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.
I never said must mean a God, for me it does point to God. What I have been sharing is why I believe it points to God. A mind is the only thing we know of that can create finely tune information rich things. now try and reverse the highlighted part as it fits the atheist as well as you say it fits me.
an do you not assume its all random chance? by your posts it sure looks that way. would you trust the information coming from a computer that was thrown together by random chance? I am going to assume your answer is no. then how can you trust what your mind tells you if it was produced by random chance.
well if it is all beyond our knowing and understanding then you cannot say what we do know excludes God.
And atheist and evolutionist attempt to better define their belief of random chance with nothing more then speculation and imagination. whatever you say about a theistic view also fits your view which is evident because you keep saying things like the highlighted part.
I would define that as random chance, however the cues ball did not hit the balls without a mind being behind it.
if something is finely tuned it cannot also be random chance, the one does away with the other. However what we do know today is that a mind is the only thing in operation today that can create finely tuned information rich things. I have asked this of others so maybe you can give me an answer were they have not.
Can you give me something other then a mind that can create finely tune information rich things?
this is the third time you have gone with a philosophical approach so I want to ask you a question that I hope you will take the time to evaluate yourself before answering.
Is it really the science that makes you disbelieve in God or is it more for philosophical reasons?
I ask because almost every time I speak with atheists they always go in the philosophical direction.
Not sure how deep into these weeds I can go this morning as I'm already running out of time before I get on with preparing our BSB. So I'll be brief by requesting we back up a bit and clear up a thing or two...
I don't assume anything. I observe what there is to observe and pass judgement with regard to what is random and what is not. No different than I consider the odds, probabilities and what produces the outcomes when rolling a pair of dice at a craps table.
How do cue balls do what they do with a mind being behind the result? If anyone or any mind could "finely tune" or intelligently design an outcome, the game of pool would cease to exist as we know it. The break produces random results which begins the game. Just because a mind was behind the cue stick to produce the break doesn't mean the results aren't random. No two breaks are ever exactly the same after all. That's randomness. In the same way, the result of a coin toss is random even though there may be a mind behind the toss. Or better yet, perhaps this is less confusing to you if instead of a human it's a machine that makes the break on a pool table or tosses a coin.
If we can't agree as to what is random and/or not random, we're "whistling Dixie" here...
I'm struggling with your effort to describe all or part of what I'm explaining about this as philosophical. As if I'm explaining anything here that isn't fact based. This seems to be your inclination, because again you seem to think my observations and conclusions are based on other than what the facts and my best reason and logic determines as most logical, probable and true. Far as all we have to consider and as best our current day knowledge (from science and all the rest) best justifies. I'm assuming nothing in any case.
Not sure how deep into these weeds I can go this morning as I'm already running out of time before I get on with preparing our BSB. So I'll be brief by requesting we back up a bit and clear up a thing or two...
!
no worries life is more important then replying to me. I hope when you get the time you will answer the questions I asked.
Quote:
I don't assume anything. I observe what there is to observe and pass judgement with regard to what is random and what is not. No different than I consider the odds, probabilities and what produces the outcomes when rolling a pair of dice at a craps table.
How do cue balls do what they do with a mind being behind the result? If anyone or any mind could "finely tune" or intelligently design an outcome, the game of pool would cease to exist as we know it. The break produces random results which begins the game. Just because a mind was behind the cue stick to produce the break doesn't mean the results aren't random. No two breaks are ever exactly the same after all. That's randomness. In the same way, the result of a coin toss is random even though there may be a mind behind the toss. Or better yet, perhaps this is less confusing to you if instead of a human it's a machine that makes the break on a pool table or tosses a coin.
If we can't agree as to what is random and/or not random, we're "whistling Dixie" here...
Yet in your pool ball scenario you only see that which is random. that is ok because like I said already it would be random. So we agree in part. however what you are not taking into consideration is the mind can create random things.
Lets take another look at the pool ball scenario. what caused all the balls to go into the holes, the cue ball. Thus you have a cause and the effect of that cause on the other balls produced a random effect. Without the cue ball nothing would have happened.
Now you say "I observe what there is to observe and pass judgement with regard to what is random and what is not" Do you not observe design in creation? or do you think that which you observe is only something that looks like it was designed? If you say it only looks like design you are not going by what you observe you are going by what you believe science tells you. even scientist are warned that they have to constantly remember that what the see is not designed, it only looks that way. very telling imo.
One thing atheist and evolutionist don't seem to understand is even in their evolutionary belief that it is all random chance is that natural selection is in no way random, it picks only that which would sustain life.
Quote:
I'm struggling with your effort to describe all or part of what I'm explaining about this as philosophical. As if I'm explaining anything here that isn't fact based. This seems to be your inclination, because again you seem to think my observations and conclusions are based on other than what the facts and my best reason and logic determines as most logical, probable and true. Far as all we have to consider and as best our current day knowledge (from science and all the rest) best justifies. I'm assuming nothing in any case.
You ask questions like why did all the dinosaurs become extinct, these type of question are philosophical in nature. they are the same type as why do bad things happen or why is there evil in the world. If there is a God who finely tunes things why does all this happen? because a mind can create random effects. Just because something to you or I looks random does not mean there is no mind or if you prefer a cause behind it.
I have never doubted your belief in God Micheal, we may have had many disagreements about God and what the scriptures say but I have never question your belief in God.
So according to the The BGV theorem there must be a beginning even if it was in the past. We can both agree with that.
So what we have according to eternal inflation model is a beginning, which we call the big bang. At the moment of the big bang, time, space, matter and energy came into existence. Now if we suppose additional big bangs after the very first one we come into a problem. Each universe along the time line has to shutoff energy and the time interval in which that shutoff occurs have to be precisely finely tuned to generate a new universe.
Thus every type of multiverse equation just shoves the fine tuning further back in time. Why? because The initial push of the cosmological constant parameters are set from the very beginning of the first big bang. If they are not then we can never know anything because if anything is possible we have no bases to rely on anything science tells us.
another thing about these field like the 'inflaton scalar field' is that they are only hypothetical and have no basis in reality. why do these scientist have to use a hypothetical field to try and justify what they want the science to say.
Awhile ago I read a guy, cant remember his name, who took issue with these hypothetical fields by demonstrating with a hypothetical field of his own.
it went something like this. I can hypothesis a dinosaur fossil field which can explain why we have all these dinosaur bone around. Now would anyone believe such a hypothesis? I seriously doubt it, yet we are expected to believe a similar field is a reality.
another thing about these field like the 'inflaton scalar field' is that they are only hypothetical and have no basis in reality. why do these scientist have to use a hypothetical field to try and justify what they want the science to say.
Awhile ago I read a guy, cant remember his name, who took issue with these hypothetical fields by demonstrating with a hypothetical field of his own.
it went something like this. I can hypothesis a dinosaur fossil field which can explain why we have all these dinosaur bone around. Now would anyone believe such a hypothesis? I seriously doubt it, yet we are expected to believe a similar field is a reality.
The resort to field explanations is de rigueur in current science, pneuma. The inevitable conclusion that all our science points to is that all that exists is the universal field (what I call God's consciousness field) within which various vibratory aggregations and manifestations exist.
The resort to field explanations is de rigueur in current science, pneuma. The inevitable conclusion that all our science points to is that all that exists is the universal field (what I call God's consciousness field) within which various vibratory aggregations and manifestations exist.
"vibration" and "manifestation" are functions and attributes of physical matter and physical universes.
Divinity is without physical form.
therefore divinity is not "vibration"
to say everything is a vibration, is a materialist view.
divinity however is not physical and is not material.
I have never doubted your belief in God Micheal, we may have had many disagreements about God and what the scriptures say but I have never question your belief in God.
So according to the The BGV theorem there must be a beginning even if it was in the past. We can both agree with that.
So what we have according to eternal inflation model is a beginning, which we call the big bang. At the moment of the big bang, time, space, matter and energy came into existence. Now if we suppose additional big bangs after the very first one we come into a problem. Each universe along the time line has to shutoff energy and the time interval in which that shutoff occurs have to be precisely finely tuned to generate a new universe.
Thus every type of multiverse equation just shoves the fine tuning further back in time. Why? because The initial push of the cosmological constant parameters are set from the very beginning of the first big bang. If they are not then we can never know anything because if anything is possible we have no bases to rely on anything science tells us.
While a multiverse (other universes that are separated from our own pocket universe within the multiverse) is not dependent on the eternal inflation model which is just one inflationary model, the eternal inflation model posits that as a result of an initial big bang, an initial period of inflation slowed in some places thus allowing matter to form and a universe to be created. But inflation is always continuing in other places even while inflation slows in yet other places resulting in the formation of other bubble universes. These bubble universes are constantly being formed . . .the process hasn't stopped. In our own universe inflation has stopped though expansion continues.
Not all physicists accept the eternal inflation model. In fact, one of the authors of that model, Paul Steinhardt, no longer accepts it. On the other hand, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde still promote it. According to Guth,
It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.
and Linde,
"It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."
Our universe did have an inflationary period, regardless of which model of inflation best describes that inflationary period. And most models of inflation do, according to Guth and Linde lead to a multiverse. And again, not all universes would be fine tuned. In some universes, matter might not even be able to form and life not able to exist. We could just be 'lucky' enough to be in a universe that by chance is fine tuned for the existence of life.
"vibration" and "manifestation" are functions and attributes of physical matter and physical universes.
Divinity is without physical form.
therefore divinity is not "vibration"
to say everything is a vibration is a materialist view.
divinity however is not physical and is not material.
Your definitions are nonsense to me, Tzaph. A materialist view has nothing to do with it. I do not believe there is ANY material substance whatsoever, period. But whatever it is, that is the way it presents to us through our sensory system so that is how we have to treat it.
another thing about these field like the 'inflaton scalar field' is that they are only hypothetical and have no basis in reality. why do these scientist have to use a hypothetical field to try and justify what they want the science to say.
Awhile ago I read a guy, cant remember his name, who took issue with these hypothetical fields by demonstrating with a hypothetical field of his own.
it went something like this. I can hypothesis a dinosaur fossil field which can explain why we have all these dinosaur bone around. Now would anyone believe such a hypothesis? I seriously doubt it, yet we are expected to believe a similar field is a reality.
There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing. The Higgs field which is produced by the at one time hypothesized Higgs Boson and thought to be the source of mass by producing a drag force on other particles was confirmed when the Higgs Boson was finally found to be real as a result of experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Science wouldn't advance very far if scientists never hypothesized.
While a multiverse (other universes that are separated from our own pocket universe within the multiverse) is not dependent on the eternal inflation model which is just one inflationary model, the eternal inflation model posits that as a result of an initial big bang, an initial period of inflation slowed in some places thus allowing matter to form and a universe to be created. But inflation is always continuing in other places even while inflation slows in yet other places resulting in the formation of other bubble universes. These bubble universes are constantly being formed . . .the process hasn't stopped. In our own universe inflation has stopped though expansion continues.
Not all physicists accept the eternal inflation model. In fact, one of the authors of that model, Paul Steinhardt, no longer accepts it. On the other hand, Alan Guth and Andrei Linde still promote it. According to Guth,
It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.
and Linde,
"It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."
Our universe did have an inflationary period, regardless of which model of inflation best describes that inflationary period. And most models of inflation do, according to Guth and Linde lead to a multiverse. And again, not all universes would be fine tuned. In some universes, matter might not even be able to form and life not able to exist. We could just be 'lucky' enough to be in a universe that by chance is fine tuned for the existence of life.
Ya I read that there were 9 or 10 different multiverse scenarios. But what do they do with the cosmological constant? Are they saying the cosmological constant is only applied to our universe and not from the very beginning of the first Big Bang? How do they know that some bobbles would not even have matter in them?seems to me if matter is a product of the first Big Bang all bobbles would also have it.
Another thing is the slow down would, as it would have to be doing this every time , have to be fine tuned.
That said I am not totally against a multiverse scenario as it also has theistic implications. Scripture tells us There will be a new heaven and earth.
The resort to field explanations is de rigueur in current science, pneuma. The inevitable conclusion that all our science points to is that all that exists is the universal field (what I call God's consciousness field) within which various vibratory aggregations and manifestations exist.
What’s common does not mean it’s correct.
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.
