You claim that God does not exist, part 3

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Swensson, et al,

Yes, I can see that you and I are not talking about the same measures of energy and powers.

(COMMENT)

You are talking about a nature Billions of years after the initial spark that brought the universe into existence. I'm talking about the Initial Energy, when the universe was still dark, (quantum fluctuations) at ≈10^-35 to 10^-33 seconds (initiated by the original source of energy needed for hydrogen to be created) a rapid expansion of space called "Inflation." It wasn't until some 400 Million years later that the first stars were to ignite. The rules of fluid mechanics were not evolved yet because there were no fluids until well after the first generation of stars were to die; ejecting the initial elements that would later come together and form other celestial bodies.

I agree with you. I would not "call rivers supernatural" either. That does not mean --- the conditions that were set such that a phenomenon we call a "river" to form were not set by a supernatural power. Those conditions were set by an initial energy some 13.7 Billion years ago by an initial source of energy yet to be determined (what St Thomas Aquinas called the "First Mover). Some people believe that the First Mover was the existence of a deity (SB/UCC).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

deleted

 

Why stab at straw where a simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice?
Why limit it to "within our area"?

 

Why not an endless cycle? Expand, stop, contract, bang, expand...

Also, Thomas Aquinas clearly had little grasp of the universe compared to what we have now, thanks to Hubble, etc, which is still apparently next to nothing. Why presume the entire universe comes "into existence" all at once rather than parts exploding from wormholes over here after being sucked into black holes over there? How about multiple dimensions of existence?

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Grumblenuts, et al,

You are in good company. There are a number of very prominent Scientist (Stephen Hawking opposed to the necessity for the Supreme Being and Professor Albert Einstein for a Supreme Being) that have taken a position on the matter. In fact, Professor Einstein (who was not particularly religious), in one of his famous debates with Neils Bohr about the use of probability in quantum mechanics, said: "God does not play dice with the universe."

(COMMENT)

Yes, I agree, to the extent that I would not engage in fallacies. I do not happen to believe in Supernatural Powers as in a deity, the Supreme Being and the Ultimate Cosmic Creator; but, probably for different reasons as you. But then again, I don't believe in string theory. Just as the Thomas Aquinas Argument is NOT Science; neither is String Theory.

• -Appeal to Ignorance- •
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called "Argument from Ignorance."

Example:

Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

 

Yes, RoccoR, I've never been a fan of string theory either and absence of evidence is neither evidence for absence nor cause. I claim only non-belief.

Otoh, this is evidence:

 

Bohr seems to have prevailed because probability is simply math (highly unappreciated though it remains) while much of Einstein's theory was righteously scoffed at by Tesla who was clearly way ahead of him, along with everyone else.

 

May sound crazy but I've wonderd if God is electricity. How else can you be everywhere at once if your not electricity and molecules.

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Grumblenuts, et al,

This is a shift from a philosophical view to a Scientific View.

(COMMENT)

At the present time, our scientific observation show (with rare exceptions) that most of the Universe is RED SHIFT heavy. Meaning the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. The general consensus is, that precludes your scenario.

Now, in the Many Branes Theory (related to M-Theory and String Theory), there is a scenario in which membrane of one dimension crashes into the membrane of another dimension creating the effect of the Big Bang and also answering the question of where the Dark Energy/Matter originates. But this is not science yet. In the Scientific Method, there is no way (yet) to devise a test and evaluated the outcome.

But your in the ball park with this; maybe just a little too forward thinking.

(COMMENT)

You are unquestionably correct. St Thomas Aquinas had absolutely no understanding of Hubble. In fact St Thomas Aquinas pre-dates the birth of Issac Newton by more than three and a half centuries. St Thomas Aquinas had virtually no understanding of classical mechanics. But the arguments presented by St Thomas Aquinas were based on the Philosophy of Aristotle.

The Einstein-Rose Bridge (AKA Wormhole) is still theoretical; although cosmologist are pretty sure one will be discovered.

While on paper there are 10 dimensions + time (= 11), this is theoretical. There are only three dimensions + space-time in the fabric of space as we observe it today. While some Astrophysical jets at near relativistic speeds emanating from cosmic objects like, black holes, neutron stars and pulsars, the composition of the jets does not appear to originate from another dimension of outside the local influence of the stellar body.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ Grumblenuts, et al,

I agree; very much agree.

(COMMENT)

I believe that all three men were ahead of their time. Well, Tesla questioned Einstein - and Einstein questions Bohr. No question that all three were genius.

I think that all three approached the question of energy in different ways.

Remember, even to this day, while we can calculate every aspect of the Electromagnetic Field Lines thanks to these three, we still do not know what a field line is. Oh, they have names for the quantum particle they associate with being a "force carrier." They haven't a clue as to what lines of force are. They just know they are there and how to use them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Thousands or creation stories speak of a creator god. Why do these gods not exist? Why do you suppose that only your God (with a capital "G") exists?

The cosmological argument is just another GodDidIt fill-in for ignorance.

 

What created god? If nothing created god then god must have always existed or god created himself. That puts god into the realm of the supernatural.

 

All gods are the creation of man's imaginings. The very concept of "god" is the creation of man's imaginings.

Gods were created to answer questions that people, at the time, could not answer: Why did the locusts kill our crops; what happens to us when we die; what makes the earth shake violently sometimes...
The answer: GodDidIt.

Today, some people use GodDidIt to answer questions for which there are no (yet) known answers. Wrong then, wrong now.

 

A rational, "At this time don't know" as opposed to the irrational and historically wrong "GodDidIt".

What is wrong with saying "We don't know" how the universe began. It's a lot more honest than creating a magic man in the sky.

 

If dark matter exists why isn't it detected in our solar system?

 

If a new galaxy pops up next to us tomorrow I will call you a genius.

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ ecco, et al,

Most people assign powerful attributes beyond that of nature. While I am agnostic, and not a proponent of the theological track, I can discuss the issues.

The discussion of Deities ((God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator) is one of theology/philosophy. The discussion of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, is science. Science cannot subject a Deity (God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator) to the rigors of the scientific method. The study of Deity (God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator) is not science.

IF you want to eliminate the impact of the Supernatural Powers of a Deity (God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator), THEN you must use something that negates the theory of First Motion.

(COMMENT)

I've seen this done before. Change the definition so as to change the argument. Sorry --- flag on the play.

The Deity (God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator) created the universe and as such, the laws of physics (including the natural); not the other way around. One of the attributes to a Deity (God, Supreme Being, Ultimate Cosmic Creator) is that it is absolutely unchanging, and present everywhere across all timelines (past, present, and future).

What Christians Want to Know:
10 Awesome Attributes of God
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

RE: You claim that God does not exist, part 3
※→ The Wyrd of Gawd, et al,

Yeah, great question. You would think that we would be tripping over the stuff; even swimming in it.

(COMMENT)

Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, in one of his lectures, the words of description like "Dark Energy and Dark Matter," are place holders for a time in which science can properly label the cause of the observations they have made.

As you know, matter warps the normal fabric of space (space-time). We call this gravity and it can bend the the path of light (gravitational lensing). Cosmologist have made direct observations of star formations that seem to be lensing. However, in the same view, no source of the gravity is seen. This invisible source is call "Dark Matter."

Similarly, cosmologist have observed galaxies that are rotating at such a rate, that given the mass of the galaxy, the parts of it should fly apart. The invisible force that is holding the galaxy together is called "Dark Energy."

Dark means they "just don't know." So Dark Matter and Dark Energy sounds better than "unknown stuff."

Most un-tampered electromagnet energy come in the form of a wave, having a frequency; you already know that the inverse of which is time. (f=1/t and t=1/f) You also know that we cannot see most of the "infrared" (IR) portion of the spectrum, and the same is true for most of the "ultraviolet" (UV) portion of the spectrum. We have sensors and detector for both these regions of the spectrum. There is some speculation that we just haven't addressed the right region in the spectrum. Another reason has been suggested is that their is some new law of physics in play that we have not yet learned; or that there is something wrong with our interpretation of the observations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Dark matter is probably just celestial hydrogen that hasn't formed clumps large enough to emit light.

 

No, I'm talking about the initial spark too (I just mentioned rivers to illustrate the idea that understanding and supernatural aren't related quite as simply as you suggested).

The point about rivers is only that they wouldn't be supernatural even if current science didn't understand everything about them. My argument is that if you're flexible with your definition of deity, you can say the first mover was a deity, no matter exactly what it was.

 

Maybe. That's a line of argument that may be persuasive, but I don't want to rely on it, and I don't think I have to. If the distinction of existence from non-existence absolutely requires something supernatural, then I guess there has to be something supernatural. I'd say the "creation" would have to be a part of the natural world, and follow (or be a part of) the rules of reality, and that would make it natural, but I'm not married to that interpretation of the word supernatural.

 

What exactly do you think my position is? I make no statement about the nature of the creator god, I have presented no argument which separates Yahweh from Pangu or Brahma.

I am non-religious, I don't have a "my God". Strictly, I'm a "theological non-cognitivist", a position that even self-proclaimed rationalist Sam Harris rejected for being boring. I reject most common concepts of God, just like an atheist would, but I'm not married to the idea that it has to be so. If there is an argument, like the cosmological ones, I'm happy to accept it. Of course, as you say, it tells us nothing about the details of that creator God, whether it's Yahweh or Brahma, but I can't reject it outright.

The position is not that I know something about the creation of the universe, the position is that linguistically, I can put the label "God" on whatever it was. Seeing how it did happen (there is a universe) such a God must exist, but I don't then extrapolate to any particular religious text or philosophy.

In practice, I've adopted this position in response to people failing to define what they mean by God. Too many times, I've seen religious people arguing for an Aquinas style God, and rejected by atheists describing some kind of Monte Python God. For such a discussion to be fruitful, we need to make sure we're clear about our definitions, and I want to lead by example.

 

Assumes extreme fundamentalist factoids NOT in evidence.

Those Christian scientists understood that the bible was METAPHORICAL and NOT literal which is the what science deniers claim it is.

 

That fallaciously assumes that the universe was "created" implying that there needs to be a "creator".

The evidence for the existence of the universe is all around us. The universe operates on the laws of physics which includes that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Ergo that the matter/energy of the universe exists means that it has always existed and will always exist in one form or another.