"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"

[IainT]

NobleGuy said:

...I know it's not an in-word... And I know what it means. But no-one speaks like that.

It's simply used as a short-hand describing a rather poor method of argument. If my use of it confuses some people then maybe they need to go and get familiar with the basic logical fallacies and why they, and Ad Homs in particular, are treated with dollops of contempt.

Of course, it's not uncommon to fall into the trap of arguing a logical fallacy without realising it which is why it's useful to have them pointed out when one does.

If that smacks of "I'm better than you" then that's just tough

[mattnunn]

The Big Bang theory is a human explanation for a human observed phenomenon, it means nothing to your dog, cat or the rest of the natural universe.

It does not explain the creation of the universe, only it's expansion and the creation of atomic structures, themselves universes.

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

[Einion Yrth]

mattnunn said:

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

Argument by assertion, that would be a logical fallacy too.

[TheHeretic]

Einion Yrth said:

Argument by assertion, that would be a logical fallacy too.

Whoa now, don't be using that there fancy language to describify logical hogwashery. It upsets some folk.

[mattnunn]

Einion Yrth said:

mattnunn said:

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

Argument by assertion, that would be a logical fallacy too.

We're discussing the idea of God and heaven and the reality or otherwise of a metaphysical realm - not in a court of law. I'm afraid if we did not make an argument based on assertion here, there would be no conversation, and that goes for all side of the conversation, and what would The Heretic and carmonk do to pass the time then?

[TheHeretic]

mattnunn said:

We're discussing the idea of God and heaven and the reality or otherwise of a metaphysical realm - not in a court of law. I'm afraid if we did not make an argument based on assertion here, there would be no conversation, and that goes for all side of the conversation, and what would The Heretic and carmonk do to pass the time then?

Name one of these assertions we have made?

[carmonk]

mattnunn said:

The Big Bang theory is a human explanation for a human observed phenomenon, it means nothing to your dog, cat or the rest of the natural universe.

It does not explain the creation of the universe, only it's expansion and the creation of atomic structures, themselves universes.

So because my dog (like NobleGuy) doesn't understand the big bang theory and the big bang theory doesn't explain things it's not designed to explain, then... then what?

mattnunn said:

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

I see you've not yet read up on the hypotheses that might explain these laws and constants, none of which involve god.

[NobleGuy]

KB_S1 said:

NobleGuy said:

I think I said science doesn't yet explain it any better. God creating the universe from nothing, or particles creating the universe from nothing. Like I said at the time, neither has any proof unless you count potential theories that as of yet have no real basis in fact.

I think you nearly cried when I suggested your belief in an unproven Big Bang Theory wasn't that far removed from a belief in the unproven Almighty...

Your point was addressed comprehensively by several posters, including me. You chose to ignore those responses.
No one cried, no one rounded on 'You', but your point was derided and shown to be thoroughly off the mark.

Hmmm, especially all those 'proofs' of the Big Bang Theory. All that came out of it was that science aims to explain it better than creationism (which I always agreed with and I understood before speaking at all). For some reason no-one seemed willing to accept that right now, which was always the crux of my argument, science is no better at explaining the origin of the universe, and it certainly doesn't explain any of the philosophical "what was before the universe?"-type questions any better than religion.

Obviously, lots of people huffed and puffed 'of course it does!!'...

I was accused of being for religion, supporting religion, that I thought science never explains anything better than religion...lots and lots of mis-reading and throwing up of arms of (supposed) clever people who couldn't read properly, or simply and more realistically didn't want to read properly.

Or is your memory that short you'll deny it ever happened?

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic said:

mattnunn said:

We're discussing the idea of God and heaven and the reality or otherwise of a metaphysical realm - not in a court of law. I'm afraid if we did not make an argument based on assertion here, there would be no conversation, and that goes for all side of the conversation, and what would The Heretic and carmonk do to pass the time then?

Name one of these assertions we have made?

"There is no heaven: it's a fairy story"

I realise it's not your assertion, but I assume you'd agree with it.

It's an assertion to argue that the constants present in the nature of the universe that are used in general relativity and other models are not God given and merely happenstance.

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

So because my dog (like NobleGuy)...

And you wonder why some people view you as a pr***...?

[Jabbah]

mattnunn said:

"There is no heaven: it's a fairy story"

I realise it's not your assertion, but I assume you'd agree with it.

It's an assertion to argue that the constants present in the nature of the universe that are used in general relativity and other models are not God given and merely happenstance.

Surely the assertions here are that there is a heaven and that the constants are God given?

[TheHeretic]

mattnunn said:

"There is no heaven: it's a fairy story"

I realise it's not your assertion, but I assume you'd agree with it.

It's an assertion to argue that the constants present in the nature of the universe that are used in general relativity and other models are not God given and merely happenstance.

I suggest you head back and see what Hawking actually said. You are right, it is not my assertion, nor is it Hawking's assertion. He suggested that as he sees our brains as biological computers, then there is no afterlife for us, just as there isn't, (and I'm sure you aren't suggesting), for computers.

So any assertions that I have made, or Carmonk for that matter, or anyone else?

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

So because my dog (like NobleGuy)...

And you wonder why some people view you as a pr***...?

Nicely quoted out of context. He was saying that like his dog, you had poor knowledge of the big bang. I thought you wanted new arguments? Haven't you done the whole big bang thing?

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

mattnunn said:

The Big Bang theory is a human explanation for a human observed phenomenon, it means nothing to your dog, cat or the rest of the natural universe.

It does not explain the creation of the universe, only it's expansion and the creation of atomic structures, themselves universes.

So because my dog (like NobleGuy) doesn't understand the big bang theory and the big bang theory doesn't explain things it's not designed to explain, then... then what?

mattnunn said:

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

I see you've not yet read up on the hypotheses that might explain these laws and constants, none of which involve god.

Well, except an existence of God might also explain these laws and constants...you have no proof these hypotheses you wave around are correct...do you? Except you, being so clever, probably do. You probably proved it yourself yesterday didn't you...?

[NobleGuy]

TheHeretic said:

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

So because my dog (like NobleGuy)...

And you wonder why some people view you as a pr***...?

Nicely quoted out of context. He was saying that like his dog, you had poor knowledge of the big bang.

What, because I dare to say it's unproven...? Therefore I must not understand it...?

[joe_90]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

mattnunn said:

The Big Bang theory is a human explanation for a human observed phenomenon, it means nothing to your dog, cat or the rest of the natural universe.

It does not explain the creation of the universe, only it's expansion and the creation of atomic structures, themselves universes.

So because my dog (like NobleGuy) doesn't understand the big bang theory and the big bang theory doesn't explain things it's not designed to explain, then... then what?

mattnunn said:

The laws and constants around which we build our explanations of the expansion of the universe, the corner stones of modern science, are God given.

I see you've not yet read up on the hypotheses that might explain these laws and constants, none of which involve god.

Well, except an existence of God might also explain these laws and constants...you have no proof these hypotheses you wave around are correct...do you? Except you, being so clever, probably do. You probably proved it yourself yesterday didn't you...?

Which god are we talking about here?

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

What, because I dare to say it's unproven...? Therefore I must not understand it...?

No, I don't think that is it. It is unproven, but because something is unproven, it does not mean that any other idea has an equal footing. To think otherwise is absurd. Science suggests a single point, a singularity, based on observations, as well as observations of the elements in the universe. To think 'God did it' is on an even footing because the BB is unproven?

Edited by TheHeretic on Monday 30th April 16:01

[NobleGuy]

TheHeretic said:

NobleGuy said:

What, because I dare to say it's unproven...? Therefore I must not understand it...?

No, I don't think that is it.

Oh right...glad we cleared that up.

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

Oh right...glad we cleared that up.

See the edit.

[mattnunn]

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.

Anything else is only ever human perception.