Proof of God

[Belz...]

Still no definition of "ethics", Herz ?

 

[Belz...]

Okay, billy.

Those are the best links I could come up with in just a few minutes about the early state of the universe...

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

...Notice that my use of the term "singularity" was incorrect, by the way, because it really does describe the early form of the universe, not the pre-big bang one.

I'm not sure exactly what term I should use for the "pre"-Big Bang "state". (damn language)

However, I'm still pretty sure that singularities are chaotic in the true sense. Just can't seem to get a hold of the sites I'm thinking of, right now.

More luck tomorrow, perhaps.

 

[Herzblut]

Still no definition of "ethics", Herz ?

1. Prove your claim:

Which science teaches which ethics?

Pretty much all of them.

2. Avoid making claims about things that you don't understand in the future.

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

Herz.

It seems you are a very confused individual. If you had cared to answer me the first time around, this wouldn't be happening.

Either provide me with what YOU mean by "ethics", or I'll just use my own definition and go from there.

 

[Paulhoff]

Herz.

It seems you are a very confused individual. If you had cared to answer me the first time around, this wouldn't be happening.

Either provide me with what YOU mean by "ethics", or I'll just use my own definition and go from there.

Like family values, I have seen a list for that one.

Paul



Like "Don't kick the dog to much................."

 

[The_Animus]

If we walk onto a bridge we must believe apriori that the bridge will hold our weight. This apriori assumption is based on the premise that most bridges that exist will hold the weight in question and the bridge probably wouldn’t be allowed to exist if it didn’t.

A bridge in Minneappolis just collapsed during rushhour. 50+ cars were estimated to be on the bridge when it collapsed.

 

[Paulhoff]

So where was so-called god.

Paul

again...................

 

[BillyJoe]

For something to happen, because "something" takes a certain amount of time, but an event need not logically take up any time at all.

I'm not sure that "logically" is the correct word here. The word "event" has a number of different meanings. One of the meanings is "an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time". The word "instant" also has a number of different meanings and one of them is "succeeding without any interval of time".
I would say that "technically" you are correct.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about observing something while IN a timeless continuum. Of course, this requires that we'd have to be able to observe ANOTHER universe from this one.

A "timeless continuum" sounds like another oxymoron.
In any case, good luck observing "an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and succeeding without any interval of time"

Well, you didn't make it very clear.

Crystal. I said "I concede this point".

BillyJoe:
What theories do we have that explain something out of nothing and what evidence supports them?

Again, you're assuming that there was "nothing" at one point.

I said it is EITHER something from nothing OR time wtihout beginning.
Here I'm considering the possibility that is was something from nothing.
If you dont like "nothing at some point", then you'll need to deal with time without beginning.
But still no answer to the question: "What theories do we have that explain something out of nothing and what evidence supports them?" Which was a claim that you made.

That's because I don't dismiss god because it's "weird", but because it's nonsensical.

Good, because then you would have dismiss a great deal of physics.

BillyJoe:
No, I mean why is there something rather than nothing?

That's going to sound corny, but maybe "nothing" is impossible.

Then it's "always something", which leads back to time without beginning.
Either way there something weird to explain.

BillyJoe;
How did the possibility of something arise?
What caused the possibility of a quantum fluctuation, if that is the reason for something out of nothing?

Again, you're assuming that there was nothing at some point.

And, again, you are avoiding answering the question.

I don't think it has those infinites. I think the tendency towards infinity is simply a mathematical result of going back in time towards the singularity. But I don't think the singularity itself has any infinites. Again, I'll try to dig up something later today.

Why? Is it too weird for your liking?
That's the mathematical construct: all those infinities in zero space.
But I don't physicists have any idea what a singularity actually "consists of".

 

[BillyJoe]

I meant to comment on this earlier, but BillyJoe, what do you mean by, "the interconnectedness of all quantum particles in the universe,"?

It seems that you are confusing the concept of quantum entanglement with the idea that every particle, everywhere, has an affect on every other particle in the universe.

Is this what you believe quantum theory says?

It seems you do not realise that the one leads to the other.

Two particles that once interacted remain entangled forever, and respond instantaneously whenever either of the pair interacts with any other particle. But all the particles in the universe have been involved in interactions with all the other particles all the way back to the big bang. This means that every particle reacts instantaneously to interactions between every pair of particles everywhere in the universe.

Superholism with a vengence!



Then, of course, there's also backward in time causation, where what happens in the future causes what happened in the past.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure that "logically" is the correct word here.

Well, I'm just not sure an "event" need take up any time at all.

A "timeless continuum" sounds like another oxymoron.

It's quite possible. I can't imagine a universe with no time at all, but then again what I can imagine doesn't change reality. I simply don't know if it's possible.

In any case, good luck observing "an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and succeeding without any interval of time"

Hummm....

Here I'm considering the possibility that is was something from nothing.
If you dont like "nothing at some point", then you'll need to deal with time without beginning.

Again, I don't see why. If time begins to exist at some "point", then the question of "nothing" becomes irrelevant for two reasons:

1) We still don't know if the first law fails at any point.
2) There is no time before time begins, and therefore no "event", by your reckoning, can change that.

"What theories do we have that explain something out of nothing and what evidence supports them?" Which was a claim that you made.

Well, quantum physics allow particles to be spontaneously created (virtual particles, I think), and then they usually destroy one another. It's quite possible, and indeed likely, that the universe is one such, humongous, spontaneous creation.

Of course, whether there's an actual increase in matter and energy is another question.

Good, because then you would have dismiss a great deal of physics.

I never said god was weird. In fact, people believe in it specifically because it's very familiar.

And, again, you are avoiding answering the question.

I am most certainly not. I said that maybe "nothing" is impossible. As I read somewhere, "nothing", by definition, cannot exist. Perhaps that's the way to look at it. Now, as to how time can have a beginning, maybe we shouldn't think of time as anything but something that can be created and destroyed, like space, matter or energy, or at least expanded and contracted.

Why? Is it too weird for your liking?

Nope.

That's the mathematical construct: all those infinities in zero space.
But I don't physicists have any idea what a singularity actually "consists of".

Again, I'd have to look it up again.

 

[Belz...]

Two particles that once interacted remain entangled forever, and respond instantaneously whenever either of the pair interacts with any other particle.

Link ?

 

[BillyJoe]

It's falsifiable because there is, in principle, a way to falsify it.

Ah! I'm getting the Mobyspeak now:

"there is no god" is falsifiable MEANS "there is no god" is falsifiable in principle.

Implying that: "there is no god" is not falsifiable in practice,

Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Take this example:
Claim: Dogs have three legs only
This claim is falsifiable by finding a single four-legged dog.

Just because all the dogs your find are somehow missing a leg, and you can't find a single four-legged dog, doesn't mean the claim is unfalsifiable. It's just not being falsified.

False analogy.

Dogs are not defined as having only three legs.
God is defined as being unobservable.
Therefore, in practice AND in principle, "there is no god" is not falsifiable - because god cannot be observed.

Herzblut was correct:

"There is no god," is falsified by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.

BillyJoe:
God creates the laws of physics and the initial conditions and disapppears.
Science discovers the laws and initial conditions but is unable to explain the origin of these laws and initial conditions.
God is undetectable and not irrelevant.

That's contradictory.

If God creates the laws of physics, then there will be NO EXPLANATION for their existence. That's leaving a trace.

There is no explanation for the existence of the laws of physics now. Does that mean we have a trace of gods existence? Of course not. We keep looking. If there a halting procedure I would like to see it. If not, we will just keep looking forever. And we will never know if there is NO EXPLANATION.

But if there IS an explanation for their existence, then god becomes unnecessary

Then we can truely say "there is no god".

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, billy.

Those are the best links I could come up with in just a few minutes about the early state of the universe....

Except that the links were supposed to show that the singularity is characterised by chaos.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

Nothing new, but a very interesting article all the same...
...and no mention of chaos as a characteristic of a singularity.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html

This article seems to contradict the central point of the first article....
.....but still no mention of chaos as a characteristic of a singularity.

Notice that my use of the term "singularity" was incorrect, by the way, because it really does describe the early form of the universe...not the pre-big bang one

Yet you denied that when I put it to you that your word chaos applied not to the singularity but to the state of the universe just after the singularity.
And what do you mean by the "pre big bang" universe?

I'm not sure exactly what term I should use for the "pre"-Big Bang "state". (damn language)

I'm not even sure what you mean by the "pre"-Big Bang "state".

However, I'm still pretty sure that singularities are chaotic in the true sense. Just can't seem to get a hold of the sites I'm thinking of, right now.

Lots of luck.


regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Belz...]

"there is no god" is falsifiable MEANS "there is no god" is falsifiable in principle.

Implying that: "there is no god" is not falsifiable in practice,

That's completely ridiculous, Billy. "The earth is round" is falsifiable by finding evidence that the world is flat, for example. But there IS NO evidence that the earth is flat and the Earth IS roundish, so there's no way to show that the earth is flat. It does not mean that "the earth is round" is unfalsifiable.

False analogy.

It's not an analogy, it's the exact same logical construct.

Dogs are not defined as having only three legs.
God is defined as being unobservable.

YOU defined God as unobservable. I defined dogs as having three legs. For the purposes of the argument, it's the same thing, and it's sad that you don't see that.

Therefore, in practice AND in principle, "there is no god" is not falsifiable - because god cannot be observed.

Indeed. It is therefore useless.

"There is no god," is falsified by demonstrating the existence of god.
The existence of god cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, "There is no god" is not falsifiable.

Ridiculous. See my flat earth explanation above.

There is no explanation for the existence of the laws of physics now. Does that mean we have a trace of gods existence? Of course not.

Again, hogwash. There ARE explanations.

 

[Belz...]

...and no mention of chaos as a characteristic of a singularity.

I know, I said so.

Yet you denied that when I put it to you that your word chaos applied not to the singularity but to the state of the universe just after the singularity.

Didn't I just say I was wrong about this ?

And what do you mean by the "pre big bang" universe?

Well, you know, non-universe.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm still waiting for the so-called god proof.

Paul



Paul looks at CNN and the bridge that fell, nope, no so-called god there.

 

[edge]

I'm still waiting for the so-called god proof.

Paul



Paul looks at CNN and the bridge that fell, nope, no so-called god there.

What's God to do hold up the bridge Paul, forever?
None of us know how or when we will die, it could of failed because of stupidity of the inspectors that said that bridge was safe and the motives for them passing the inspection was what Paul?
They will pay in the end if there was any deviance behind that motive.
This may be the way that such things are revealed.
Through he sins of others, either through greed or laziness or subversion of appropriated moneys.
It will be found out.
To judge God on mans follies is dangerous Paul.

So is it Gods fault when you fail to replace the batteries in your smoke detector?
When your house burns down?
Tin Man!

 

[Belz...]

Billy: Can't find anything about chaos and singularities.

I can only surmise that I was wrong about this particular point.

 

[Powa]

To judge God on mans follies is dangerous Paul.

What is your god doing about this?

 

[Paulhoff]

What's God to do hold up the bridge Paul, forever?
Yes, it has to do with it being all-powerful and all, what good is it if it can't even hold up, or better then that, just plan fix the bridge. He didn't care much about the children.

None of us know how or when we will die, it could of failed because of stupidity of the inspectors that said that bridge was safe and the motives for them passing the inspection was what Paul?
Then it should have made the inspector more perfect, that would have fix that. That so-called god of yours is useless.

They will pay in the end if there was any deviance behind that motive.
This may be the way that such things are revealed.
Revealed, what a cop-out, just make more excuses for your so-called god.

Through he sins of others, either through greed or laziness or subversion of appropriated moneys.
Your so-called god just has to get rid of sin, all-powerful, right.

It will be found out.
To judge God on mans follies is dangerous Paul.
So who judges this so-called god, mmmmmm, the children should.

So is it Gods fault when you fail to replace the batteries in your smoke detector?
Well like yes, to you it made the laws of the universe, and didn't get it right again. And what makes this so-called heaven of so-called god so good, nothing happening so nothing goes wrong, just sit around looking at so-called god all day.

When your house burns down?
What, you are burning down my house now, so sweet of you and your so-called god, edge.

Tin Man!
Straw-man, edge, for once and most likely only once get it right edge.

Paul