowflakes as complex. Would you disagree?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd describe the structure of snowflakes as complex. Would you disagree?

Don't know, as I've never looked at them as "complex".