Termie, Ati We Are Living Inside a Computer Simulated Universe

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Another way to consider the question. 

If one is looking for a candidate to fill a position.  The logical thing is to search the local area.  The region.  Country.  Then maybe the rest of the world.  It's considered illogical to do it the other way round.

The point being made here.  If one is looking for candidates for eternity, one has a ready made one in matter.  You can literally sink your teeth into it.

Matter brings warts and zits to the table.  The occasional new puzzles that require one to reconsider premises.  It can intrude a comfort zone with new information.

Yet, the growth of knowledge often demands that one goes out of their comfort zone.  Comfort zone equals stagnation of knowledge.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I mention the use of favorable assumptions to come up with a logical requirement for a deity.

What's the point?  Separation of logical constructs from reality or approximations of it.

Suppose that matter has a beginning as asserted elsewhere on the thread.  Then it is not entirely illogical to suggest that a non material entity created it. 

If I understand the argument well, then there is no limit to the nature of what creates the material as long as it is not material. 

The creator maybe created.  Or not.  There is nothing in the above logic to suggest either way. 

It follows that the logic also says nothing on whether this creator is the only uncreated entity.  Or whether the non-material domain is infested with uncreatables.

Mental logical constructs are great tools.  Like any tools they are not immune to misuse.  More importantly they not equal to the objective reality, truth, facts, things...

They are capable of replacing reality when abused.  This is observed when scientists get carried away by mathematical models and start to treat them as if they are in fact reality.

[kadame]

I am going to sleep, before then a few things:

1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.

Do you have a link to the source of this claim?  You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.

Now, hang on, just a minute. Which part of this assertion is being doubted? Your claim that the scientific method is the only objective means of knowledge, or your claim that predictability is the way to know things in this world?

2) I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. This is in contention too?

The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time.  There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event.  Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion.  Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.

The reference to what science is and religion still puzzles me. Who cares what controversy which would spawn? The issue is where the matter stands as far as science goes. First, its more than a "speculation", as it stands, there is nothing to counter the theorem from what I've read. If you are aware, I'd like to see these other alternative suggestions, since you seem to have more awareness of it than the world's leading theorists and physicists. Since you are not a scientist and neither am I, I will trust what scientific sources say. And what they say is that any universe that expands, or any universe attached to one that expands at any rate more than 0, starts at a singularity, which means an absolute beginning, without any physical reality prior. Not any multiverse, bouncing universe or whatever. This is despite whether this singularity happened at the big bang or the emergence of the multiverse or oscillating universe or whichever other imaginary universe theorized to have caused this universe. All it needs is expansion. This is the only fact it depends on. So far, the flaw in that theorem is yet to be found.

Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.

How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.

It is relevant.  It has plenty to do with theism.  Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity.  In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity. 

Again, what FACTS do you have that contradict this? I don't much care whether you believe in souls or not or whether you agree with my guided evolution or not. Your claim was about FACTS and how they are abhorred...it is the facts abhorred that I seek. Never knew Evolution had anything to say about souls or Adam and Eve, but by Golly, there's a first time for everything.

It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).

My question, why on earth do you care whether these things are beasts or fully human to theists? What has that got to do with the facts you proclaimed? What has it got to with evolution as a scientific subject? Does evolution care about whether those things are regarded or beasts or kindred souls? ? Maybe the dictionary definition for facts will help.

5)

That would be cogent.  Especially if everything is known about matter.  Is everything known about matter? 

My skepticism kicks in all the time.  It can be tampered by feedback.  That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.

HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?

We can draw conclusions where it is justified.  You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes.  I do this at least once.  Maybe more.

Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created?  If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that.  The law of conservation of energy.  Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.

My word! There's a scientific principle that forbids science from making a conclusion that physical reality began at an absolute point 0 which in fact is the latest scientific finding? Shouldn't someone have told Hawking this before he tried to explain the universe coming to existence from nothing using only gravity precisely because of this finding? All this time, he could've been using energy and the fact that science prohibits physicists from daring to suggest that energy had an absolute beginning from nothing, unbeknownst to him. Sounds like a religious dogma, that. Have to say. And the thing that justifies such a reading, as you ask, is causality. It is only your faith that somehow something elsewhere happens causeless. Besides you faith, all happenings are known to have causes. This is the basic assumption underneath all scientific inquiry in fact. It has been consistently established, and as soon as we find things happening causeless, only faith in atheism will have people assuming otherwise for the beginning of the universe from nothing or for any other unexplained thing.

6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?

What's the evidence for that claim?  That said, there are plenty  of scientific theories on everything.  I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG.  Maybe they have the answer.  But I don't know it.  It's the nature of the discipline. 

An uncomfortable terrain.  If one craves authority.

Ask physicists. I am not one, and not about to claim that I have more knowledge than them on their area of expertise. What I know, you have stumbled on a secret they don't know about. Here they are trying to come up with explanations for the BVG theorem, yet its no more than a figment of some overactive imagination. Seem like such silly people!

It is imagination.  Especially the premises.

The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions.  The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises.  Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.

The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be. Why not?

Please find how that logic works for a material reality. And pin-point this false premise, while at it. This is the kind of demonstration I mean. You simply declare that it can, and this is your argument. If it was so easy and works for everything--seems to be your claim--then you could easily do it. This is quite simply logic and if it is circular you can point out the chicken/egg in the reasoning. There is no premise here that is conjured from thin air. It is simply based on understanding what non-existence is. And is not hard either. It is as simple as non-existence is not the same thing as existence. Pure and simple! You would have us believe that non-existence has properties and behaviors. That's what everything you say comes down to. And that's what the basic logic you are fighting against simply denies. If it has properties and behaviors, it is not nothing. It just cant be---why not? Here is the thing again: Non-existence cannot or be anything, something that is not there cannot do anything. Is this the "why not" you are referring to? For which you seek an answer?

There is plenty to stop any discerning person from attributing to material reality attributes of the immaterial cause. It requires understanding that material reality would have to exist in order to bring itself to existence: The chicken-egg logic if I ever saw one. We don't have to witness it to know circular logic to be falsehood, either. The assumption is that reality is not illogical. That's all the faith one needs. And all that the word "immaterial" in immaterial cause means is something ELSE. Something that actually exists independently of the event in question from which time, space, matter and yes, ENERGY, come. In fact, its properties as timeless, spaceless, matterless (or immaterial) are just ways of saying something "else."

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am going to sleep, before then a few things:

1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.

Do you have a link to the source of this claim?  You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.

Now, hang on, just a minute. Which part of this assertion is being doubted? Your claim that the scientific method is the only objective means of knowledge, or your claim that predictability is the way to know things in this world?

2) I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. This is in contention too?

The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time.  There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event.  Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion.  Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.

The reference to what science is and religion still puzzles me. Who cares what controversy which would spawn? The issue is where the matter stands as far as science goes. First, its more than a "speculation", as it stands, there is nothing to counter the theorem from what I've read. If you are aware, I'd like to see these other alternative suggestions, since you seem to have more awareness of it than the world's leading theorists and physicists. Since you are not a scientist and neither am I, I will trust what scientific sources say. And what they say is that any universe that expands, or any universe attached to one that expands at any rate more than 0, starts at a singularity, which means an absolute beginning, without any physical reality prior. Not any multiverse, bouncing universe or whatever. This is despite whether this singularity happened at the big bang or the emergence of the multiverse or oscillating universe or whichever other imaginary universe theorized to have caused this universe. All it needs is expansion. This is the only fact it depends on. So far, the flaw in that theorem is yet to be found.

Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.

How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.

It is relevant.  It has plenty to do with theism.  Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity.  In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity. 

Again, what FACTS do you have that contradict this? I don't much care whether you believe in souls or not or whether you agree with my guided evolution or not. Your claim was about FACTS and how they are abhorred...it is the facts abhorred that I seek. Never knew Evolution had anything to say about souls or Adam and Eve, but by Golly, there's a first time for everything.

It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).

My question, why on earth do you care whether these things are beasts or fully human to theists? What has that got to do with the facts you proclaimed? What has it got to with evolution as a scientific subject? Does evolution care about whether those things are regarded or beasts or kindred souls? ? Maybe the dictionary definition for facts will help.

5)

That would be cogent.  Especially if everything is known about matter.  Is everything known about matter? 

My skepticism kicks in all the time.  It can be tampered by feedback.  That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.

HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?

We can draw conclusions where it is justified.  You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes.  I do this at least once.  Maybe more.

Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created?  If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that.  The law of conservation of energy.  Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.

My word! There's a scientific principle that forbids science from making a conclusion that physical reality began at an absolute point 0 which in fact is the latest scientific finding? Shouldn't someone have told Hawking this before he tried to explain the universe coming to existence from nothing using only gravity precisely because of this finding? All this time, he could've been using energy and the fact that science prohibits physicists from daring to suggest that energy had an absolute beginning from nothing, unbeknownst to him. Sounds like a religious dogma, that. Have to say. And the thing that justifies such a reading, as you ask, is causality. It is only your faith that somehow something elsewhere happens causeless. Besides you faith, all happenings are known to have causes. This is the basic assumption underneath all scientific inquiry in fact. It has been consistently established, and as soon as we find things happening causeless, only faith in atheism will have people assuming otherwise for the beginning of the universe from nothing or for any other unexplained thing.

6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?

What's the evidence for that claim?  That said, there are plenty  of scientific theories on everything.  I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG.  Maybe they have the answer.  But I don't know it.  It's the nature of the discipline. 

An uncomfortable terrain.  If one craves authority.

Ask physicists. I am not one, and not about to claim that I have more knowledge than them on their area of expertise. What I know, you have stumbled on a secret they don't know about. Here they are trying to come up with explanations for the BVG theorem, yet its no more than a figment of some overactive imagination. Seem like such silly people!

Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.

What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".

It is imagination.  Especially the premises.

The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions.  The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises.  Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.

The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be.  Why not?

Please find how that logic works for a material reality. And pin-point this false premise, while at it. This is the kind of demonstration I mean. You simply declare that it can, and this is your argument. If it was so easy and works for everything--seems to be your claim--then you could easily do it. This is quite simply logic and if it is circular you can point out the chicken/egg in the reasoning. There is no premise here that is conjured from thin air. It is simply based on understanding what non-existence is. And is not hard either. It is as simple as non-existence is not the same thing as existence. Pure and simple! You would have us believe that non-existence has properties and behaviors. That's what everything you say comes down to. And that's what the basic logic you are fighting against simply denies. If it has properties and behaviors, it is not nothing.

There is plenty to stop any discerning person from attributing to material reality attributes of the immaterial cause. It requires understanding that material reality would have to exist in order to bring itself to existence: The chicken-egg logic if I ever saw one. We don't have to witness it to know circular logic to be falsehood, either. The assumption is that reality is not illogical. That's all the faith one needs. And all that the word "immaterial" in immaterial cause means is something ELSE. Something that actually exists independently of the event in question from which time, space, matter and yes, ENERGY, come. In fact, its properties as timeless, spaceless, matterless (or immaterial) are just ways of saying something "else."

I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making.  A link.  Maybe a combination of links.  A logic trail.  Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages.  I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece.  I want to see if it has any basis.

In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions.  The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information.  One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests.  The other will change.

Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue.  It is the difference in approach.  At any given time, a dogmatic  position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one.  The difference.  The dogmatic position will not improve.  The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated.  Change is the difference.

About the controversy bit.  Science has no infallible claims.  There is no pope in science.  At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance.  When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method. 

What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying?  Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation?  Dark matter perhaps?  Or is it just personal preference?

What is a singularity?  Is it a point with infinite density?  Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world?  Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?

My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter.  Agreed.  I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one. 

A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring. 

A religious approach will not.  It adds more qualifications to support the premise.  Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.

The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.  Read the response to your second point on this post.  Hawkings in not God.  He is not the pope.  He is not the best guy in his professional field.  Neither of this matters.

What is absolute point 0?  I  don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing. 

The only absolute faith I have.  Is that we don't know everything.  I go from there.  If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about.  Yet I don't.  Read up on argument from ignorance.  That is how you are arguing.   

Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go).  What causes quantum foam?  Do you know?  BGV?  Hawkings?

The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo.  Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas.  They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God.  Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject.  That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.

Logical constructs are wonderful tools.  But they do not equate to objective reality.  They are only as good as their premises.  Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on?  The existence thing sounds very complicated.

[kadame]

I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making.  A link.  Maybe a combination of links.  A logic trail.  Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages.  I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece.  I want to see if it has any basis.

Yep, that's what you say. You make many claims left and right, O that can work for anything, therefore it's wrong! Without actually attacking the argument itself. Then you think simply stating "I'm trying to understand" is a point. Do you think you don't have a remote duty to logically demonstrate your own claims?If you say an argument is illogical, it should be quite easy to demonstrate how, I do that all the time.

In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions.  The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information.  One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests.  The other will change.

Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue.  It is the difference in approach.  At any given time, a dogmatic  position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one.  The difference.  The dogmatic position will not improve.  The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated.  Change is the difference.

This is just tiresome So the hell what? Do you have facts that disprove theism? If so, then your point is valid (though irrelevant to this discussion), because then you can point to the facts and how theism has "abhorred" or failed to account for them. A contradiction somewhere in reality, and not in your imagination, between theism and facts, you show that and your point is valid. otherwise, its just an arbitrary statement you make just assuming it somehow advances your arguments.

About the controversy bit.  Science has no infallible claims.  There is no pope in science.  At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance.  When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method. 

More irrelevancies. I very well know how science works. It may shock you but atheists don't have the market cornered on it. So save it, please. You started this discussion with long rants (sermons?) on the scientific method being our only objective means to attain to knowledge of actual reality. It is science that has reached a consensus that physical reality had an absolute beginning, with 0 physical reality before. I say 0, to make the point that nothing physical exists prior, not even your precious energy. There is no current model that escapes this theorem. One may show up in future, who knows, but that is not the current state of affairs.

What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying?  Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation?  Dark matter perhaps?  Or is it just personal preference?

Ask yourself this question. As far as I know, your energy principle is no problem to this theorem and its implications and has not been posited as one, that's just something lay believers like you think is the magic silver bullet that the physicists and cosmologists  have been lost on. That's the point I was making. Your claim that energy or ANY physical component of the universe cannot be created may be true only within physical reality itself, says nothing of the actual existence of that reality, which energy is merely a part of.

What is a singularity?  Is it a point with infinite density?  Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world?  Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?

A singularity is an absolute beginning. That is it. The point beyond which there is no time, space, matter or energy...NOTHING. Last I checked, density is not nothing and is a physical reality.

[/color]My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter.  Agreed.  I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one. 

A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring. 

A religious approach will not.  It adds more qualifications to support the premise.  Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.

Nice dodge. You claimed my position "abhors facts", I asked you to point out which facts are supposedly abhorred, then you came up with this ridiculous example. Catholic belief that humans have souls and when these souls might have existed. As if science has anything remotely to say about such. Even now, those facts that are claimed to lace science above theism are still missing, just a figment of someone's imagination, pun intended.

The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.  Read the response to your second point on this post.  Hawkings in not God.  He is not the pope.  He is not the best guy in his professional field.  Neither of this matters.

What is absolute point 0?  I  don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing. 

More irrelevancies. If you are genuinely claiming to know nothing of one of the most significant cosmological findings in the last decade, I will find sources and post them here. I fully appreciate your hesitance to believe me, my doubt is that I have mentioned this to you before and I am pretty sure you are not that new to it.

The only absolute faith I have.  Is that we don't know everything.  I go from there.  If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about.  Yet I don't.  Read up on argument from ignorance.  That is how you are arguing.   

How amazing for you! Welcome to the rest of the human race who know they don't know everything. Though I gather you said that thinking it makes you special or adds to your arguments.

Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go).  What causes quantum foam?  Do you know?  BGV?  Hawkings?[/color]

Don't know, don't care. What I care about is that this theorem says the WHOLE of physical reality, the entire space-time, with all its contents, pop into existence from absolutely no pre-existent physical reality. Does your foam theory add anything to that?

The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo.  Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas.  They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God.  Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject.  That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.

And the claim that this law disproves the BVG theorem would be news to any cosmologist out there. But I guess you can always nudge them in the right direction.

Logical constructs are wonderful tools.  But they do not equate to objective reality.  They are only as good as their premises.  Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on?  The existence thing sounds very complicated.

I guess you were unable to show that the simple argument that nothing does nothing can be applied to say matter is eternal etc etc, as you claimed when you were supposedly refuting it? Nor even to show the premises you claimed were being dreamed up?

Come to think of it, this conversation has made me appreciate just how much faith atheism really depends on. I always knew it, but its really come home to me in a fresh way. If an adult hominid can believe that non-existence does things, exactly what will he not believe in? After all, if you can say that the whole universe can pop into existence from nothing without something causing it, just what cannot happen? Seems everything is possible! Not only that, it is said that logic alone should not be a basis for any sort of conclusion or belief without it being observed in facts.. In this universe, even a "square circle" shape is possible, or a "blue-colorless" color. A reality based on a circular argument, the chicken laying the egg, which hatches the same chicken...none of it can be over-ruled, because it has not actually been observed that it cannot happen. Huh? A universe can pop up in my toilet tomorrow, for all I know, or a flying spaghetti monster that sings, right in my living room as I have my breakfast. Or my beloved pink unicorn. After all, if anything can pop into existence for no reason, then anything can pop into existence for no reason! There's simply no point even of assuming that gravity will work the same tomorrow, just because it has the last billions of times. It's all very colorful, like the Wizard of Oz, yet it drives the point home that when some atheists go around talking bout what beliefs are supposedly illogical, it is little different than a naked person laughing at people in shorts for showing too much flesh.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I want to see something that supports the claim that you are making.  A link.  Maybe a combination of links.  A logic trail.  Something better than you've been saying this the last seven pages.  I want to understand what you are saying in this quoted piece.  I want to see if it has any basis.

Yep, that's what you say. You make many claims left and right, O that can work for anything, therefore it's wrong! Without actually attacking the argument itself. Then you think simply stating "I'm trying to understand" is a point. Do you think you don't have a remote duty to logically demonstrate your own claims?If you say an argument is illogical, it should be quite easy to demonstrate how, I do that all the time.

In my opinion, science and religion both rely on faith to arrive at conclusions.  The differences are in their readiness to change premises in light of new information.  One will stick with a premise to the end, regardless of what new information suggests.  The other will change.

Whether one is right or wrong is not the issue.  It is the difference in approach.  At any given time, a dogmatic  position can in fact be more correct than a scientific one.  The difference.  The dogmatic position will not improve.  The scientific one is guaranteed to improve every time new information is accommodated.  Change is the difference.

This is just tiresome So the hell what? Do you have facts that disprove theism? If so, then your point is valid (though irrelevant to this discussion), because then you can point to the facts and how theism has "abhorred" or failed to account for them. A contradiction somewhere in reality, and not in your imagination, between theism and facts, you show that and your point is valid. otherwise, its just an arbitrary statement you make just assuming it somehow advances your arguments.

About the controversy bit.  Science has no infallible claims.  There is no pope in science.  At any given time, there are usually several competing theorems with differing degrees of acceptance.  When you say there is nothing to counter a theorem, I have no choice but to agree with you that you don't know the first thing about the scientific method. 

More irrelevancies. I very well know how science works. It may shock you but atheists don't have the market cornered on it. So save it, please. You started this discussion with long rants (sermons?) on the scientific method being our only objective means to attain to knowledge of actual reality. It is science that has reached a consensus that physical reality had an absolute beginning, with 0 physical reality before. I say 0, to make the point that nothing physical exists prior, not even your precious energy. There is no current model that escapes this theorem. One may show up in future, who knows, but that is not the current state of affairs.

What's your basis for trusting certain scientific sources and not others, if you do not understand what they are saying?  Does it explain a previous observation that lacked an explanation?  Dark matter perhaps?  Or is it just personal preference?

Ask yourself this question. As far as I know, your energy principle is no problem to this theorem and its implications and has not been posited as one, that's just something lay believers like you think is the magic silver bullet that the physicists and cosmologists  have been lost on. That's the point I was making. Your claim that energy or ANY physical component of the universe cannot be created may be true only within physical reality itself, says nothing of the actual existence of that reality, which energy is merely a part of.

What is a singularity?  Is it a point with infinite density?  Has any singularity ever been proven to exist in the real world?  Are you ready to abandon your position, if this theorem is shown to be wrong?

A singularity is an absolute beginning. That is it. The point beyond which there is no time, space, matter or energy...NOTHING. Last I checked, density is not nothing and is a physical reality.

My views on guided evolution shouldn't matter.  Agreed.  I use the evolutionary Adam example as an example of how a religious approach differs from a scientific one. 

A scientific approach will reconsider the premise if it arrives at a parent belonging to a different species than the offspring. 

A religious approach will not.  It adds more qualifications to support the premise.  Something that can lead to interesting conclusions.

Nice dodge. You claimed my position "abhors facts", I asked you to point out which facts are supposedly abhorred, then you came up with this ridiculous example. Catholic belief that humans have souls and when these souls might have existed. As if science has anything remotely to say about such. Even now, those facts that are claimed to lace science above theism are still missing, just a figment of someone's imagination, pun intended.

The only information this conveys is a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is.  Read the response to your second point on this post.  Hawkings in not God.  He is not the pope.  He is not the best guy in his professional field.  Neither of this matters.

What is absolute point 0?  I  don't know anything that suggests that energy has an absolute beginning from nothing. 

More irrelevancies. If you are genuinely claiming to know nothing of one of the most significant cosmological findings in the last decade, I will find sources and post them here. I fully appreciate your hesitance to believe me, my doubt is that I have mentioned this to you before and I am pretty sure you are not that new to it.

The only absolute faith I have.  Is that we don't know everything.  I go from there.  If I say everything has a cause, then I claim to know how everything comes about.  Yet I don't.  Read up on argument from ignorance.  That is how you are arguing.   

How amazing for you! Welcome to the rest of the human race who know they don't know everything. Though I gather you said that thinking it makes you special or adds to your arguments.

Quantum foam is generally considered real(as far as scientific models go).  What causes quantum foam?  Do you know?  BGV?  Hawkings?

Don't know, don't care. What I care about is that this theorem says the WHOLE of physical reality, the entire space-time, with all its contents, pop into existence from absolutely no pre-existent physical reality. Does your foam theory add anything to that?

The first law of thermodynamics is a secret only to communities living deep in the Amazon forest of the Congo.  Physicists do not spend their time trying to counter religious dogmas.  They investigate, hypothesize, gather data, test...there is no time to discuss God.  Except perhaps when Stephen Hawkings delves into the subject.  That said, they are not themselves demi-gods.

And the claim that this law disproves the BVG theorem would be news to any cosmologist out there. But I guess you can always nudge them in the right direction.

Logical constructs are wonderful tools.  But they do not equate to objective reality.  They are only as good as their premises.  Can you share some premises that your theism conclusions rest on?  The existence thing sounds very complicated.

I guess you were unable to show that the simple argument that nothing does nothing can be applied to say matter is eternal etc etc, as you claimed when you were supposedly refuting it? Nor even to show the premises you claimed were being dreamed up?

Come to think of it, this conversation has made me appreciate just how much faith atheism really depends on. I always knew it, but its really come home to me in a fresh way. If an adult hominid can believe that non-existence does things, exactly what will he not believe in? After all, if you can say that the whole universe can pop into existence from nothing without something causing it, just what cannot happen? Seems everything is possible! Not only that, it is said that logic alone should not be a basis for any sort of conclusion or belief without it being observed in facts.. In this universe, even a "square circle" shape is possible, or a "blue-colorless" color. A reality based on a circular argument, the chicken laying the egg, which hatches the same chicken...none of it can be over-ruled, because it has not actually been observed that it cannot happen. Huh? A universe can pop up in my toilet tomorrow, for all I know, or a flying spaghetti monster that sings, right in my living room as I have my breakfast. Or my beloved pink unicorn. After all, if anything can pop into existence for no reason, then anything can pop into existence for no reason! There's simply no point even of assuming that gravity will work the same tomorrow, just because it has the last billions of times. It's all very colorful, like the Wizard of Oz, yet it drives the point home that when some atheists go around talking bout what beliefs are supposedly illogical, it is little different than a naked person laughing at people in shorts for showing too much flesh.

A singularity without infinite density.  Do you at least want to share the source of this claim?

[kadame]

This is my last post in this thread. If anyone is interested, and you are a lay person like myself, here's a layman's explanation of the BVG theorem and its implications in modern cosmology. I knew I hadn't dreamt it up in a bad dream:

not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that the universe most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today. This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same. Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).


But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the pastAll the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."

This article is copied from scribd; but it is a new scientist article for which you need subscription and I am not paying for it: Here https://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/Why-Physicists-Can-t-Avoid-a-Creation-Event and Here http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation-event.html   Thank God for copyright infringers, though. 

Yep, they are talking about a true beginning of the universe, or put differently, a finite (in time) universe, not eternal in the past; which is why its dubbed a creation event in the article. I knew I hadn't imagined it. Neither the multiverse nor the big bang nor any other imaginary universes invented yet escape the beginning. For those who like to get their teeth into the meat. You can read several papers of Valenkin on the origin of the universe if you just google. George Elliot lectures on youtube also explaining an absolute beginning to time and physics (space-time and all its contents). Enjoy!

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You said a singularity has no infinite density.  Which part of your link, highlights and quotes supports that claim?

Does a finite universe in the time dimension demand a beginning?  A sphere is finite.  Can one know where it begins?

That said, thanks for sharing BGV.  It is one, among a competing slew of models. 

You say none of the others can touch it.  To move forward.  Let's suppose that it is true.  And not merely a model like scientific constructs.  And that it predicts a beginning of time or creation.

1. How does one get from that event to a deity? 

2. What prevents it from being just a different realm?  Metaphysical but not a disembodied spirit(deity)? 

3. What informs the notion this realm itself must be uncreated?

[veritas]

We can trace the beginning through distance. If we can travel 4.5 billion years, we see the whole of Earth's history.

A sphere is grooved. Each groove can be mapped.

Back in the day we were closer to the gods, which means the gods are out there away from us at present as per our history. We go further than 4.5 billion years, further than our solar system, we could gain an artefect of things beyond. I think however the answer isn't always about reconstructing evidence. We are a product of that universe, it should be in our dna.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

We can trace the beginning through distance. If we can travel 4.5 billion years, we see the whole of Earth's history.

A sphere is grooved. Each groove can be mapped.

Back in the day we were closer to the gods, which means the gods are out there away from us at present as per our history. We go further than 4.5 billion years, further than our solar system, we could gain an artefect of things beyond. I think however the answer isn't always about reconstructing evidence. We are a product of that universe, it should be in our dna.

A logical sphere can be perfectly smooth though.

I will concur, that if we are to increase our knowledge, we want to look at things in this universe.  Including DNA.  We've barely scratched the back yard.

Conversely, the surest way to guarantee the knowledge does not grow, is to put an arbitrary boundary on things with illogical constructs.

[veritas]

No sphere is smooth. It's as smooth as our lack of technology in detecting grooves. This is exactly why we are limited in tracing history.

In our dna holds answers. We've done more than surface scratches, we're starting to use it as a weapon.

Logic binds itself. It's a product of truth discursions and arbitrarily corrects itself. Itself is a product of history which can be traced to Plato according to human history. That doesn't mean nature knew before humans. We humans are illogical.