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

[joe_90]

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.

Anything else is only ever human perception.

And that matter why, the universe existed long before any life, and will exist long after.. we will be a mere blink of an eye..

[TheHeretic]

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.

Anything else is only ever human perception.

Did you really just write that, or did you steal the idea from Jeffrey's?

[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. 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?

I think a lot of the loosely-related observations were made after the theory was put forward, so it's not strictly true that the theory was based on those observations...more the other way round. And even then the observations are hardly conclusive are they?

[mattnunn]

TheHeretic 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.

Anything else is only ever human perception.

Did you really just write that, or did you steal the idea from Jeffrey's?

Jeffery?

It's the nature of truth, it must be true, not just appear to be true from a specific point of view.

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

I think a lot of the loosely-related observations were made after the theory was put forward, so it's not strictly true that the theory was based on those observations...more the other way round. And even then the observations are hardly conclusive are they?

It was posited after the Doppler shift was discovered. Before that, it was thought it was a static universe. So it was based on Observation, then the theory, not the other way round.

[carmonk]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

So because my dog (like NobleGuy)...

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

Not really, but at least the info's there if I ever need it.

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...?

So a valid explanation of the laws of physics in your mind is that a god popped up from nowhere and made them. Brilliant. Maybe a magic invisible hydra crafted them from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry, because that works too.

And no, I don't have proof the hypotheses are correct, because if I did they wouldn't be hypotheses. Jesus wept.

[mattnunn]

joe_90 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.

Anything else is only ever human perception.

And that matter why, the universe existed long before any life, and will exist long after.. we will be a mere blink of an eye..

It depends on the definition you give to life, you're assuming a biological definition, metabolism, homeostatis, growth, which although satisfactory for describing earth and life as it effect us, universally it's a pretty narrow definition, imo.

[CBR JGWRR]

6 pages today...

[Jabbah]

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?

[NobleGuy]

carmonk said:

So a valid explanation of the laws of physics in your mind is that a god popped up from nowhere and made them. Brilliant. Maybe a magic invisible hydra crafted them from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry, because that works too.

Well no, because a magic invisible hydra would be made of matter wouldn't it? Else it couldn't be a hydra as we know it. So using logic a magic invisible hydra couldn't have created the universe. Nor could a wicker buffalo, as that too would require matter to exist prior to it creating the universe.

carmonk said:

And no, I don't have proof the hypotheses are correct, because if I did they wouldn't be hypotheses. Jesus wept.

Oh...I thought you prove everything with a snap of your fingers...you're not as clever as you pretend to be then.

[KB_S1]

NobleGuy said:

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?

That was not how it happened at all. That was what You kept arguing to yourself. As I just said, you chose to ignore all the comprehensive replies that were given to you.

[TheHeretic]

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

So a valid explanation of the laws of physics in your mind is that a god popped up from nowhere and made them. Brilliant. Maybe a magic invisible hydra crafted them from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry, because that works too.

Well no, because a magic invisible hydra would be made of matter wouldn't it? Else it couldn't be a hydra as we know it. So using logic a magic invisible hydra couldn't have created the universe. Nor could a wicker buffalo, as that too would require matter to exist prior to it creating the universe.

carmonk said:

And no, I don't have proof the hypotheses are correct, because if I did they wouldn't be hypotheses. Jesus wept.

Oh...I thought you prove everything with a snap of your fingers...you're not as clever as you pretend to be then.

So what is this God you propose?

[Pesty]

I think this clip applies to this thread quite nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghtoPiAE1sA

[NobleGuy]

KB_S1 said:

NobleGuy said:

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?

That was not how it happened at all. That was what You kept arguing to yourself. As I just said, you chose to ignore all the comprehensive replies that were given to you.

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...

[NobleGuy]

TheHeretic said:

NobleGuy said:

carmonk said:

So a valid explanation of the laws of physics in your mind is that a god popped up from nowhere and made them. Brilliant. Maybe a magic invisible hydra crafted them from the arse-end of a hyperdimensional wicker buffalo after an eternity drinking space vodka infused with the embers of celestial wizardry, because that works too.

Well no, because a magic invisible hydra would be made of matter wouldn't it? Else it couldn't be a hydra as we know it. So using logic a magic invisible hydra couldn't have created the universe. Nor could a wicker buffalo, as that too would require matter to exist prior to it creating the universe.

carmonk said:

And no, I don't have proof the hypotheses are correct, because if I did they wouldn't be hypotheses. Jesus wept.

Oh...I thought you prove everything with a snap of your fingers...you're not as clever as you pretend to be then.

So what is this God you propose?

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.

[TheHeretic]

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?

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.

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.

[carmonk]

I am also waiting eagerly to hear what god is, and why - although he is omnipotent - he is unable to take the form of an invisible hydra.

[mattnunn]

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?

Neither, I'm suggesting that for there to be an over riding absolute truth, outside of human perception, then it would need to be universally understood by all the things that said truth is applicable too, otherwise said truth is no true, but merely a perception.

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.

[NobleGuy]

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?

It's based on the (unproven) theory that a "God" may exist, as put forward by our religious friends.

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.

[TheHeretic]

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?

It's based on the (unproven) theory that a "God" may exist, as put forward by our religious friends.

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.

As I said, just positing an idea of 'God' does not make it valid, or on a level footing with even the slightest observational evidence.

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.

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.