Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 169
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Simple question.

  1. #41
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    It would. and we don't yet know what caused the Big Bang. However, simply admitting "I don't know" and exploring, researching, and investigating to learn is infinitely more productive than simply asserting "God did it", particularly when one understands that if God did do it, it was the last thing that he was ever capable of doing in a causal universe.
    You have already lost this argument miserably.

    When you talk of science trying to explain the cause of the big bang, it will always be a cause that, itself needs a cause, ad infinitum. At some point, you arrive at something that simply isn't within the scope of science to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Not possible, because of the Heisenberg principle.
    How is heisenberg's uncertainty principle an answer to that question, hmmmm? It does not say that measurements smaller than planck scales do not exist. It merely says that they are indeterminate within the scientific method.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Even an omnipotent god cannot do what is impossible: create a square circle, make a rock that he cannot lift, or...
    Really? Omnipotence paradox? We already know that the omnipotence paradox arises from a lack of logical formalism.

    Personally, I think god could create a rock he cannot lift and proceed to lift it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    ...predict the unpredictable. The Heisenberg Principle, renders it impossible to predict the course of events the further away from the initial advent of a chain.
    Well....sort of.

  2. #42
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    Well, agreed that his argumentation is logically flawed in a lot of ways.. yet black holes are explainable with the given laws of physics, and fit into the causal concept.
    Singularities - Black Holes and Wormholes - The Physics of the Universe

    In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down".

  3. #43
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    There is NO evidence whatsoever for the existence of god.
    Actually the LACK of evidence is the whole concept of religion, god INTENDED to not have any prof of his existence, as per those claiming things like "the power of faith is coming from the absence of evidence"..
    Argument from causation. Argument from sufficient reason. Argument from motion.

    Everything about the physical universe NECESSITATES an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover and a being which contains within himself the sufficient reason for everything to be so.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Why?



    Nothing in our understanding of causation remotely suggests this.



    Is there even such a word? Where is this word a-causal defined in that manner?



    "Nudge", as you use the word in that sentence, is causation -- an act that brings something into existence.
    Here. Maybe these illustrations will help you, Kingrat.




    An a-causal event - one not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect - cannot occur in a causal universe, as a systenm cannot be, simultaneously causal, and a-causal. Thus, any a-causal event would break a causal universe.

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Why do you keep saying all these when everybody knows black holes (or gravitational singularities) exist in your 'causal' universe? Do you see any evidence that the universe would be destroyed soon?
    And they are causal events. Your point? Are you suggesting that black holes just "bamfed" into existence out of nowhere?

  6. #46
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,026
    Thanks
    6861

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Argument from causation. Argument from sufficient reason. Argument from motion.

    Everything about the physical universe NECESSITATES an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover and a being which contains within himself the sufficient reason for everything to be so.
    Wrong.

  7. #47
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    You already admitted that god 'nudged' the singularity to create the universe, did you not? By definition, god is part of that causal chain.
    All causal chains originate at the Big Bang, because that is as far back as we can "see"". We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang, or what laws of physics did, or did not exist, as we have no way of observing that. So, the Laws of Causality originate with the big Bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    ...at which point, no physical laws (as we understand them) exists. So, you have an event that has no cause, if you are so intent on negating that which is so intuitively necessary.
    Well? Why not? You're purporting an event that has no cause. I am just choosing a different event than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    I do not know where you are getting your ideas but they simply aren't true.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causation

    Definition of causation
    1 a : the act or process of causing the role of heredity in the causation of cancer
    b : the act or agency which produces an effect
    Causality (physics)

    In physics, an effect can't occur before its cause. In the theory of relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause which is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause can not have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. In other words, as I stated, a causal universe is one in which, at a macroscopic level, ev3ents are caused by prior events, creating causal chans stretching back to the Big Bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Again, there are black holes where the physical laws, as we know them, do not govern.
    Once again, Black holes are causal events. We can even track the events that lead to the formation of black holes, so I really don't see your point. As to not following the laws of physics:




    I'm just a stupid layman, but those certainly look like physics equations for measuring, detecting, and predicting the behaviour of black holes...



    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Example please.
    Example of what? The programming analogy was the example.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Personally, I think god could create a rock he cannot lift and proceed to lift it anyway.
    I chose to ignore the rest of your blathering, but this I just couldn't let go. That would make it, by definition, a rock God CAN lift. Which means he has not, in fact, created a rock he cannot lift. Even an omnipotent god is confined to being powerful enough to do only those things that are capable of being done. Even theologists concede that point It's why the question is moot to most theologists. Ask them If God can do this, they easily answer "No," and move on.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Singularities - Black Holes and Wormholes - The Physics of the Universe

    In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down".
    So...since it is the working theory that our universe came into being from the explosion of just such a singularity, why do you insist on applying the Law of Causation to the Big Bang? After all, you just pointed out that the laws of physics, as we know them do not operate there. So, for all we know the laws of physics that did operate there would have allowed for the spontaneous formation of matter, and energy.

  10. #50
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,769
    Thanks
    28771

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    It would. and we don't yet know what caused the Big Bang. However, simply admitting "I don't know" and exploring, researching, and investigating to learn is infinitely more productive than simply asserting "G-d did it"....
    I am not suggesting, of course, that we replace science with "G-d did it," which would be silly in itself. The problem is that you would ultimately end up with an infinite regression of causes, which are themselves also effects of still more causes. You are suggesting a causal universe has always existed, has never not-existed, with neither beginning nor end, including of course all matter in it as well. It is just sort of "there" without any cause, which would render it a-causal to begin with (so to speak).

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Simple question.
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 298
    Last Post: 14th July 2014, 11:09 AM
  2. Simple question #1...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 18th October 2013, 09:35 AM
  3. Simple question:
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 243
    Last Post: 19th September 2012, 01:35 AM
  4. A Simple Question On Morality
    By TortoiseDream in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 13th April 2010, 01:44 AM
  5. A simple question of efficiency
    By Oftencold in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24th November 2008, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed