R
RobbyS
Guest
Malice leads to violence, and an atheist is as capable of that. A lot of atheism is based on the hatred of believers.
- Status
R
RobbyS
Guest
I mean of course, that one cannot even theortically must all necessary resources. We would hsave to have an investigation of all the microbes in nthe forest, and each one simultaneously with all the rest. God is the only possible knower of such things.
C
copperblade
Guest
I’ve always taken it to be something you’re forced to assume: the Thing that creates space-time cannot originate within space-time. God is inherently non-falsifiable.
There’s a pretty fun test about our logic about God in this book:
amazon.com/Do-You-Think-What/dp/0452288657
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Interesting. So how do you explain the relativity of time that Einstein and others demonstrated? If someone from Earth were to measure the amount of time it took for you to do something in a spaceship moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and you also timed yourself, there would be a discrepancy between the two measures. This seems hard to explain away without admitting that time exists in its own right.
Also, take a hard look at what I quoted. Is there any real difference between what you said and saying, “Energy doesn’t exist, it’s just a measure of capacity” or “Mass doesn’t exist, it’s just a measure of inertia”?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I would point out that every measurement of “time” is a measurement of change in some system. Comparing the change of the gears in clocks from two different frames of reference doesn’t admit to time at all. It only admits to change. Energy and mass are not ontologically significant objects to the metaphysician. Change is.
K
klaysha
Guest
Science is magic and magic is just science we dont understand yet 
Cant we all just get along i believe in God and yet learning about thing like this makes me feel closer to understanding myself. Yes god is energy thats very well put so maybe if scientist would understand that and and most religious people (not trying to categorize and be rude) would understand that just maybe Jesus power to heal the sick was magic or god energy, ect than maybe we could get along and war woudnt happen NOT to soud all mushy and lame but is true and a every single person in the world knows it
Thou shal not kill …unless he does believe like we do
i dont remember that part, do you?
Cant we all just get along i believe in God and yet learning about thing like this makes me feel closer to understanding myself. Yes god is energy thats very well put so maybe if scientist would understand that and and most religious people (not trying to categorize and be rude) would understand that just maybe Jesus power to heal the sick was magic or god energy, ect than maybe we could get along and war woudnt happen NOT to soud all mushy and lame but is true and a every single person in the world knows it
Thou shal not kill …unless he does believe like we do
i dont remember that part, do you?
N
Neildown
Guest
It’s just a debate.
This is just as much speculation as my hypothesis - explained in one of my former posts.
G
greylorn
Guest
Can you really be that obtuse? That was a dumb question, I know, having attempted to trigger a neuron or two in your brain before. Your big words would be impressive if you used them to express an interesting idea of your own, rather than to convey the borrowed, incompetent, ideas of the blathering philosophers you seem to cherish.
I will try but this one more time to teach you something. It is very simple, and I will use moderate sized words to make it as easy as possible for you to understand. Of course I will fail miserably, again.
Physics is the study of matter and energy and other forms of stuff which interact or might interact with matter and energy. If something can manage such interactions, even hypothetically (e.g: the non-existent Higgs field), it is physical, by definition.
If you can somehow allow this simple, clear, and obvious notion to enter whatever passes in you for mind, you will recognize that:
- Any entity capable of creating the universe must be physical, unless you know of a way to create something and manage its behavior without exerting forces upon it.
- The soul is physical, else it would be unable to interact with a brain-body system.
- Anything capable of destroying matter and energy must exert some powerful annihilating forces upon those things, which must be physical.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
How did you reach this proposition? You could not have inducted it from previous examples. Nor does there seem to be a sufficient set of premises from which to make this deduction. Nor does physics as a part of the scientific method admit metaphysical premises’. So it cannot be an induction, deduction, or follow from the definition of physics as a science. That only leaves the obvious. You are inadvertently making the statement that what you do not understand or cannot imagine is impossible/unlikely. This statement is actually the fallacy of incredulity. With the elimination of this premise we can see that the further arguments you list here fail.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
In both intellect and charity.
Warp has sufficiently explained why your position is both redundant and ridiculous. Any addition from me would be dragging on the slaughter needlessly.
I do hope that your pride hasn’t compelled you to use the idea that it is “logically impossible” to destroy energy in your book as a “scientific premise”; because that would be incredibly embarrassing
.
S
Sair
Guest
Then…your god is a verb?
You continually assert that your god is ‘the act of existing’, ‘being itself’, yet this does not seem strictly compatible with an understanding of god as a person, a very particular sort of being which is clearly not present in every being, every thing that exists. Every thing that exists constitutes an act of existing. How can there be an act of existing without an actor?
As well to simply say that existence exists (which is odd - a bit like saying ‘sitting sits’ or ‘writing writes’). If you want to name existence ‘G-d’, then that’s all very well, but defining god as ‘the act of existing’ is just turning a perfectly useful verb into an etymologically unrelated noun. It doesn’t offer any information as to the nature of your god (you may say it is the nature of god to exist, but it is the nature of cows to exist also - and trees and bicycles and dogs and blood and cancer cells and so on), nor does it, as I said, marry up with other claimed aspects of god’s nature which go far beyond the foundational act of existing.
Furthermore, you claim that your god is logically necessary, but it seems to me that all that is logically necessary is for something to be, in order for that something to constitute the act of existence, and provide some entity from which the laws of logic may be derived (unless there are entities between which logical relationships may exist, there could be no such thing as logic). I have no problem with giving this something the name ‘God’, but again, I suspect most religious believers wish to imbue their god with certain characteristics that go beyond its being “that something which existed prior to all other somethings”.
If we’re looking for something that simply exists, and has existed eternally, energy seems a reasonable candidate to fill the post. The big bang was merely the beginning of the universe as we know it - prior to that, all is speculation, even god. What Hawking’s point boils down to is that it simply isn’t necessary to invoke any god as the great explanation for the universe. There are other possibilities. Perhaps logic demands that we posit some entity, but it seems little more than a matter of personal taste whether or not we call this entity ‘god’.
For what it’s worth, as a pantheist, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of equating existence with the divine - but I think we have vastly different interpretations of this concept.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Big Bang is a “theory” and a obviously a very “incomplete” one. Not only is the Big Bang just in a state if infancy, in fact we may be so far off that the entire theory may need to be re-worked or over-hauled. They will more than likely be laughing at us in 200-years. If we don’t destroy earth first. Man is terribly destructive with no Biblical understanding of Christ.
The fact that “many” agree to the knowns does absolutely nothing to solve the unknowns. Great minds usually think outside the box and are not looking for another to agree with them. They are too concerned with making the facts fit the theory.
Here this may help place what we “do” know, and what we “do not” know in perspective.
search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7n37IF5Odh4A8a1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMHUyYzRkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODY-/SIG=11vc3di0p/EXP=1314820475/**http%3a//www.umich.edu/%257Egs265/bigbang.htm
Peace
The fact that “many” agree to the knowns does absolutely nothing to solve the unknowns. Great minds usually think outside the box and are not looking for another to agree with them. They are too concerned with making the facts fit the theory.
Here this may help place what we “do” know, and what we “do not” know in perspective.
search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7n37IF5Odh4A8a1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMHUyYzRkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODY-/SIG=11vc3di0p/EXP=1314820475/**http%3a//www.umich.edu/%257Egs265/bigbang.htm
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sensible for sure. However what comes to mind is other dimensions in the string theory of physics. Your post immmediately made me think of a few concepts such as Electro-Magnetic Energy, and more important the mind minus ego. So yes, thought provoking.
search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7h7WNV5ODXsAuZlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydmpkOG5lBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODY-/SIG=12nhmovj1/EXP=1314825814/**http%3a//www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_dimensiones01.htm
Always Peace!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I am not sure what your objection here is. Are you saying that because some people anthropomorphize G-d, that our metaphysical understanding has to account for that?
Do you mean to say that everything that exists, exists?
No one is claiming that there is an act existing without an actor. We claim that the act and the actor are the same being. G-d is described as the being whose essence is existence in the Thomistic tradition…
It signifies that G-d is the being whose essence is existence.
I would say it is the nature of G-d to exist, but it is not the nature of cows, trees, bicycles, dogs, blood, or cancer cells to exist. Were it their nature to exist, they would be logically necessary.
It is logically necessary for G-d to be because the negation of the act of existing presents a logical contradiction. The negation of a something other than the act of existing presents no such logical contradiction.
The universe is not logically necessary. It can fail to exist without causing a contradiction.
G-d is logically necessary
There are no other possibilities. The universe is not logically necessary and G-d is. There isn’t anywhere to go after that.
G
greylorn
Guest
The link you’ve offered is of little value unless one is looking for all the possible evidence that supports Big Bang dogma. IMO the BB theory is utter bunk, on the simple grounds that neither its entity nor its cause of origin can be explained in either math or ordinary language. Fundamentals are important, really.
To quote from my coming book, with permission: *…the cover of the April 2011 issue of Scientific American describes its lead article thusly—
“Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory—
Why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed— or replaced.” *
Not every science camp follower is riding the Big Bang’s bandwagon. You might consider reading the article.
B
buffalo
Guest
I look forward to it. I have heard the call for a new view.
What do you think of this one?
Aether Physics Model
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I am starting to become interested in the arguments surrounding evolution. As you are the man on that subject, can you point me to some good resources.?
G
greylorn
Guest
Interesting! And surprising, since I thought that I was the only one left alive who still insisted that the aether exists, despite Michelson-Morley. It is well integrated into my theories and formally proposed in the penultimate chapter.
However, as with all terms, discussing the aether is like discussing God— the properties of each are relevant to the discussion. I could not find much meat on the referenced website and am not willing to cough up $70 for another hypothetical physics book again, without some certainty that it contains something I want to know. The website was annoying, cluttered with ads and irrelevant links. I have it bookmarked and will return for another information search when I have more time.
Its version of the aether is clearly quite different from mine, as its interpretation of physics, which I found a bit disappointing. I’m pursuing matter-wave theory and non-existent time because it seems more consistent with my understanding of the aether.
Different opinions are important in any search for truth, I’m delighted to find that others are engaged in the pursuit of a better understanding than that offered by current physics doctrine. Thank you!
S
Sair
Guest
I am objecting that by naming the act of existence ‘G-d’, you are not defining your god as anything in particular, just as existence. Do you worship and pray to existence?
So…if I were to say, “I exist” am I claiming that I am god? Or am I a separate entity that doesn’t exist without some intervention from existence itself?
Which, again, tells us nothing. There is no essence without existence, so if your god’s essence is existence, the definition of god is swallowed up into meaningless wordplay.
It is logically necessary for them to exist in order to exist as particular entities. Your god is a particular entity - a person - no? How, then, is it logically necessary? A tree would cease to be a tree, to have the nature of a tree, if it did not exist.
Which still doesn’t get around the fact that you are attributing the identity of god to something that non-gods demonstrably do.
Properly understood, the universe is everything that exists. It could not exist, but then there would be literally nothing, not even god, and certainly no-one to observe this lack of existence.
Yet, as I’ve said, entities which are not gods (according to any theological understanding of god) exist. It is conceivable for them to exist in the absence of a personal god - no logical contradiction obtains here. It is not conceivable for them to exist without existing, but this says nothing one way or the other about the nature or identity of god.
The universe is logically necessary in order for anything to exist, because the universe is everything that exists. You want to say your god is existence itself, but this is just a game with words mashing together identity and action. If you wish your god to be both a being and being itself, then you still have an actor and an action - these cannot be made to be one and the same entity, in any meaningful way.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
We worship Actus Purus. The act of existing
You are not logically necessary. It requires a cause for you to exist.
It clearly tells us that the nature of G-d is to exist. That is not meaningless, it has had a specific meaning and content for a thousand years.
Existence is absolute, essences are mutable. Hence existence is more fundamental than essence.
No it isn’t. If they fail to exist it presents no contradiction and thus they are literally and formally not logically necessary.
Our G-d is Actus Purus. Anthropomorphizing G-d is not a metaphysical issue.
Because the negation of the act of existing is the act of not existing which is clearly a logical contradiction. Thus Actus Purus, G-d is logically necessary.
The universe is commonly understood to refer to the physical universe. Which is how I use it.
- Status