Godly speculation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2015, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2015 04:23 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-01-2015 03:15 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  The act of creation circumscribing a god to another dimension? To where it's effects are no longer felt or evidenced in this universe?

The universe does seem to be without any supernatural first-cause or prime mover.

Though I would make a simpler assumption and state that no such first-cause ever existed.

I'm asking because I have guesses but not all the info - I'd like to learn more about cosmology, I think you're wrong, but I'd like to hear more of the science in lay terms from you:

The universe has no prime mover - but either was a big bang infinite singularity that was not moved by an external or internal catalyst to expand to become the known universe? Or is it a steady state/oscillating thing composed of matter and energy - that was composed without having been composed despite the conservation of matter and energy?

Also, and this is more of a philosophical aside, if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

The most honest answer is we don't know what happened before the expansion of space-time, though it's basically a meaningless concept. If you want to assert a deity did it, then how was the deity created?

To simply say this deity is outside of space-time is special pleading.
Even if this deity could be somehow proven to have created the cosmos, it is patently ridiculous to assert we would know anything about such an entity or that this entity would know or care about anything on this planet or even this entire galaxy within which we reside.

I would not be interested in worshiping this thing in the least, though it would be interesting to find out how it could even contain enough power within a finite form to keep from self-immolating from the energies it could command.

From a pure physics standpoint, it would be more likely it would have created the universe and destroyed itself through this creative act alone. The universe is the remnant of it's viscera expanding outwards. That is why the universe doesn't seem to have any intelligence guiding it, it's pure physics that turns the vast machine.

To speculate even further, the very fact this universe has laws would mean that if a deity did create the universe, then it is not omnipotent or omniscient or omnipresent. Consider why laws would be necessary for an omni-entity, because it can't be aware of everything, it can't influence everything at all locations in the universe, it doesn't have the ability to. It made these forces so it would run by itself without it's interference. The very existence of forces in the universe to self-govern it points to the obvious limitations of any entity.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
30-01-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: Godly speculation
It's all in my head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
31-01-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 08:12 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  It's all in my head.

Then you're definitely not right in the head. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
02-02-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(30-01-2015 03:35 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(30-01-2015 03:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm asking because I have guesses but not all the info - I'd like to learn more about cosmology, I think you're wrong, but I'd like to hear more of the science in lay terms from you:

The universe has no prime mover - but either was a big bang infinite singularity that was not moved by an external or internal catalyst to expand to become the known universe? Or is it a steady state/oscillating thing composed of matter and energy - that was composed without having been composed despite the conservation of matter and energy?

Also, and this is more of a philosophical aside, if science demonstrated that there was a prime mover, would you ascribe the prime mover's powers to be near-omnipotence (from our finite, human perspective) and worship the prime mover?

The most honest answer is we don't know what happened before the expansion of space-time, though it's basically a meaningless concept. If you want to assert a deity did it, then how was the deity created?

To simply say this deity is outside of space-time is special pleading.
Even if this deity could be somehow proven to have created the cosmos, it is patently ridiculous to assert we would know anything about such an entity or that this entity would know or care about anything on this planet or even this entire galaxy within which we reside.

I would not be interested in worshiping this thing in the least, though it would be interesting to find out how it could even contain enough power within a finite form to keep from self-immolating from the energies it could command.

From a pure physics standpoint, it would be more likely it would have created the universe and destroyed itself through this creative act alone. The universe is the remnant of it's viscera expanding outwards. That is why the universe doesn't seem to have any intelligence guiding it, it's pure physics that turns the vast machine.

To speculate even further, the very fact this universe has laws would mean that if a deity did create the universe, then it is not omnipotent or omniscient or omnipresent. Consider why laws would be necessary for an omni-entity, because it can't be aware of everything, it can't influence everything at all locations in the universe, it doesn't have the ability to. It made these forces so it would run by itself without it's interference. The very existence of forces in the universe to self-govern it points to the obvious limitations of any entity.

I would be willing to argue these points with you, except that both of my points had nothing to do with deity, only physics and cosmology. I used the terms catalyst and conservation of matter/energy. It's my fault because I added another question.

But the notion of "There has to be a God because if the universe was always here, something made it" was not my argument. I was asking a question as to how physical matter and energy got here without a God.

Or perhaps you believe in a Big Bang and can give me insight as to what kind of catalyst outside the singularity or inside of it made the Bang occur without there being any God.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(02-02-2015 02:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-01-2015 03:35 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  The most honest answer is we don't know what happened before the expansion of space-time, though it's basically a meaningless concept. If you want to assert a deity did it, then how was the deity created?

To simply say this deity is outside of space-time is special pleading.
Even if this deity could be somehow proven to have created the cosmos, it is patently ridiculous to assert we would know anything about such an entity or that this entity would know or care about anything on this planet or even this entire galaxy within which we reside.

I would not be interested in worshiping this thing in the least, though it would be interesting to find out how it could even contain enough power within a finite form to keep from self-immolating from the energies it could command.

From a pure physics standpoint, it would be more likely it would have created the universe and destroyed itself through this creative act alone. The universe is the remnant of it's viscera expanding outwards. That is why the universe doesn't seem to have any intelligence guiding it, it's pure physics that turns the vast machine.

To speculate even further, the very fact this universe has laws would mean that if a deity did create the universe, then it is not omnipotent or omniscient or omnipresent. Consider why laws would be necessary for an omni-entity, because it can't be aware of everything, it can't influence everything at all locations in the universe, it doesn't have the ability to. It made these forces so it would run by itself without it's interference. The very existence of forces in the universe to self-govern it points to the obvious limitations of any entity.

I would be willing to argue these points with you, except that both of my points had nothing to do with deity, only physics and cosmology. I used the terms catalyst and conservation of matter/energy. It's my fault because I added another question.

But the notion of "There has to be a God because if the universe was always here, something made it" was not my argument. I was asking a question as to how physical matter and energy got here without a God.

Or perhaps you believe in a Big Bang and can give me insight as to what kind of catalyst outside the singularity or inside of it made the Bang occur without there being any God.

Why would you assert any intelligence created anything? Why not a magical ham sandwich or aliens? I would have just as much proof for that assertion as you would any god(s).

Using the Large Hadron Collider, we have peered into the energy levels that existed mere trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, there are only observations of particles coming from the most basic units of matter that follow the predictions of the Standard Model quite well. There are no angels fluttering around making bosons pop out of energetic collisions of matter, we have been able to make reasonable predictions down to the limits of observability.

Nothing supernatural is needed to explain any of it, why would you slap the god label on predictable manifestations of energy?
Where exactly is this god at? Would it be 125-127 GeV?

God isn't sitting there waving at us, just energy manifestations of high-energy particles.

Enough of this woo BS, what would be a predictable manifestation of a deity at the high-energy levels of the LHC? What does god look like in terms of electron volts and force exchange at the sub-atomic level?

IOW-YOU HAVE NOTHING to even describe this fantasy of your imagination, except maybe feels and mis-guided interpretations of events stemming from confirmation bias.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
03-02-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(02-02-2015 04:00 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-02-2015 02:51 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I would be willing to argue these points with you, except that both of my points had nothing to do with deity, only physics and cosmology. I used the terms catalyst and conservation of matter/energy. It's my fault because I added another question.

But the notion of "There has to be a God because if the universe was always here, something made it" was not my argument. I was asking a question as to how physical matter and energy got here without a God.

Or perhaps you believe in a Big Bang and can give me insight as to what kind of catalyst outside the singularity or inside of it made the Bang occur without there being any God.

Why would you assert any intelligence created anything? Why not a magical ham sandwich or aliens? I would have just as much proof for that assertion as you would any god(s).

Using the Large Hadron Collider, we have peered into the energy levels that existed mere trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, there are only observations of particles coming from the most basic units of matter that follow the predictions of the Standard Model quite well. There are no angels fluttering around making bosons pop out of energetic collisions of matter, we have been able to make reasonable predictions down to the limits of observability.

Nothing supernatural is needed to explain any of it, why would you slap the god label on predictable manifestations of energy?
Where exactly is this god at? Would it be 125-127 GeV?

God isn't sitting there waving at us, just energy manifestations of high-energy particles.

Enough of this woo BS, what would be a predictable manifestation of a deity at the high-energy levels of the LHC? What does god look like in terms of electron volts and force exchange at the sub-atomic level?

IOW-YOU HAVE NOTHING to even describe this fantasy of your imagination, except maybe feels and mis-guided interpretations of events stemming from confirmation bias.

Might I ask you to read my most recent post before this one? I'm asking for you, since I've tried and failed, to explain the cosmology questions I find vexing without any supernatural person or entity.

Sometimes when people say they are into steady-state I ask how with the law of conservation the universe was "always" here or when they are big bang theorists (Knock Knock Knock Penny!) I ask whether an internal or external catalyst made the singularity release into what is the universe...

...I will take what you said--God need not be the creator of all. I'd like, therefore and particularly, natural explanations for cosmology.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-02-2015 04:00 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why would you assert any intelligence created anything? Why not a magical ham sandwich or aliens? I would have just as much proof for that assertion as you would any god(s).

Using the Large Hadron Collider, we have peered into the energy levels that existed mere trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, there are only observations of particles coming from the most basic units of matter that follow the predictions of the Standard Model quite well. There are no angels fluttering around making bosons pop out of energetic collisions of matter, we have been able to make reasonable predictions down to the limits of observability.

Nothing supernatural is needed to explain any of it, why would you slap the god label on predictable manifestations of energy?
Where exactly is this god at? Would it be 125-127 GeV?

God isn't sitting there waving at us, just energy manifestations of high-energy particles.

Enough of this woo BS, what would be a predictable manifestation of a deity at the high-energy levels of the LHC? What does god look like in terms of electron volts and force exchange at the sub-atomic level?

IOW-YOU HAVE NOTHING to even describe this fantasy of your imagination, except maybe feels and mis-guided interpretations of events stemming from confirmation bias.

Might I ask you to read my most recent post before this one? I'm asking for you, since I've tried and failed, to explain the cosmology questions I find vexing without any supernatural person or entity.

Sometimes when people say they are into steady-state I ask how with the law of conservation the universe was "always" here or when they are big bang theorists (Knock Knock Knock Penny!) I ask whether an internal or external catalyst made the singularity release into what is the universe...

...I will take what you said--God need not be the creator of all. I'd like, therefore and particularly, natural explanations for cosmology.

Cool, if you are actually wanting to know cosmology without shoving god into the gaps in our knowledge. Many of our tools for understanding the nature of the universe at it's earliest moments simply break down into infinite values or singularities at those moments, the media may be partly to blame for all of the noise they make about singularities. Singularities may not even be a real thing, it's just a limit to what our theoretical tools are capable of.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Godly speculation
(03-02-2015 11:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 10:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Might I ask you to read my most recent post before this one? I'm asking for you, since I've tried and failed, to explain the cosmology questions I find vexing without any supernatural person or entity.

Sometimes when people say they are into steady-state I ask how with the law of conservation the universe was "always" here or when they are big bang theorists (Knock Knock Knock Penny!) I ask whether an internal or external catalyst made the singularity release into what is the universe...

...I will take what you said--God need not be the creator of all. I'd like, therefore and particularly, natural explanations for cosmology.

Cool, if you are actually wanting to know cosmology without shoving god into the gaps in our knowledge. Many of our tools for understanding the nature of the universe at it's earliest moments simply break down into infinite values or singularities at those moments, the media may be partly to blame for all of the noise they make about singularities. Singularities may not even be a real thing, it's just a limit to what our theoretical tools are capable of.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

VERY good article, thanks. I could take "singularity" out but note the article asks if I myself was a singularity or merely smaller. Once I was a blastocyst and so on but my existence has a finite point. The universe may have one or may not. My questions still stick in my craw and the problem is this--yes, the god of the gaps is used too often by theists and in all kinds of situations, but in cosmology I still have both the Law of Conservation of Matter and the expansion of the universe to deal with. Will science know all the answers soon? Perhaps.

What should we call the argument against the god of the gaps when it is wielded to our detriment? Here's a Cambrian explosion and mass extinction, and etc. that is possibly explained by a world catastrophe like the Genesis flood (I say, "possibly"). Mind you, the Bible does not record a date for the flood, just the length of its duration and initial recession.

Now what I'll say next will sound implausible. But if an unknown sentient race of beings were around way back when or were visiting Earth or whatever you want to say added stele and etc. describing the Flood... the Bible was written millennia before modern science excavated the Cambrian explosion, etc.

What we can and should do is logically and carefully compare Genesis and the science. The problem is the "No, any gap but God!" thing. That may not be unreasonable in my Genesis example but it is unreasonable IMO if we are looking at Genesis and cosmology. The Bible even describes the expansion of the universe itself, something I find endlessly compelling.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Godly speculation
(04-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 11:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Cool, if you are actually wanting to know cosmology without shoving god into the gaps in our knowledge. Many of our tools for understanding the nature of the universe at it's earliest moments simply break down into infinite values or singularities at those moments, the media may be partly to blame for all of the noise they make about singularities. Singularities may not even be a real thing, it's just a limit to what our theoretical tools are capable of.

Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?

VERY good article, thanks. I could take "singularity" out but note the article asks if I myself was a singularity or merely smaller. Once I was a blastocyst and so on but my existence has a finite point. The universe may have one or may not. My questions still stick in my craw and the problem is this--yes, the god of the gaps is used too often by theists and in all kinds of situations, but in cosmology I still have both the Law of Conservation of Matter and the expansion of the universe to deal with. Will science know all the answers soon? Perhaps.

What should we call the argument against the god of the gaps when it is wielded to our detriment? Here's a Cambrian explosion and mass extinction, and etc. that is possibly explained by a world catastrophe like the Genesis flood (I say, "possibly"). Mind you, the Bible does not record a date for the flood, just the length of its duration and initial recession.

Now what I'll say next will sound implausible. But if an unknown sentient race of beings were around way back when or were visiting Earth or whatever you want to say added stele and etc. describing the Flood... the Bible was written millennia before modern science excavated the Cambrian explosion, etc.

What we can and should do is logically and carefully compare Genesis and the science. The problem is the "No, any gap but God!" thing. That may not be unreasonable in my Genesis example but it is unreasonable IMO if we are looking at Genesis and cosmology. The Bible even describes the expansion of the universe itself, something I find endlessly compelling.

Umm, no. The bible uses a derived Babylonian myth to construct silly things like firmaments, man coming from dust, the sun and stars underneath the dome of the firmament, water coming from the windows of heaven opening and providing rain to the Earth and so on.
It's nothing more than a myth of the times in which it was constructed. Science uses more precise terms so to convey actual meaning, the bible provides vague terms so you can supply your own meaning.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
04-02-2015, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2015 06:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Godly speculation
(27-01-2015 05:10 AM)Dom Wrote:  Nonsense. We are just a bunch of bacteria type creatures, living in someone's body, which we consider the universe. Lots of flora and fauna in there, which we consider beautiful.

Our host gets gas, we have natural disasters. Our host is our god.

If we gobble up all the flora and fauna, our host won't be able to digest anything and die. And so will we. End of story.

Brilliant! Clap ... that reminds me time to take my probiotic.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: