Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence.

Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 12:47 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The presence or absence of an existent determines whether we are dealing with something or nothing.

But we can't agree on said presence or absence.

Existents are self-evident.

To me, God is self-evident. Do we agree on what it means to be self-evident?

Obviously not.

Exactly. We end up either moving goalposts or falling back on preferences or biases. We're closer to honesty if we're able to admit that.

I'm not moving anything. I'm only sticking to the laws of logic. You seem to dispute the self-evident nature of existents, and you seem to think that nothing has epistemological equivalency to something. This is nothing short of remarkable, but you are free to believe what you want. I'm not going to tell you how and what to think.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 12:53 pm

TallyMan wrote:

Dark energy is a bit (lot) more complicated than that. We know very little about it.

We're not even sure if it exists.

Quote:

Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, teaches us that matter and energy are interchangeable, merely different forms of the same thing. We have a giant example of that in our sky: the Sun. The Sun is powered by the conversion of mass to energy.

Indeed.

Quote:

But energy is supposed to have a source ? either matter or radiation. The notion here is that space, even when devoid of all matter and radiation, has a residual energy. That "energy of space," when considered on a cosmic scale, leads to a force that increases the expansion of the universe.

That is true, according to one of the more popular theories.

Quote:

Perhaps dark energy results from weird behavior on scales smaller than atoms. The physics of the very small, called quantum mechanics, allows energy and matter to appear out of nothingness, although only for the tiniest instant. The constant brief appearance and disappearance of matter could be giving energy to otherwise empty space.

Then it is not empty.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 12:59 pm

Spiderpig wrote:

What is a cause anyway?

AngelRho wrote:

I think I'd have more to lose if I didn't believe the way I do and I turned out to be wrong, though, and that in part is a plus for Christianity.

Spiderpig wrote:

Not to mention the possibility that there is a God who punishes those who believe in Him.

AngelRho wrote:

Christians do believe that God punishes those who believe in him, so that's not really an issue...unless you're referring to something else.

I was still talking about Pascal?s wager, which DentArthurDent had just mentioned. The existence of a God who rewards belief and punishes disbelief, and the nonexistence of such God are by no means the only possibilities. There could be a God who rewards disbelief and punishes belief, and this negates any strategic advantage of believing just in case.

The wager isn't an apology in and of itself, though. It has believers as its focus, not unbelievers. I never put faith in God as a "just in case" measure. I think of the wager more as a model than an argument.

There can't be a God who rewards disbelief. An "atheist God" couldn't believe in himself, negating the nature of God as omnipotent.

Even if true, it's absurd to imagine such a god would even punish believers. I already disbelieve in this "atheist god." So I stand for eternal reward either way! Such a god would be aware that it is logical to believe in God if one is to be consistent in disbelief in a god of disbelief. I'm heaven-bound anyway because such a god would require that I not believe in him. Faith in the God of the Bible would be consistent with such a (dis)belief.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Jul 2014, 1:04 pm

TallyMan wrote:

The physics of the very small, called quantum mechanics, allows energy and matter to appear out of nothingness, although only for the tiniest instant. The constant brief appearance and disappearance of matter could be giving energy to otherwise empty space.

This is not true.

This is referring to "virtual particles", and they do not "appear out of nothing". They are flucuating in a quantum vacuum as changing from energy to particle, and back.

Willam Lane Craig correctly points this out in a debate ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BTT62YJCI8#t=17[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oQVAj8HxP0[/youtube]

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 1:14 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

This is not true.

This is referring to "virtual particles", and they do not "appear out of nothing". They are flucuating in a quantum vacuum as changing from energy to particle, and back.

Robert B. Laughlin: It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 1:15 pm

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

The presence or absence of an existent determines whether we are dealing with something or nothing.

But we can't agree on said presence or absence.

Existents are self-evident.

To me, God is self-evident. Do we agree on what it means to be self-evident?

Obviously not.

Exactly. We end up either moving goalposts or falling back on preferences or biases. We're closer to honesty if we're able to admit that.

No, you aren't moving goalposts at the moment. But neither of us will be able to give a satisfying definition of what makes something "self-evident." You would be forced to accept that God is self-evident or move the goalpost for an acceptible definition.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

26 Jul 2014, 1:23 pm

AngelRho wrote:

...neither of us will be able to give a satisfying definition of what makes something "self-evident."

An example: A rock is a self-evident existent. You don't have to prove it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existent
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 1:29 pm

Humanaut wrote:

LoveNotHate wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

This is not true.

This is referring to "virtual particles", and they do not "appear out of nothing". They are flucuating in a quantum vacuum as changing from energy to particle, and back.

Just curious, is this related in any way to particles also possessing wave properties? A wave cannot travel between points without some medium to travel in. Ether theories would work, but I'm unaware of any evidence that space is anything more than a vacuum. I do understand that space isn't a perfect vacuum. But then that just means space is little more than a few helium atoms, photons, and neutrinos bouncing all over the place. You still need a pressure suit to survive for any length of time.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 1:33 pm

Humanaut wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

...neither of us will be able to give a satisfying definition of what makes something "self-evident."

An example: A rock is a self-evident existent. You don't have to prove it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existent
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident

To a believer, God satisfies both definitions.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Jul 2014, 5:38 pm

AngelRho wrote:

Just curious, is this related in any way to particles also possessing wave properties?

The theory that particles are both a wave and particle is called the wave-particle duality. Modern physics is still trying to understand this phenomena, so the proper answer to your question is that science does not know. However, it would not appear to be related in the way you mean it.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80 ... le_duality

AngelRho wrote:

A wave cannot travel between points without some medium to travel in. Ether theories would work, but I'm unaware of any evidence that space is anything more than a vacuum. I do understand that space isn't a perfect vacuum. But then that just means space is little more than a few helium atoms, photons, and neutrinos bouncing all over the place. You still need a pressure suit to survive for any length of time.

Electromagnetic waves don't require a medium.

EDIT: Clarification, they need a medium to travel on but not in.

"This theory of luminiferous aether would influence the wave theory of light proposed by Christiaan Huygens, in which light traveled in the form of longitudinal waves via an "omnipresent, perfectly elastic medium having zero density, called aether". At the time, it was thought that in order for light to travel through a vacuum, there must have been a medium filling the void through which it could propagate, as sound through air or ripples in a pool. Later, when it was proved that the nature of light wave is transverse instead of longitudinal, Huygens' theory was replaced by subsequent theories proposed by Maxwell, Einstein and de Broglie, which rejected the existence and necessity of aether to explain the various optical phenomena. These theories were supported by the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in which evidence for the presence of aether was conclusively absent. The results of the experiment influenced many physicists of the time and contributed to the eventual development of Einstein's theory of special relativity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 26 Jul 2014, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

26 Jul 2014, 5:49 pm

AngelRho wrote:

If you're going to accept that the choice to believe in God isn't logical, then you have to also accept that the opposite choice is likewise illogical. So what's the real reason you don't believe in God?

If you're going to accept that the choice to believe in Odin isn't logical, then you have to also accept that the opposite choice is likewise illogical. So what's the real reason you don't believe in Odin?

trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

26 Jul 2014, 5:57 pm

Humanaut wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

It is likely the universe appeared from "nothing" as a simple consequence of mathematics and the concepts of creation and creators are purely a human invention.

Something cannot come from nothing.

How can something (the universe) be caused by something else, before spacetime existed? Since you need time for any causal event, how can there ever be a "cause" of the universe? Unless they find something outside of our universe/spacetime, we must assume the universe is uncaused.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 6:26 pm

trollcatman wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

It is likely the universe appeared from "nothing" as a simple consequence of mathematics and the concepts of creation and creators are purely a human invention.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Except there is evidence that the universe began to exist at some point. It isn't logically necessary that a cause itself have a finite beginning. A cause could be infinite and itself uncaused. Thus it's reasonable that something outside of our universe caused it to come into existence ex nihilo.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Jul 2014, 6:45 pm

trollcatman wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

I'm mainly talking about accepting theism over atheism. I happen to believe in Yahweh, but which God I believe in for the sake of this discussion isn't as important as the fact I believe at all.

Odin vs. Yahweh is a whole other topic altogether that I'm not going in-depth on in this thread. The short answer is I find Yahweh more plausible than other gods. I think a good starting point is to consider a monotheistic tradition as opposed to a polytheistic religion. Polytheism is pluralistic deism at best, so if you're going to put faith in any god at all, monotheistic traditions are preferable for internal consistency. Probably a better question to ask me is why Christianity as opposed to converting to Judaism or Islam. Simply put Islam doesn't sufficiently address atonement for sin or reconcile God with man--among other issues. Judaism is freakin' awesome (the Old Testament OWNS), but it also ties into a strong cultural heritage of which I can't hope to be a part. Christianity is unique not only in its Hebraic roots but in its adaptability to any/all cultures. Lots of religions are like that, but they lack the gospel (atonement and reconciliation) and present a host of their own problems. So, of all the world has to offer, I pick Jesus. There's really not much more I can say about it.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Jul 2014, 7:08 pm

AngelRho wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

AngelRho as far as I am aware no scientist worthy of the title would ever state that the scientific method is the absolute word in verifying hypotheses, This to my mind is where your argument falls flat. They will say that whilst it does have it is flaws, it is the best method we have yet devised, and to paraphrase Brian Cox "it has delivered us the technological age, in short it works"

Right. I don't dispute that. What I primarily dispute is the hard empiricist position specifically, not to strawman reasonable scientists all into that category. And that touches on the topic we're discussing here, that is, the logical problem of believing in God against the backdrop of empiricism as embodied by the scientific method. You seem to say that the core assumptions of the scientific method are acceptable because the method works. OK, fair enough. Well, God works for me. How is that more/less logical than the opposite view?

This was never the intention of the thread. I would never try to prove nor disprove the existence of god given our limited knowledge of the causation or otherwise of the universe/universes. Instead I was trying to explore the position of someone who has faith in a belief whilst they acknowledge the evidence shows a purely man made theology. Specifically in this case I am talking about the trinity which WAS engineered to solve the apparent contradiction of having two or more gods in a mono theistic theology.

Regarding the causation of the universe I hold with Stephen Hawking's position that we are nearly at the point in physics that we do not need god to explain causation.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

26 Jul 2014, 7:50 pm

AngelRho wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

It is likely the universe appeared from "nothing" as a simple consequence of mathematics and the concepts of creation and creators are purely a human invention.

Something cannot come from nothing.

0 = +1 + -1

We now have "something" and "anti-something" from nothing.

Good point.

From what I understand, though, everything that begins to exist has a cause. You could have something and anti-something from nothing, but nothing cannot cause a something/anti-something.

Recently I have been trying to get my head around E=MC2 and quantum physics. I was struggling with the concepts, constantly think 'but how, why what if etc. The best advice I received to deal with this came from a customer of mine who told me to ignore what is see as self evident and common sense and accept the evidence and move forward. This is beauty of the scientific method, it provides a tool to remove these concepts and further our understanding. New understandings of the effect of gravity on waves suggests that they would never coalesce into a singular and the universe has infinitely existed.

Science is designed to provide evidence for the natural. The supernatural is something else, however this should not mean faith should be anything other than a personal belief. It is up to the believer to demonstrate its existence if they want to place it into a position of respect in our society. Demanding that kids be taught a supernatural cause for things that have a naturalistic explanation supported by experiment is wrong, unless of course you can show how it is better explained via the supernatural

Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence. Post Reply New Topic

Keeping Faith whilst accepting rational evidence.