Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point exactly. Essentially whatever you invedtigate.... that is god.... whatever you use to investigate too.... that is god... whatever conclusions you come to - correct ones or incorrect ones.... that is god too.
You just wave your hands and declare it is all "god" and that is it. So basically you responded to post no. 24 to tell me I was wrong - but the proceeded to show exactly why it was right.
The removal of the context from my post is why you so easily misrepresent my point. My associating God with the Universe was deliberate. The things you rail against my attributing to God you have no problem with when attributed to the Universe. Yet you see no double-speak in doing so. Your willingness to hide it speaks volumes about your intent and integrity in addressing this issue.
It's a long way from being a deist to religion and scriptures, for example christianity, islam, judaism.
This is a point I've raised in the past without getting a satisfactory explanation from theist. Let's assume for the sake of argument that God caused the universe to come into existence through the big bang.
Okay, so how do we get from that to knowing that this same God created the earth, sun, moon, planets, life, consciousness, morality, intelligence and humans? What evidence is there that this same God who caused the big bang and created all these things then sent his only son to the earth to die for the sins of all humanity for all time? Oh, and this must be done without relying on any religious scripture, tradition, authority or dogma.
The number and magnitude of assumptions that have to be made to believe this are astounding.
Hmmmm Spontaneous from nothing? Space time matter and energy? I have a hard time seeing how that comes about. Nothing in the most absolute sense is pretty much nothing. And while all four? Couldn't it just have been one or two? Seems as far fetched as any religious "myth".
It is a hypothesis at the moment. There are pieces of the puzzle - evidences - relating the origin of the universe which are pointing in a certain direction:
1. The universe has a total energy that is calculated to be zero. This is because matter has positive energy and gravitation has negative energy and they cancel each other out.
2. Because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, particle-antiparticle pairs (virtual particles or quantum vacuum fluctuations) constantly appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time and fill the universe.
3. Because the universe has zero total energy, physics allows that the universe itself had a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin which was the seed for the expansion of spacetime.
4. There is no time limit to the duration of a quantum vacuum fluctuation.
5. Therefore, the universe may have arisen spontaneously from nothing.
Now, whether or not we believe or accept this explanation is another matter. It seems intriguing to me.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 04-25-2012 at 07:35 PM..
It is a hypothesis at the moment. There are pieces of the puzzle - evidences - relating the origin of the universe which are pointing in a certain direction:
1. The universe has a total energy that is calculated to be zero. This is because matter has positive energy and gravitation has negative energy and they cancel each other out.
2. Because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, particle-antiparticle pairs (virtual particles or quantum vacuum fluctuations) constantly appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time and fill the universe.
3. Because the universe has zero total energy, physics allows that the universe itself had a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin which was the seed for the expansion of spacetime.
4. There is no time limit to the duration of a quantum vacuum fluctuation.
5. Therefore, the universe may have arisen spontaneously from nothing.
Now, whether or not we believe or accept this explanation is another matter. It seems intriguing to me.
Fancy stuff. Very intellectual and impressive sounding. Still, seems opaque, far fetched and extremely theoretical. Bout the same probability as the presence of a higher being, give or take.
Fancy stuff. Very intellectual and impressive sounding. Still, seems opaque, far fetched and extremely theoretical. Bout the same probability as the presence of a higher being, give or take.
You're not alone in not being convinced. Not all physicists agree about the origins of the universe either. It's a learning process for everyone at the moment.
What we should realize is that scientific discoveries are revealing counter-intuitive facts about how the universe actually is. For example, certain particles appear out of empty space and disappear again. What we conceive of as "empty space" is not actually empty, but is instead filled with these particles which constantly appear and disappear. Therefore, what is thought of metaphysically as "nothing" might not exist at all, because wherever there is space there is also matter. It's an inherent characteristic of the universe.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 04-26-2012 at 08:27 AM..
The removal of the context from my post is why you so easily misrepresent my point.
Nothing is being misrepresented. You said it yourself. It is amazing that even when we are agreed on something you act like there is disagreement. You simply thing "everything" is god. Whatever it is you simply say it is "part" of god too.
That was my point - you agree with it - yet you still claim you are being misrepresented. Making sense you are not. You seem to see cloaks and daggers in so many places that even when you are in perfect agreement with someone you still can not admit they are right.
You're not alone in not being convinced. Not all physicists agree about the origins of the universe either. It's a learning process for everyone at the moment.
What we should realize is that scientific discoveries are revealing counter-intuitive facts about how the universe actually is. For example, certain particles appear out of empty space and disappear again. What we conceive of as "empty space" is not actually empty, but is instead filled with these particles which constantly appear and disappear. Therefore, what is thought of metaphysically as "nothing" might not exist at all, because wherever there is space there is also matter. It's an inherent characteristic of the universe.
I think most people realize science is seriously investigating such matters -- the hadron collider, for example. However, the idea that we can accurately determine the universe's beginning from ~14 billion years ago with a high degree of certainty still stretches credulity.
The quarks are a favorite of those who support the idea of spontaneous generation. But having a whole giant universe pop into permanent existence is a WHOLE LOT different than these tiny particles that come and go in well under a split second.
Jumping from split second quark appearance to a billion year old universe is a leap of faith, certainly, yes?
I suspect the "learning process" will persist for quite some time.
So what? Credulity has nothing to do with truth. Some of the easiest to show things in science stretch credulity. This does not make them false. Discoveries in science all the time stretch credulity, they are all still true.
If the best argument you have to offer is how "credible" things seem to you personally then you have missed the entire point of even having a scientific process.
Try it yourself sometime. Show people a sheet of paper and ask them how tall they think it would get if you could cut it in half, put the halves on top of each other... cut that in half... and repeat 100 times in that fashion. The biggest answer I ever got was "As tall as this building".
The ACTUAL answer is so large that light itself would take millenia to traverse its length. Does anyone believe me when I tell them this? No. Do they find it credible? No not at all. Is it true none the less? Yes, very much so.
Nothing is being misrepresented. You said it yourself. It is amazing that even when we are agreed on something you act like there is disagreement. You simply thing "everything" is god. Whatever it is you simply say it is "part" of god too.
That was my point - you agree with it - yet you still claim you are being misrepresented. Making sense you are not. You seem to see cloaks and daggers in so many places that even when you are in perfect agreement with someone you still can not admit they are right.
OK . . . why is attribution to the Universe different from attribution to God? They are exactly the same existentially . . . but you have a problem with the one and not the other. Why is one more legitimate in your eyes than the other?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
