Scientists - How was everything created from nothing? (church, versus, verses)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

What does that even mean?...I think you are just making things up as you post.

What's your problem anyway? What would make you say something like that? It means that matter is eternal, that's all. You don't have to agree, but there's no reason to be insulting about it.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Oh right, so now god didn't create the universe, he just organized it...

Yeah, kind of like Michaelanglo didn't really create works of art since he started out with the paint, instead of creating the paint.

Seriously, are you even capable of having a discussion without being sarcastic? Sarcasm is so easy, you know. You ought to try to challenge yourself to keep from using it so much. I mean, we could discuss this topic like two adults with differing opinions, or you could keep making snarky remarks and punctuating them with smilies such as . Have I done something to offend you -- I mean aside from the fact that we have a difference of opinion?

[MysticPhD]

Actually the misunderstanding is on both sides of this debate. We are dealing with entirely human cognitive constructs that may or may not have any structural equivalence with our reality. As finite creatures, we are not capable of envisioning an infinite reality . . . without a beginning and an end. When we drive our mathematical models backwards we seek to find the beginning . . . and instead find mathematical non-entities (infinities or singularities). We attempt to interpret them as best we can in our finite perceptual rubric . . . and fail. We also have to employ imaginary numbers in some of our mathematical formulations (wave functions) because the entire process of going backward in time IS imaginary. There is no such thing in our reality.

We are encumbered by the very limitations our perceptions and sensory experiences place on us. We use discrete measures of things that are not discrete and are themselves measurement events that actually reflect the quantum formation time of our instantaneous awareness. We then model these discrete entities (events) using our created artificial rules and procedures in our "measured time" in the hope that we can mimic the outcomes we see in our reality. We have been very successful at the macro level in doing so . . . but we run into difficulties in the micro world. This causes us further grief in interpreting and we get silly things like indeterminacy and virtual particles and the like . . . besides coming up against limits and constants . . . like the planck length and the speed of light.

The confidence necessary to make ANY firm conclusions about origins or ends for our reality exceeds our capabilities or extant information, period. Engaging in semantic terpsichory around terms like nothing, something, vacuum, virtual, emergent, etc. is simply foolishness. Despite the arrogance of the likes of Hawkins . . . we can make no definitive conclusions either way . . . God or no God . . . using science. Any speculation on the beginning of our reality is just that speculation . . . because the very concepts of beginning and end are entirely human and based on our finite existences.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

[/i]History only counts because it's the winners who write it. I don't care whether my beliefs are accepted by traditional Christianity or not.

The existence of unorganized matter is hardly the same thing as the existence of a functioning universe. Without God, we'd have no universe, just unorganized matter.

I wasn't aware that I was on his side or anybody else's. I didn't even get involved in this discussion until someone (you, I think) implied that while science can continually bring new information to the table, religion can't. My point was merely to say that I disagreed with that statement.

My response was in light of traditional Christianity, as per the OP, and not the general idea of 'religion.' You responded to me in that context.

You have got alot of explaining to do, scientificlly speaking and not some metaphysical religious a priori definitions that suit your particular take on God, regarding what the difference is between a 'functioning Universe' and an 'unorganized matter' Universe - last I checked matter was functioning just fine at all stages of its development. Physics deals with the early parameters of the universe and it's pre-galaxy formation and we don't need God to organize it. You are just making made up false distinctions that lack any real scientific meaning in order to save your theological world view.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Engaging in semantic terpsichory around terms like nothing, something, vacuum, virtual, emergent, etc. is simply foolishness.

I must say I never heard that word before - the delightful dance of semantic musings is somewhat fun and confusing.

For the record I think it is spelled with an 'e' not a 'y' - at least the word I looked-up. I will not forget this word Mystic. Ironic though that your semantic musings were itself a little dance around the dictionary.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

My response was in light of traditional Christianity, as per the OP, and not the general idea of 'religion.' You responded to me in that context.

You have got alot of explaining to do, scientificlly speaking and not some metaphysical religious a priori definitions that suit your particular take on God, regarding what the difference is between a 'functioning Universe' and an 'unorganized matter' Universe - last I checked matter was functioning just fine at all stages of its development. Physics deals with the early parameters of the universe and it's pre-galaxy formation and we don't need God to organize it. You are just making made up false distinctions that lack any real scientific meaning in order to save your theological world view.

I have absolutely no explaining to do. I have merely stated my belief and you have disagreed with me. I don't see unorganized matter as being a universe capable of supporting life. I don't believe in a creation ex nihilo and I do believe in evolution. I also believe in a Higher Power who orchestrated the whole thing. I'm sorry if you think I owe you something more that that simple statement, but trying to back me up against a wall is pointless. I have explained my belief; I have nothing more to add.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I have absolutely no explaining to do. I have merely stated my belief and you have disagreed with me. I don't see unorganized matter as being a universe capable of supporting life. I don't believe in a creation ex nihilo and I do believe in evolution. I also believe in a Higher Power who orchestrated the whole thing. I'm sorry if you think I owe you something more that that simple statement, but trying to back me up against a wall is pointless. I have explained my belief; I have nothing more to add.

Easy Katzpur, I am not trying to back you into anything and stop with the hyperbole of me thinking you owe me something - Please!. It is just your points don't make sense nor seem to be necessary. If you believe in evolution why does God need to organize the unorganized matter - I don't see the need for a God to organize matter in order for it to support life -physics and evolutionary theory explains this just fine. You have matter existing eternally and you believe in evolution - I just don't see where God is necessary. So if you are going to just state something without any justification or clarity - fine - I will stop asking and pointing out things that I see a problem with.

Moving on!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I must say I never heard that word before - the delightful dance of semantic musings is somewhat fun and confusing.

For the record I think it is spelled with an 'e' not a 'y' - at least the word I looked-up. I will not forget this word Mystic. Ironic though that your semantic musings were itself a little dance around the dictionary.

You are correct . . . it is derivative of the Muse Terpsichore.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Easy Katzpur, I am not trying to back you into anything and stop with the hyperbole of me thinking you owe me something - Please!

Well, maybe I misunderstood you. "You have a lot of explaining to do" sounded to me like you were.

It is just your points don't make sense nor seem to be necessary. If you believe in evolution why does God need to organize the unorganized matter - I don't see the need for a God to organize matter in order for it to support life -physics and evolutionary theory explains this just fine. You have matter existing eternally and you believe in evolution - I just don't see where God is necessary.

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I don't see evolutionary theory as being an adequate explanation for our existence, that's all. If you'd like me to explain why, I'd be happy to. I just don't have time tonight.

[CDJD]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I don't see evolutionary theory as being an adequate explanation for our existence, that's all. If you'd like me to explain why, I'd be happy to. I just don't have time tonight.

I'm all for your right to believe that evolutionary theory is not an adequate explanation for our existence, but to argue with the people who study science to explain it seems like a losing battle. Do you remember when Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia crucified mathematicians for acknowledging that the concept of zero exited (If zero exists therefor the fear of nothingness exists... What happens between heaven and hell?). Thing is, it does... perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge today's scientists.

It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another to be a die-hard "believer" of other people's ideas (often very old ideas.)