B
Bradski
Guest
Do you want to base your argument for the beginning of the universe on common sense and logic?
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s better than magic and “I dunno. It just happened”.
But let’s be clear: the argument appealing to common sense and logic is: something can’t come from nothing.
That seems pretty clear.
It’s only Emperors parading around buck nekkid who might assert, “Why, yes, it’s entirely possible for something to come from nothing! Haven’t you ever seen that turnip appear on my plate––materializing out of nothing!”
And all the townsfolk nod in agreement…
Until the little boy says, “But, mama, he’s naked! And he’s daft to think that something can come from nothing!”
Y
ynotzap
Guest
I have no desire for the encounter meaning “I don’t want it” then God grants your desire Do you think that your believing that God does not exist, has anything to do with His existence? The only person that is the poorer for that belief is you. You are having it “Your Way” and you are free to have it. You should desire it because it’s what you were created for, the encounter and the union. But why believe me or others who tell you the same thing. Your will be done. God gave you free will, that’s why you can make a choice, but you don’t believe it. Then again you might think that you can make a choice either way, and you can’t, because the FAther has not caused you to desire it. You can’t go to Christ unless the Father calls, in your case apparently He hasn’t called I pray “God cause me turn to you” You see I do not move my own will, God does, but He leaves me to choose, or not to choose, and enforces my choice.
I know that the appetite of the human mind is to know the truth, that is natural, the way it was created, so we can sincerely wish to know the truth, but not God. I would ask myself, why don’t I wish to know God, for believers, God is the Truth. Maybe a good look into your own mind will supply your answer. We can’t really judge the degree of our own humility, for the essence of wisdom, is to know that we can’t judge, for we do not understand ourselves completely. We can’t be responsible for what we do not know, but what we know, and you show the spirit of repentance. You must know the laws of God, before you know sin. The atheist has a conscience, and he must be true to his conscience, if he has good will, if he has bad will, I don’t expect him to turn to God. AS I said, God grants us our desires concerning Him, either we want Him or reject Him, He hold us for what we know, not what we don’t know and what we desire or will
D
DrTaffy
Guest
That sounds more like the Theist argument. Or can you propose a detailed mechanism for how God came to exist and created/interacts with the universe to rival the best models of modern day cosmology?
Eeeeeeeexcept that that kind of ‘something coming from nothing’ (as in vacuum particle pair creation) has direct experimental support and is integral to one of the best supported physical theories ever. It overwhelms the ‘arguments’ for a God to a ridiculously excessive degree.
In contrast you still run screaming from the least suggestion that you support the assertion that a bodiless non spatiotemporal mind is even remotely possible.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Quantum fluctuations/fabric are not nothing.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Egg-zactly.
P
PRmerger
Guest
If any Theist says that it was magic that caused the universe to pop into existence, you have my permission to say: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
How God came to exist, eh?
No wonder you reject God. You can’t even identify a basic attribute of God which is, God cannot “come to exist”.
Sheesh!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well if you want to re-define “nothing” as “a vacuum particle pair creation”, go for it.
But that puts you in the same category as the anti-vaxxers who want to re-define “successful eradication of disease” into “it causes autism!”
And you can sleep in the same bed with the 911 Truthers who want to re-define the destruction of the Twin Towers by terrorists into “hey, the US Government did it!”
Heck, while you’re at it, why don’t you just re-define this
http://www.couponingtodisney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/penny-2007.jpg
and call it a million dollars.
See how that works for you, 'k?
B
Bradski
Guest
It’s already been pointed out that logic and common sense are not valid methods of solving problems within physics. I’m going to have to repeat myself, but anyway…
It is not a matter of common sense for light to travel backwards. It is plainly not common sense by any stretch of the imagination to say that one thing can be in two places at the same time or that something can be a wave and a particle at the same time. How can something pop into existence and then disappear again? None of this is logical by any definition of that word.
So we all know, and it has been shown I don’t know how many times, that common sense and logic, on their own, are pretty much useless in determining certain aspects of physics. If you insist on using it on its own, then you will definitely be proved wrong at some point. And that is true even in the everyday, macro, run-of-the-mill world in which we live (if you can describe the high end maths and quantum physics involved as run-of-the-mill and everyday). You know this. It’s beyond argument. It is a simple fact. It is plainly undeniable. It would be perverse in the extreme to say it ain’t so.
And so we move to areas of existence where physics itself breaks down. Where space and time are the same thing. Where even the laws of physics that already defy common sense and appear illogical themselves break down.
Let me repeat that: Even laws that already defy common sense and already appear to be illogical lose any meaning.
I want you to consider your same argument in regard to the examples I just gave. Light cannot be a wave and a particle because that’s not common sense. It’s illogical. So would you like to re-write the physics on photons? One thing cannot be in two places at the same time. It’s not common sense. It’s illogical. So do you want to redefine quantum mechanics? Do you want to rewrite the rules that apply to the expansion of the universe? Do you want to rewrite the theory of relativity? But you must be right because you are relying on common sense and logic. I mean, how could you possibly be wrong?
Nevertheless, you are still going to use that same argument again at some point. I’m not going to bother repeating myself again. I will save a link to this post and just reply with that. It’ll save us all a lot of time.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And yet…here you are using logic and common sense talking about physics.
Why the double standard?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Talk about a straw man, anyway…
S
Solmyr
Guest
How many times do we have to point this out? The reality is much more complicated than those neat little boxes we create. And no matter how hard we try to “squeeze” reality into the “common sense based” boxes, it will not fit.
But the apologists don’t understand this. They keep on repeating their erroneous picture of the world.
S
Solmyr
Guest
I give you a simple, but correct analogy. If you wish to talk to me, you MUST use a language I can understand. If you would initiate a conversation in ancient Sanskrit, it would be gobbledygook to me. So, if God wishes to reveal himself to me, then he MUST use a method that I can see and comprehend. I emphasize the word: “MUST”. And that is simply an obvious requirement, and not some lack of “humility”.
Since God never chose to reveal his ethical principle to ME, in a fashion that I can understand, all I can do is to follow my principles. And those principles are almost indistinguishable from yours - except the “worshipping” part. If that is not enough for God, then - tough luck.
In either case it a wasted time. Mind you, I am NOT talking about “meditative” prayer, but about “supplicative” or “intercessory” prayer.
If there is someone, who knows nothing about me, who does not even know if I exist or not, then I would not expect that person to “love” me. The first requirement to develop a relationship is to make sure that both parties exist and they both KNOW about the existence of the other.
Let’s leave the mythology out of this.
By the way, thank you for using paragraphs.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
So? You don’t understand the argument, do you?
If a turnip appears on PR’s plate, where exactly is the ‘nothing’ in that?:ehh:
W
Wesrock
Guest
You don’t understand what nothing means, do you?
Y
ynotzap
Guest
If you say so, and thy will be done
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Well, then, as requested, until you come up with a better explanation of exactly how the universe came to exist, that is my answer to you.
So how does the ‘universe’ (a.k.a. ‘Everything that exists’) “come to exist”?
(sorry, almost forgot
)Sheesh!
Even ignoring the fact that no one has defined “a vacuum particle pair creation” as ‘nothing’ ( as opposed to something coming from nothing) that makes no sense. You asked for examples akin to a turnip appearing on your plate. Is your plate “nothing” according to you? Where, yet again, is your evidence that it is possible to have a mind without a body, space or time?
Right back atcha.See how that works for you, 'k?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
W
Wesrock
Guest
You basically asked “what caused God?”
But theists reject the idea that everything must have a cause. What we say is that “what comes into existence must have a cause,” or “what is contingent must have a cause.”
But theists reject the idea that everything must have a cause. What we say is that “what comes into existence must have a cause,” or “what is contingent must have a cause.”
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’m not interested in the plate issue, though it’s ultimately linked to causation. The apple came into existence and therefore must have a cause, or so we would say.
- Status