Author Topic: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?  (Read 34970 times)

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #125 on: February 22, 2016, 12:18:45 PM »
You are a hypocrite of biblical proportions, and the way in which you twist and debauch science to suit your arguments is just one of the ways in which this is observable. You don’t have science on your side and this is evident in your last few posts, where you admitted to not understanding space and time, yet attempted to vacuously apply the concepts to your belief in a creator. “Loopholes and magic” are the tools of your trade that allow you to “step into the Christian worldview” and explain Noah’s ark through God’s “supernatural” ability to “transcend the bounds of naturalism”. It is you who would make a fantastic lawyer, because there are no depths to which you won’t sink in order to achieve your goals. As a proselytising fundamentalist, you stand apart from those who simply have a quiet, if admittedly questionable faith, because you seek to force your “good news” onto the ears of the credulous and desperate. Your belief in angels and demons, your condemnation of abortion and homosexuality, and your praising of asceticism has been responsible for more pain and misery than you would ever dare admit;  you’d rather blame it on the innocent:

"It's the effect of our sinful choices that have brought about things like pain and fear upon the world.  We're subjected to evil, disease, famine, disasters, etc...all the results of our sin.   This world and it inhabitants exist in a perpetual state of decay leading to death because of sin."


Whilst you’re busy blaming our atheism on our lack of desire to give up sex, drugs and alcohol, allow me to remind you that gluttony is a sin. You’re over 300lbs and it isn’t muscle. Food is your drug and by your own admission, you are now responsible for all the death, disease and famine that is inflicted on “God’s children”.  What i find most deplorable, is that you haven’t the excuse of cultural indoctrination to explain your views- you developed them as a grown man, because the fear of death crippled you.

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

Not only have you died a thousand times, you’ve sought to sacrifice your brothers and sisters too, in order to save yourself.

I'm a hypocrite?  Uh, ok.  

I twist science?  Everything I posted I've provided from sources I posted in earlier threads....it's all there and you probably missed it....that's ok.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=604101.msg8405888#msg8405888


Who said I have science on my side?  I see correlations between scripture and science in things, but that's about it.

I told you I understand concepts of time and space just fine and I've discussed that repeatedly in the past.   Pellius is doing the majority of discussion in this thread.  Again, I'm just commenting where things interest me.  Do I have a PhD level knowledge of space and time?  No and that's fine.  I can still speak to it if need be.

I'm sinking to any depths?  I'm using the words of atheists.  If that's sinking then so be it.

False Christians, false believers and demonically-inspired religions have done lots of bad things.  Not my fault and I don't apologize for it either because I'm not responsible.  I do hate it though.  People sin, lie, cheat, etc.....I don't like sin and don't willfully sin.  

What I stated about sin is correct.  I don't blame the innocent....they haven't done anything.  

People take offense when I call out sins like pornography, adultery, drunkeness, partying, etc....  Yet, I haven't called out anyone specifically, but I also can't help if those words bring conviction for some....I hope it does.  Some folks know and some folks don't know what they're doing wrong as it pertains to God's standards....some need to be told and some need to be reminded.  I do so in love because if folks repent of their sin and bring it before Christ they can be cleansed and made righteous.  

People of all shapes and sizes are gluttons.   Being overweight does not equate to gluttony.   I don't eat enormous portions of food daily.  I gain weight easily - muscle and fat.

Cultural indoctrination?  Those words have never been posted by me so I have no idea what you mean.  You're welcome to clarify.

I have no idea what you mean with the quote and dying a thousand times.   You're welcome to clarify.
 

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #126 on: February 22, 2016, 12:37:47 PM »
Wow, this thread is still here. Thought it got deleted.  LOL at my last post in this thread! ;D

... the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause


Can you show where natural science has rejected the principle that things don't move without a cause? The law of Causality is  fundamental principle of all natural science.


Is it? When has this definition for causality been used by science?  In your first post, you were sort of cagey-you just said it was logical- but when scientists discuss causality, they don't  use anything more definitive than "the relationship between cause and effect".

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #127 on: February 22, 2016, 07:18:35 PM »
Are you simply stating the general nonbeliever consensus with this statement?

Yes, generally speaking the atheist believe that they have science on their side. That the more science advances the less there is a need for a God. If I have time I will present an argument that shows the exact opposite.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #128 on: February 22, 2016, 07:40:53 PM »
No I don't, I agree with aquinas, something is clearly eternal, I suggest energy is and no god is needed. Something has always existed.

Energy always existing is something not nothing, you are just regurgitating arguments without thinking now.

The age of the universe is based off of redshift and the idea that things are rapidly seperating at which point they were together, so all the matter just poofed into existence? where did it all come from if it wasn't already there? god's matter factory?



For the sake of civility, please refrain from comments about when you think that I have decided not to think.

I repeat myself because I keep making the same points. And I will repeat myself again.

I cannot prove that energy has not always existed. You may be right. I will say it again, "you may be right." I have  stated variations of this constantly. But I consider energy something, so, again, who created energy? So if energy always existed you have something out of nothing.

Now if you believe that energy always existed, that "a something" always existed then I cannot prove otherwise. Just as I cannot prove that between Mars and Earth there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit. I consider your scenario just as likely.

As far as your last two questions, which you have asked repeatedly in every one of your posts, I will "regurgitate" the same answer: The Creator.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #129 on: February 22, 2016, 07:55:12 PM »
moving at the speed of light time ceases to exist, the singularity would have atoms moving as fast as light, hence it's timeless, this is the point of the singularity, the mate breaks down, it's a singularity.

I know. I don't how it pertains to this discussion.

Quote
Expansion in General relativity is not an effect, meaning no cause needed. Not to mention it has been highlights over and over that the law of causality does not apply to the quantum world, how things actually work is different. The human mind is a shitty tool for the universe, UV has given us far more information then all the introspection in the world.

No argument was made, or needed, in regard to the cause of General Relativity. It was used to show the relationship between time and matter. You can't have one without the other.

Quote
Nothing exists outside of time, existence is a temporal concept, you are using the terms (as others have pointed out) in a non-sensical fashion.

I disagree. A Creator exist outside of time. I already said, regurgitated, that ad infinitum. You disagree. I understand, but by saying it over and over again still isn't going to change anything

Quote
You fail to see the logical pitfall in your argument, everything needs a cause, as an infinite regress would form (nevermind the other options) so the only way to avoid this is a creator that exists outside of time and space, this avoids all the messy stuff like logic and fact and just gives us a neat answer!!! God did it, what caused god you asked? logic doesn't apply here (see how logical I am), god doesn't conform to logic, to cause, to time, he is the answer that requires no explanation and is infinitely more complex then the universe.

I think you fail to see the logical pitfalls. Something always had to exist. You think it was matter, a singularity.  I think it was a Creator.
I presented my argument backed by modern, mainstream science. You have not. You just say it. You just say a singularity always existed without any backing. I used the law of causality to argue for a first cause.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #130 on: February 22, 2016, 08:07:02 PM »
All time began at the big bang, asking what caused the big bang is non-sensical as is suggesting time before the point when time began. You are crushing it!!

I know these are concepts that for some are very hard to comprehend. Don't take it personally.

Quote
So everything needs a cause but god, got it. makes perfect sense. Again could you give me one example of something outside of space and time? this is a scientific position after all, how can I verify your creator besides your gypsy logic?

Exactly. The Creator is the first cause.  And, again, I gave you, I regurgitated, the answer to the same question you keep regurgitating. This is the last time I will do it. The example is the Creator. Please try to remember this. Don't ask for an example again. I will ignore it.

I cannot prove, verify, the existence of a Creator. I made arguments to support this belief. I've answered, regurgitated, this same answer  to the same question you keep asking. I will ignore future similar questions. My limit to regurgitating is reaching a critical limit.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #131 on: February 22, 2016, 08:11:30 PM »
Wow, this thread is still here. Thought it got deleted.  LOL at my last post in this thread! ;D



Is it? When has this definition for causality been used by science?  In your first post, you were sort of cagey-you just said it was logical- but when scientists discuss causality, they don't  use anything more definitive than "the relationship between cause and effect".

There is causality as I pertains to science and there is causality as it pertains to philosophy.

Of course you will always find disagreement. Not everyone believes the earth is round. I appeal to modern, mainstream, science.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #132 on: February 23, 2016, 03:57:19 AM »
For the sake of civility, please refrain from comments about when you think that I have decided not to think.

I repeat myself because I keep making the same points. And I will repeat myself again.

I cannot prove that energy has not always existed. You may be right. I will say it again, "you may be right." I have  stated variations of this constantly. But I consider energy something, so, again, who created energy? So if energy always existed you have something out of nothing.


I think we are done here, if energy ALWAYS existed, nothing has never existed, this is aquinas argument. You are using terms incoherently. If something exists, it always has, hence, no need for something for nothing.









Now if you believe that energy always existed, that "a something" always existed then I cannot prove otherwise. Just as I cannot prove that between Mars and Earth there is a china teapot in an elliptical orbit. I consider your scenario just as likely.

As far as your last two questions, which you have asked repeated in everyone of your posts, I will "regurgitate" the same answer: The Creator.

Energy has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. Energy exists, this is objective, it can neither be created nor destroyed, the amount stays the same in the universe. Energy, namely photons move at the speed of light, they do not experience time (many people have pointed out your causality flaw, yet you persist), which means they are eternal in a sense.

That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, it's energy no need fora creator, as nothing was created, it is.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #133 on: February 23, 2016, 06:28:45 AM »
Energy has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. Energy exists, this is objective, it can neither be created nor destroyed, the amount stays the same in the universe. Energy, namely photons move at the speed of light, they do not experience time (many people have pointed out your causality flaw, yet you persist), which means they are eternal in a sense.

That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, it's energy no need fora creator, as nothing was created, it is.

God has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. God exists, this is objective, he can neither be created nor destroyed, he stays the same in the universe. God, namely Jesus Christ moves as he wills, he does not experience time (many people have pointed out your suppression of the truth flaw, yet you persist), which means he is eternal in truth.

That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, God has no need for a creator, as he is creator of all that is.

"The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. "  Stephen Hawking

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #134 on: February 23, 2016, 07:50:33 AM »
I know these are concepts that for some are very hard to comprehend. Don't take it personally.

Exactly. The Creator is the first cause.  And, again, I gave you, I regurgitated, the answer to the same question you keep regurgitating. This is the last time I will do it. The example is the Creator. Please try to remember this. Don't ask for an example again. I will ignore it.

I cannot prove, verify, the existence of a Creator. I made arguments to support this belief. I've answered, regurgitated, this same answer  to the same question you keep asking. I will ignore future similar questions. My limit to regurgitating is reaching a critical limit.

You are violating your own logic, saying all needs a cause except this thing, you then call it a creator which to me implies sentience, which is quite a stretch.

You have yet to give one example of something outside of time that one can test, or outside of space for that matter. How can your argument be a objective scientific one when no examples are testable?

You can't ask what was before the big bang, it;s like asking what's north or north, I assume you are trolling at this point.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #135 on: February 23, 2016, 07:53:44 AM »
God has always existed, come with me on a logical journey. God exists, this is objective, he can neither be created nor destroyed, he stays the same in the universe. God, namely Jesus Christ moves as he wills, he does not experience time (many people have pointed out your suppression of the truth flaw, yet you persist), which means he is eternal in truth.

That is all objective, aquinas stated that what exists is it's essence to exist, i agree, God has no need for a creator, as he is creator of all that is.

"The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention to create the universe and set it going. "  Stephen Hawking

It's not, god is not objective, energy is, we use it daily, we see it in bomb explosions, I can predict and measure it, manipulate it. It's sad really, people actually have advanced humankind and you think a cherry picked quote is a mic drop.

can energy be created? no, can it be destroyed? no, does it exist? yes..... asking what caused something which cannot be caused is illogical.

Man of Steel

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19388
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #136 on: February 23, 2016, 08:30:06 AM »
It's not, god is not objective, energy is, we use it daily, we see it in bomb explosions, I can predict and measure it, manipulate it. It's sad really, people actually have advanced humankind and you think a cherry picked quote is a mic drop.

can energy be created? no, can it be destroyed? no, does it exist? yes..... asking what caused something which cannot be caused is illogical.

God is the most objective standard there is.  I'm desperately trying to convey that to so many here so that God doesn't drop the final mic on you.

You can ignore Hawking's motivation, but it's clear his intentions are not "purely scientific".  It's a very specific agenda and it's foundations are subjectivity and presupposition.  Hawking's work is a large part of the foundation for modern physics and cosmology and it's grounded in eliminating God.

It's clear that this research is geared towards conforming evidence to a predetermined conclusion.  This isn't universal as many folks do seek honest advancement of knowledge.  God haters (I know "can't hate what doesn't exist") like Hawking are approaching this study with an absolute bias.  Swat it away as nothing but the majority opinion is still that the universe had a beginning.

Can energy be created?  Can energy be destroyed?  No it can't.  Neither by humanity or "the universe".  That's a law of the natural world....it's a boundary for man and the entirety of the universe.  God transcends the universe and is not bound by natural laws.  God is the divine, supernatural moral and natural lawgiver.   He can invent, add and take away as he wills and that includes energy.  The only element of casuality that is uncaused is that which does not have a beginning and that only applies to God.  

I also love context because it corrects so many errors that people bring to me.  That said, here is the entirety of the context containing the quotation:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #137 on: February 23, 2016, 11:14:00 AM »
There is causality as I pertains to science and there is causality as it pertains to philosophy.

Of course you will always find disagreement. Not everyone believes the earth is round. I appeal to modern, mainstream, science.

 ???  Disagreement about what? You said that the law of cause and effect is fundamental to all natural sciences. There is no law of causality in physics. It is one thing to say the relationship between cause and effect is logical  (it is). Its an entirely different  to say it is a law and it's fundamental to all sciences. It's not.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #138 on: February 23, 2016, 08:05:43 PM »
???  Disagreement about what? You said that the law of cause and effect is fundamental to all natural sciences. There is no law of causality in physics. It is one thing to say the relationship between cause and effect is logical  (it is). Its an entirely different  to say it is a law and it's fundamental to all sciences. It's not.

Not everyone agrees on the principles of causality as it pertains to physics. You are one of them. I gave a very straight forward definition. You don't agree with it. I'm OK with that.

I will post a link that presents more of a discussion of the role of the principles of causality as it pertains to Physics. It doesn't matter what you think of the discussion per se, it's only to give you an example that the principles of causality is part of Physics.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #139 on: February 23, 2016, 08:12:42 PM »
You are violating your own logic, saying all needs a cause except this thing, you then call it a creator which to me implies sentience, which is quite a stretch.

You have yet to give one example of something outside of time that one can test, or outside of space for that matter. How can your argument be a objective scientific one when no examples are testable?

You can't ask what was before the big bang, it;s like asking what's north or north, I assume you are trolling at this point.

You keep asking this same question over and over and over again. I have answered it over and over and over again. You don't agree with my answer. I can live with that. Can you?

I thought atheist were the tolerant and rational ones?

You say I can't ask what was before the Big Bang? I say I can and I did and I do. If you think I am "trolling" then there is no need for further discussion.



avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #140 on: February 23, 2016, 08:14:09 PM »
Only within the context of the beginning of the universe. The beginning of matter and time. Which has been established at being 13.7 billion years ago. The Creator exist outside of matter and time. Many people have difficulty comprehending that and I understand why. I don't. I look at time, space and matter as a creation.

You are free to look at it any way you want - but don't expect us to just follow unless you can provide some evidence to back up your point of view. And you haven't so far.


The only other alternative is that something came from nothing. And that very well might be true. I can't prove otherwise. I just believe my argument for a creator is more rational. The idea that something comes from nothing to me, my perspective, my worldview, is not rational.

So... it's more rational to say "well, something couldn't have come from nothing, so something must have been created."? And where did this creator come from? You better not say from nothing, because that would - by your own admission - make your "perspective" and "worldview" irrational.


I don't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.

You say that "nothing begins without a cause" is "very LOGICAL". Certainly, in our everyday life this seems to apply. You push a glass of water off the edge of the table and it falls and shatters. You go online, pay $12.99 and soon a pizza is delivered to your door. You press the brake pedal on your car and your vehicle slows down. Cause and effect.

The problem is that you try to apply this logic to the Big Bang. What caused it? What came before it? These are questions that don't make sense. Causality ("A caused B") requires temporal ordering ("A happened before B") which, in turn, requires time. And time is a property of the Universe itself.


Well, now you asking me to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Well, I used to be quite familiar with general relativity. It was required reading if I wanted to spend most of 2008 programming simulations of supermassive black holes. But you know, everyone gets rusty and you seem so well-versed, I just couldn't resist.


There are far more competent and inform sources that can do that.

Of that, there can be little doubt.


Suffice to say that there is no matter without time.

You specifically said that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter". That wasn't accurate, and neither is this statement. Can you elaborate? What do you mean? Would you, perhaps, like me to explain general relativity to you?



Yes, there is. Time is a creation.

Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. You haven't proven that time is a creation. You've only asserted that it is, and assertions are meaningless.


It didn't always exist.

Maybe. Then again, maybe not.


It started, according to science, 13.7 billion years ago.

Well, that's not quite accurate.


Again, these are concepts that not everyone can understand or comprehend.

You must be speaking from personal experience.


Because it is something you cannot comprehend it will not deter me in the least.

Forgive me. I am a scientist and I like to use words correctly so that they make sense.


Having a belief has implications.

That's true.


When you say being an atheist means that they don't believe in a creator it doesn't stop there.

I said that " An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities." I said nothing about a "creator".


It follows that if there wasn't a creator how did the universe come to be?

How did the Universes' creator come to be?


If it didn't just come from nothing -- just alays was even though science has established a beginning -- then why are we here?

Was the creator always here?
 

Perhaps you can start a thread explaining this.

I leave the creation of such threads to people like you, who posit the existence of a creator they can't prove by labelling the Universe a "creation."




Sure:

This answers nothing, and repasting it won't make it more convincing. I asked you to explain the major discrepancy in your theory: namely, that you claim the Universe can't be uncaused but God (or, "the creator" if you prefer) can be. If you can't, then just say so.

I'll highlight one portion. You write:


Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

I've already explained why causality breaks down, but you refuse to understand. Still, let's move on. You suggest that the presence of what you label a creation implies a creator. Let's assume that it does. I posit, using the same arguments that you do, that the presence of a creator implies the existence of a pre-creator, who created the creator. And that, in turn, the existence of a pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-pre-creator. And so on. Ad infinitum.

I claim that this infinite regress proves your statement to be bunk. If you disagree, then I challenge you to break the infinite regress and proving that a creator is causeless.


There is a reason why I only made reference to a Creator. Calling something a Creator is very specific. Referring to a God opens a Pandora's box. Something I did not want to do.

The reason why you only made a reference to a creator was because you wanted to avoid having to justify the religious underpinning of your theory. So you coated it liberally in sciencey words.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #141 on: February 23, 2016, 08:59:59 PM »
You are free to look at it any way you want - but don't expect us to just follow unless you can provide some evidence to back up your point of view. And you haven't so far.

You should have read my first post, or if you did, comprehend it.

"My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof.

Quote
So... it's more rational to say "well, something couldn't have come from nothing, so something must have been created."? And where did this creator come from? You better not say from nothing, because that would - by your own admission - make your "perspective" and "worldview" irrational.

Yes, it is more rational. The Creator always existed.

Quote
You say that "nothing begins without a cause" is "very LOGICAL". Certainly, in our everyday life this seems to apply. You push a glass of water off the edge of the table and it falls and shatters. You go online, pay $12.99 and soon a pizza is delivered to your door. You press the brake pedal on your car and your vehicle slows down. Cause and effect.

The problem is that you try to apply this logic to the Big Bang. What caused it? What came before it? These are questions that don't make sense. Causality ("A caused B") requires temporal ordering ("A happened before B") which, in turn, requires time. And time is a property of the Universe itself.[/b]

I repeatedly explained this. Necrosis has asked this same question over and over and over again. He doesn't accept my argument and neither will you. That's why I am a theist and you are an atheist.

Quote
Well, I used to be quite familiar with general relativity. It was required reading if I wanted to spend most of 2008 programming simulations of supermassive black holes. But you know, everyone gets rusty and you seem so well-versed, I just couldn't resist.


Of that, there can be little doubt.


Quote
You specifically said that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter". That wasn't accurate, and neither is this statement. Can you elaborate? What do you mean? Would you, perhaps, like me to explain general relativity to you?

I already did. I know this is a long thread but you can't come into it midway, ignoring the previous discussion, and ask the same questions that has previous been addressed.

In answer to you last question. No.


Quote
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. You haven't proven that time is a creation. You've only asserted that it is, and assertions are meaningless.

You're correct. I haven't proven anything. A point I made abundantly clear in my first post. But I will try to be patient with you.

To you assertions are meaningless. To me they are not. Most every claim in life is an assertion.

Quote
Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Quote
Well, that's not quite accurate.

Well, some scientist claim 13.8 billion years. If  you have a much different figure you should subject your findings to the scientific community. I'm just going by what modern, mainstream, science says.

Quote
You must be speaking from personal experience.

Actually, no I comprehend them fully. That's why I am making these arguments.

Quote
Forgive me. I am a scientist and I like to use words correctly so that they make sense.

What kind of scientist are you? Perhaps you can submit a post explaining life, the universe and everything.

Quote
That's true.

Quote
I said that " An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities." I said nothing about a "creator".

That is a more precise definition. But I made no mention of a God.

Quote
How did the Universes' creator come to be?

Same question asked over and over and over again. Twice in this post alone. I've grown weary of repeating myself.

Quote
Was the creator always here?

Refer to the above response.
 
Quote
I leave the creation of such threads to people like you, who posit the existence of a creator they can't prove by labelling the Universe a "creation."

Of course, because you can't.



Quote
This answers nothing, and repasting it won't make it more convincing. I asked you to explain the major discrepancy in your theory: namely, that you claim the Universe can't be uncaused but God (or, "the creator" if you prefer) can be. If you can't, then just say so.

I can repast my post because it's a question that has already been asked constantly and it was addressed in my first post.

But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover.

Quote
I'll highlight one portion. You write:
I've already explained why causality breaks down, but you refuse to understand. Still, let's move on. You suggest that the presence of what you label a creation implies a creator. Let's assume that it does. I posit, using the same arguments that you do, that the presence of a creator implies the existence of a pre-creator, who created the creator. And that, in turn, the existence of a pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-pre-creator. And so on. Ad infinitum.

I claim that this infinite regress proves your statement to be bunk. If you disagree, then I challenge you to break the infinite regress and proving that a creator is causeless.

I've already explained the principles of causality and you are unable to understand.

I've already repeatedly address this issue to this repeatedly asked question. Please refer to my previous post.

Quote
The reason why you only made a reference to a creator was because you wanted to avoid having to justify the religious underpinning of your theory. So you coated it liberally in sciencey words.

Correct.

If you have read the thread, or comprehended it, you will find that I was very specific in stating that I wanted to separate the religious aspects as it opens a Pandora's box and the thread will go in all different directions. I wasn't keen to get into a religious argument.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #142 on: February 23, 2016, 09:20:12 PM »
It's curious that some people can go through life and not see that there are things beyond the senses and what can be explained solely by science. Miracles, if you will. It reminds me of Hamlet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

More and more I am coming to the belief that it's not so much that people refuse to see some of the "miracles" around them -- just the odds that there is even life here on this planet is mind boggling -- or that they don't want to see, but they simply CANNOT see. It doesn't matter how much evidence you present. They simply CANNOT see it. Even if they wanted to or wish they could. It's just hardwired in their nature. That's so sad. To think that this is all there is. That it doesn't matter if you are good or bad -- a Hitler or a Mother Teresa -- your ultimate fate is the same. No cosmic justice. Good and evil are meaningless terms.

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.

"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it’s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!"


-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass and What Alice found there.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #143 on: February 23, 2016, 09:45:14 PM »
Not everyone agrees on the principles of causality as it pertains to physics. You are one of them. I gave a very straight forward definition. You don't agree with it. I'm OK with that.

I will post a link that presents more of a discussion of the role of the principles of causality as it pertains to Physics. It doesn't matter what you think of the discussion per se, it's only to give you an example that the principles of causality is part of Physics.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

Once again, you're playing fast and loose with terms when it's convenient for your argument. I never said that causality didn't play a part in physics- I said there is no LAW OF CAUSALITY in physics. Yes, the definition you posted was very straight-forward, but it's not a physics law, whether you're okay with it or not.


You said you appeal to modern, mainstream science, but that site you linked to is specifically fringe. It's not surprising you would want to minimize specific points made in that link. Not only does it outright deny the possibility of a "creator", it denies the possibility of a Big Bang, the universal speed of light and the existence of magnetism. That's not a reference for mainstream physics. It's a fringe manifesto for radical physics theories. Within mainstream physics, there is no controversy surrounding whether or not there is a law of causality. There simply isn't one. You aren't going to find references to the "law of causality" on sites that adhere to mainstream physics.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #144 on: February 23, 2016, 10:04:20 PM »
Once again, you're playing fast and loose with terms when it's convenient for your argument. I never said that causality didn't play a part in physics- I said there is no LAW OF CAUSALITY in physics. Yes, the definition you posted was very straight-forward, but it's not a physics law, whether you're okay with it or not.


You said you appeal to modern, mainstream science, but that site you linked to is specifically fringe. It's not surprising you would want to minimize specific points made in that link. Not only does it outright deny the possibility of a "creator", it denies the possibility of a Big Bang, the universal speed of light and the existence of magnetism. That's not a reference for mainstream physics. It's a fringe manifesto for radical physics theories. Within mainstream physics, there is no controversy surrounding whether or not there is a law of causality. There simply isn't one. You aren't going to find references to the "law of causality" on sites that adhere to mainstream physics.

OK, principles of causality. Better?

I chose that site because it was a bit fringe.

Google "causality in Physics" and see if you get any entries.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #145 on: February 23, 2016, 10:31:18 PM »

I chose that site because it was a bit fringe.


Really? It wasn't because that was the only site you could find that stated that particular "law" in the context of physics?  I don't quite get the logic of choosing a fringe site to illustrate a point that I had already said was suspect. Were there any mainstream sites you chose not to link that used that definition?

Quote
OK, principles of causality. Better?
Google "causality in Physics" and see if you get any entries.

Once again, I never denied that causality plays a part in physics. What I specifically said is that there is no LAW of causality in physics. Yes, a relationship between causes and effects is acknowledged in physics- which is what I have already said and what you will get if you google "causality in physics". However, there is no physics law or principle stating that nothing begins without a cause. You have said at least three times that that is a fundamental principle of all natural sciences. In the context of this debate, this is not an arbitrary point. Your argument is: "There was a beginning to time and space" + "The Law of Causality says nothing begins without a cause". Half of that argument is not scientifically accurate.  

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #146 on: February 23, 2016, 10:54:28 PM »

Really? It wasn't because that was the only site you could find that stated that particular "law" in the context of physics?  I don't quite get the logic of choosing a fringe site to illustrate a point that I had already said was suspect. Were there any mainstream sites you chose not to link that used that definition?

Once again, I never denied that causality plays a part in physics. What I specifically said is that there is no LAW of causality in physics. Yes, a relationship between causes and effects is acknowledged in physics- which is what I have already said and what you will get if you google "causality in physics". However, there is no physics law or principle stating that nothing begins without a cause. You have said at least three times that that is a fundamental principle of all natural sciences. In the context of this debate, this is not an arbitrary point. Your argument is: "There was a beginning to time and space" + "The Law of Causality says nothing begins without a cause". Half of that argument is not scientifically accurate.  

True. If I said "Law" then I misspoke. A relationship with physics, being part of physics, is more precise.  When I sit here trying to respond to every question posed my language is more apt to be less than precise. In my original post, which I wrote at more leisure and paid more attention to my words and purposely did not mention physics, I said:

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger".


But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations. You are quite right on this point. If I could do so easily I would replace every mention of the word "law" as it pertains to physics and science with "principles" or "premise". I willingly concede this point to you and should have done so earlier if I was paying closer attention to your posts and the point you were trying to make.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #147 on: February 23, 2016, 11:44:41 PM »
True. If I said "Law" then I misspoke. A relationship with physics, being part of physics, is more precise.  When I sit here trying to respond to every question posed my language is more apt to be less than precise. In my original post, which I wrote at more leisure and paid more attention to my words and purposely did not mention physics, I said:
 

But thank you for clarifying the issue and an insistence on more precise language in a topic that is subject to a variety of interpretations.


I'll say it again: you are trying to apply the principle of casualty without considering the relevant context. You are, in essence, arguing that since we observe causal relationships in our every day life then causal relationships are universal.

That's simply not the case. Forget applying causality to the entire Universe to argue for a creator. You can't even apply causality to quantum events!

Your original grandiose post has been reduced to using scientific terminology in a decidedly unscientific way to argue that the Universe requires a creator because everything needs a cause... or almost everything because you feel like making the creator special.

If you believe that the Universe was created, good for you. But don't try to convince us that (a) this is a scientifically supported position or (b) that faith and rationality are two sides of the same coin.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #148 on: February 24, 2016, 08:14:24 AM »
I'll say it again: you are trying to apply the principle of casualty without considering the relevant context. You are, in essence, arguing that since we observe causal relationships in our every day life then causal relationships are universal.

That's simply not the case. Forget applying causality to the entire Universe to argue for a creator. You can't even apply causality to quantum events!

Your original grandiose post has been reduced to using scientific terminology in a decidedly unscientific way to argue that the Universe requires a creator because everything needs a cause... or almost everything because you feel like making the creator special.

If you believe that the Universe was created, good for you. But don't try to convince us that (a) this is a scientifically supported position or (b) that faith and rationality are two sides of the same coin.

My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?

And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.


My purpose is not to convert anybody and that these are matters of faith, i.e. belief in something in which there is no conclusive proof.

And what I present, to be precise, is not so much evidence but an argument for a Creator. An argument based of reason and science and not just emotion and wishful thinking.

Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof.


Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?
« Reply #149 on: February 24, 2016, 09:06:27 AM »
My friend, I've shown you the courtesy of answering or addressing each one of your questions and comments, as I have with everybody. But that courtesy is never returned. Please answer my ONE question to you: what kind of scientist are you?

And if this thread interest you so much that you take the time to ask some very challenging questions you should at least read the entire thread because I can't keep addressing the same point over and over again. I made my intention crystal clear in my first post. It's been stated several times in this thread and stated three times in my first post.



But your whole argument falls apart when your central tenet, everything requires a cause or has a cause, isn't even objectively true in physics.

Your perception is a terrible tool, our perception is terrible, it's not real in a fundamental sense.