"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
NobleGuy said:
I think you'll find if you can be arsed to trawl through this thread that you'll be able to find examples of everything I just said. I can't be bothered, doesn't mean it didn't happen...
How you chose to interpret things, I cannot know.What did happen in response to your posit that science could no better explain origins of the universe than religion was, from the regular posters, a succession of explanations that science does not claim to know all the answers.
It is a working method. There is constant development, change and progress.
Where science may not have an answer yet, there will be a community of researchers looking for a way to work towards and answer and other useful discoveries.
This was laid out by several posters, in the form of raw statement and analogy.
You kept ignoring those posts and trying to alter the framework so that you could argue that your position was correct, where in fact your basis on 'What' science is (in reference to BB theory/origins etc) was wrong.
TheHeretic said:
If 'God' is allowed as a proposed first cause, then so is anything else we wish to invent. They all have the same level of logical proof.
Well exactly, so we're agreed. God or an equivalent level of logical reality (let's call it God) created the universe. Now we can move on. Now you accept that you are not infact atheist, but anti-theist.mattnunn said:
Jabbah said:
mattnunn said:
For there to be an over riding truth to the nature of existence - it would need to be understood by all nature - from my dog, to each blade of grass, and by understood I mean known.
Are you proposing that grass is sentient or are you thinking of some kind of gaia theory?It's more a question of purpose really, think about it like that, what is the difference between the nature of the grasses purpose and the nature of your purpose? Are these two truths equal, if they are not then they are not universal truths and hence not truth at all.
mattnunn said:
Well exactly, so we're agreed. God or an equivalent level of logical reality (let's call it God) created the universe. Now we can move on. Now you accept that you are not infact atheist, but anti-theist.
Ah, so you agree that God creating an invisible hydra that crafted the universe from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry is equally plausible to any God or equivalent supernatural construct?TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
My initial post suggested that "God" may have created the constants (no-one knows where they came from) - carmonk said "God" couldn't have. He seems to be arguing that constants can't have been created by a "God", yet he doesn't explain where that's been proved.
In any case, I'm simply pointing out his typical stupidity about wicker buffalos and magic hydras (in order to make everyone see how stupid they are if they were to believe in a God) aren't in fact as good an explanation as there being a "God". He believes such things are as good an explanation.
So, I'll ask the question again. What is this 'God' that may have made them? What is that based on?In any case, I'm simply pointing out his typical stupidity about wicker buffalos and magic hydras (in order to make everyone see how stupid they are if they were to believe in a God) aren't in fact as good an explanation as there being a "God". He believes such things are as good an explanation.
TheHeretic said:
Carmonk did not, as far as I am aware, say that God couldn't have. If he did I missed it. From what I remember, he said that there is nothing about God in any of the proofs, or something of that ilk. Just invoking 'god' for an idea does not make it valid.
Agreed, but you'd have to admit he's fairly strongly pooh-poohing the idea that God has anything to do with the creation of said constants.TheHeretic said:
With regards to wicker buffaloes, etc, do you think 'god' could make an invisible Hydra? He is, after all, omnipotent, and all that, and very mighty, etc.
I'm not sure...if it were invisible I suppose we'd have possibly have not detected it. But what I am willing to believe is that things requiring matter to exist probably didn't create that matter in the first place, therefore beings of that sort aren't as good an explanation as there being a God, which is what carmonk has suggested for over 400 pages now.And quote right it should be poo-pooed. It is entirely observation, evidence and logic free. It has no basis whatsoever in science. It is merely in the realm of philosophical mental masturbation, and theology. What it had to do with cosmological constants is entirely fantastical.
TheHeretic said:
Who said the invisible hydra requires matter? Surely that is your material perspective clouding your judgment? If 'God' is allowed as a proposed first cause, then so is anything else we wish to invent. They all have the same level of logical proof.
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".Jabbah said:
mattnunn said:
Well exactly, so we're agreed. God or an equivalent level of logical reality (let's call it God) created the universe. Now we can move on. Now you accept that you are not infact atheist, but anti-theist.
Ah, so you agree that God creating an invisible hydra that crafted the universe from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry is equally plausible to any God or equivalent supernatural construct?Jabbah said:
mattnunn said:
Well exactly, so we're agreed. God or an equivalent level of logical reality (let's call it God) created the universe. Now we can move on. Now you accept that you are not infact atheist, but anti-theist.
Ah, so you agree that God creating an invisible hydra that crafted the universe from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry is equally plausible to any God or equivalent supernatural construct?NobleGuy said:
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
So if god decided he wanted to be a hyrda - made of matter - then you're saying he couldn't? Because if you are then you're not talking about a god, and if you're not then what I say stands.carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
So if god decided he wanted to be a hyrda - made of matter - then you're saying he couldn't? Because if you are then you're not talking about a god, and if you're not then what I say stands.NobleGuy said:
What evidence is there that anything else created those constants? That's the discussion. I'm not saying God did, but what did? No-one knows do they? If the answer as I suspect is "They are constants because that's just how it is" then that's a decent enough answer. But it's observation, evidence and (kind-of) logic free too. Being of that ilk doesn't always make something necessarily wrong.
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
What makes you think a 'what' created the constants? Maybe they are what they are, and maybe there is anopther universe out there with completely different constants, and life there is asking the same question? We aren't even sure if the constants are in fact constant. What may, or may not have created them is a side issue, especially when the precise moment of 'expansion' and the time, (or un-time) they had before is an unknown. The need to assign a thing to create something seems a very human thing to do. Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
What created rocks? Nothing created them, they were produced as a result of X, which is a result of Y, and so on. We don't even know if there was a beginning. It often crops up in these conversations 'something cannot come from nothing'. Well, we do not know if there was neccessarily a starting point or time before the singularity, and we do not know if things before wer einfinite, or not? We just do not know. Despite not knowing, notions of God answer nothing at all. The mystery we have prior to the big bang expansion is mysterious with, or without God, but a lot more interesting without. I think the notion of actually saying "I don't know" is something many people feel repulsed from.
The notion of constants and why they are what they are is not logic free. they are what they are. those are the figures we have reached for those properties. It does not require any other mystecism, as that mystecism does not answer anything. The constants are far from being observation, evidence, or logic free.
As for "someones idea of God", well, that could be anything at all. and anything at all that someone can come up with does not a theory make, nor does it put it on an equal footing with the knowledge we do have thus far with science. It is a fantastical 'what if' rather than any actual idea of a "what is".
mattnunn said:
You have a very specific view of the properties of your non existent God, sounds to me a bit like you've created an ideal of the God you disbalieve in, why not share your full vision?
He seems to be sharing more about his non-existent god than you share about your apparently existent god. For someone who is so vague, and wishy washy with how they describe their God, you are hardly one to critisise.mattnunn said:
Jabbah said:
mattnunn said:
For there to be an over riding truth to the nature of existence - it would need to be understood by all nature - from my dog, to each blade of grass, and by understood I mean known.
Are you proposing that grass is sentient or are you thinking of some kind of gaia theory?It's more a question of purpose really, think about it like that, what is the difference between the nature of the grasses purpose and the nature of your purpose? Are these two truths equal, if they are not then they are not universal truths and hence not truth at all.
We can fairly extrapolate 'human perception' to anything that is alive on earth given we can perceive things using clever science that would be unpredictable to us otherwise. If we can't perceive it then nothing on earth can.
Your argument, as absurd as it is, also seems to rely on this thing you're calling 'truth' or purpose. Why should there be a purpose to anything? The assumption that the universe was created for our purposes to unfold has no basis in anything outside your own mind's construct.
mattnunn said:
Well exactly, so we're agreed. God or an equivalent level of logical reality (let's call it God) created the universe. Now we can move on. Now you accept that you are not infact atheist, but anti-theist.
Oh for goodness sake, surely we've been through this before, haven't we? Science proposes no explanation whatsoever as to what may or may not have caused the big bang. Some theoretical models suggest that it may have been possible without any 'cause' as such. None of these models have so far to my knowledge received wide acceptance.Science therefore accepts that it is possible that a god did it - so we have the possibility to be a Deist and a rational Atheist. But because there is no evidence for this any more than any other explanation, there is no reason to give the Deist argument any more credibility than any other proposed explanation.
Now, let's move on to Theism, especially the Abrahamic religions. To get from the Deist to the Theist position we are forced into all sorts of mental gymnastics which become more and more ludicrous the more literal one's interpretation of the source, be it bible, qura'an, or torah.
For me, the killer is this: Most if not all religionists ultimately fall back onto the "The bible may not be literally true, but without religion there is no morality, therefore there must be a god" argument - which leads me to wonder how it could be that the human race managed to evolve quite happily for the first 195,000 years of it existence, but didn't get to learn about morality until god explained it to them.
IainT said:
How can something that is "outside human perception" be "universally understood by all the things"?
Well it can't can it, hence teh reason there is no truth, universally, to speak of, numbers and language can only take you so far to an explanation of our perception, the grass will never have the tools to explain it's physical reality, let alone its purpose, we can not just arbitrarily assign one for it.IainT said:
We can fairly extrapolate 'human perception' to anything that is alive on earth given we can perceive things using clever science that would be unpredictable to us otherwise. If we can't perceive it then nothing on earth can.
True in part, but equally true of all other life forms. Dogs can perceive things in humans that humans can't, they can do things science can not explain like smell cancers, predict epileptic fits, as is often suggested, "If a lion could talk we would not understand it".IainT said:
Your argument, as absurd as it is, also seems to rely on this thing you're calling 'truth' or purpose. Why should there be a purpose to anything? The assumption that the universe was created for our purposes to unfold has no basis in anything outside your own mind's construct.
Not for our purpose no, but the nature of truth is independant of human experience, surely you must accept this. i have not made the assumption you accuse me of at all, rather the opposite, man's quest to unpick the truth behind the universe, using whatever tools, is precisely because of the irratating itch that we feel when when realise we are not the centre of the universe, as much as we would like to be, sceince tells us that, but so does God.TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
What evidence is there that anything else created those constants? That's the discussion. I'm not saying God did, but what did? No-one knows do they? If the answer as I suspect is "They are constants because that's just how it is" then that's a decent enough answer. But it's observation, evidence and (kind-of) logic free too. Being of that ilk doesn't always make something necessarily wrong.
Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
What makes you think a 'what' created the constants? Maybe they are what they are, and maybe there is anopther universe out there with completely different constants, and life there is asking the same question? We aren't even sure if the constants are in fact constant. What may, or may not have created them is a side issue, especially when the precise moment of 'expansion' and the time, (or un-time) they had before is an unknown. The need to assign a thing to create something seems a very human thing to do. Well quite, but if it's not made of matter then it's not a hydra (magical or not). It's something else. It may perhaps be someone else's idea of a "God". If when carmonk says "magical hydra" he means "something God-like" then perhaps the magical hydra did create the universe. In that context the magical hydra is as good an explanantion, but only because he really means "a God of some kind".
What created rocks? Nothing created them, they were produced as a result of X, which is a result of Y, and so on. We don't even know if there was a beginning. It often crops up in these conversations 'something cannot come from nothing'. Well, we do not know if there was neccessarily a starting point or time before the singularity, and we do not know if things before wer einfinite, or not? We just do not know. Despite not knowing, notions of God answer nothing at all. The mystery we have prior to the big bang expansion is mysterious with, or without God, but a lot more interesting without. I think the notion of actually saying "I don't know" is something many people feel repulsed from.
The notion of constants and why they are what they are is not logic free. they are what they are. those are the figures we have reached for those properties. It does not require any other mystecism, as that mystecism does not answer anything. The constants are far from being observation, evidence, or logic free.
As for "someones idea of God", well, that could be anything at all. and anything at all that someone can come up with does not a theory make, nor does it put it on an equal footing with the knowledge we do have thus far with science. It is a fantastical 'what if' rather than any actual idea of a "what is".
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
Gaspode said:
For me, the killer is this: Most if not all religionists ultimately fall back onto the "The bible may not be literally true, but without religion there is no morality, therefore there must be a god" argument - which leads me to wonder how it could be that the human race managed to evolve quite happily for the first 195,000 years of it existence, but didn't get to learn about morality until god explained it to them.
There was a fair bit of God around before the Bible etc... I'd suggest that as soon as our ancestors could communicate food, sex and warmth needs they'd have started on God, i.e the search for a universal answer.enioldjoe said:
Well those 'in the know' and who are qualified to speak on such matters would seem to say otherwise.
Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
Can you get me a link, with the context? Everything I have read suggests that wenjust do not know. Ot may well be unknowable. Earlier in the year Alexander Vilenkin, speaking at Hawkin's birthday bash stated that "All the evidence we have says the universe had a beginning." So perhaps there is something in it?
Or maybe the notion of a beginning must be avoided at all cost as it points uncomfortably to an act of creation....?
I like how you seem to make out that I am avoiding mentioning a beginning. I am doing nothing of the sort. If you read what I wrote, you will find that I say we do not know what happened. The evidence points to a beginning of the universe, I never said otherwise. That would be the singularity. However, before that point, of there was a before, we do not know.
Even if there was a beginning, it does not at all point, comfortably or not, to a creation. It merely means there was a beginning, and another unknown. You can place God in that unknown of you wish, bit it will still remain unknown.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff