NationStates Jolt Archive

So Neo, everything that comprises of the universe wasn't there where did it come from?

It came from nowhere.

If the universe can't have come from anywhere or being anything before that then it can't have just bgun on its own, the energy had to come from somewhere.

Sure it could have begun on its own, there's nothing saying it can't.

So Neo, everything that comprises of the universe wasn't there where did it come from?

If the universe can't have come from anywhere or being anything before that then it can't have just bgun on its own, the energy had to come from somewhere.

Why? I mean that certainly is true within the universe, but not necessarily true with the rules that existed before the universe.

Can you actually read, or do you have someone who speaks your language only secondarily translating the screen to you?

ahh the final vestige of the defeated. Bitter insults. I gotta say, you fell apart faster than I thought you would.

Can you actually read, or do you have someone who speaks your language only secondarily translating the screen to you?

I can read just fine, care to answer my question?

*sigh* Than God had to come from somewhere.

So, either God also had a creator, or the something (like the universe) could have aways been.

*sigh* Only things in space-time have to have a cause. God is outside of space-time, thus God does not need a cause.

ahh the final vestige of the defeated. Bitter insults. I gotta say, you fell apart faster than I thought you would.

Poo head! Im taking my ball and going home!

All things (in space-time) do need a cause. This is undisputable. Do dispute it is to prove that you are insane or an idiot. And everything that is a creation inherently has to be created.

damn idiotic quantum physicists

ahh the final vestige of the defeated. Bitter insults. I gotta say, you fell apart faster than I thought you would.

I was not the first to resort to these. And I was asking an actual question. Since he ignores both my post and part of his own.

I meant that your metaphorical building was made of atoms (different kinds, but atoms are the largest category in which everything in the building fits into).

I'm sure you are aware that the extent of the universe is largely filled with detritus like planet, stars, penguins, and other space-going flotsam and jetsam?

I'm sure you are also aware, that between these occassional lumps of matter in the infinite gravy of space... there's a lot of 'nothing'?

Surely, logically, the "largest category", then... must be NOT-atoms?

damn idiotic quantum physicists

Even they agree to this.

Infinitely recursive iteration is equivocal. Please define what you mean by that term.

Equivocal? Try thinking about the context of the current discussion and its meaning is quite clear.

I have to get dinner, but consider this:

"I can prove there is a God!

You see, every integer has an integer before it, right? For any integer n, there is an integer n-1! (analogous to the assumption "everything has a cause").

But of course, there must be something that begins it all, an n for which there is no prior n! (analogous to your assumption "there must be an Uncaused Causer).

Therefore, I will call this first integer God!"

When you see why this doesn't work, you'll start to get infinite recursion and why its merely one of several ways your argument fails.

*sigh* Than God had to come from somewhere.

So, either God also had a creator, or the something (like the universe) could have aways been.

KoL I'm asking a fucking question here I'm not trying to prove the existance of God or anything I'm trying to get someone eles view on the issue. So perhaps instead of sighing you could answer the fucking question.

I'm sure you are aware that the extent of the universe is largely filled with detritus like planet, stars, penguins, and other space-going flotsam and jetsam?

I'm sure you are also aware, that between these occassional lumps of matter in the infinite gravy of space... there's a lot of 'nothing'?

Surely, logically, the "largest category", then... must be NOT-atoms?

You, my friend, are the victim of a metaphor.

And even this gravy is subject to time, etc.

*sigh* Only things in space-time have to have a cause.

I see. Well, question for you. Where was the "space-time" that all this stuff existed in, prior to the universe existing? See, that's the problem you just don't get. There WAS no space time before the universe existed. There was no matter, no energy, no time or space or rules. There was no rule that said "things can't exist from nowhere". That's a rule of THIS universe, it had no bearing on the absence of a universe.

And since the rule "things can't exist without a cause" didn't exist, there was nothing stopping matter from spontaneously, without cause, coming into existence. There can be no rules without the rulebook.

You can't apply the laws of the universe to an absence of the universe.

Infinitely recursive iteration is equivocal. Please define what you mean by that term.

What do you think 'equivocal' means?

Infinitely (existing to infinite extremes) recursive (occuring, repeatedly) iteration (form or incarnation) is almost the exact opposite of equivocal.

It came from nowhere.

So it had already been there always?

Sure it could have begun on its own, there's nothing saying it can't.

But if it had always been there and came from nowhere it can't have begun at all.

KoL I'm asking a fucking question here I'm not trying to prive the existance of God or anything I'm trying to get someone eles view on the issue. So perhaps instead of sighing you could answer the fucking question.

And, if you use that little skill called reading, you can see that after my *sigh* I did answer the question.

*sigh* Only things in space-time have to have a cause. God is outside of space-time, thus God does not need a cause.

and space-time exists as a function of the universe and didn't exist (in a recognizable way) before the universe. The creation of the universe, by definition exists outside our space-time, which by your own logic means that it need not have a cause.

You are in rare form, sir. Rare form!

*bows*

I can't take the credit. I think Hammy is shooting me with crossbows. Or something.

What do you think 'equivocal' means?

Infinitely (existing to infinite extremes) recursive (occuring, repeatedly) iteration (form or incarnation) is almost the exact opposite of equivocal.

If you are refering to the possibility of an infinite time, I have already stated why this is impossible a few pages back.

So it had already been there always?

In a sense. Time is a closed system, there couldn't be time since before there was time. So time has existed only as long as the universe has existed, so in that sense it's always been there, since there was not time before there was time.


But if it had always been there and came from nowhere it can't have begun at all.

It's been there as long as time has been there, thus in that sense it's "always", but not in the sense you're probably thinking, of an infinite time.

If the universe can't have come from anywhere or being anything before that then it can't have just bgun on its own, the energy had to come from somewhere.

Potential energy spontaneously becoming kinetic energy.

and space-time exists as a function of the universe and didn't exist (in a recognizable way) before the universe. The creation of the universe, by definition exists outside our space-time, which by your own logic means that it need not have a cause.

The creation of the universe is simultaneously the creation of space-time. They came into existence at the same time. The universe is the space time continuum. From the OED: universe (n.) - The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively

Everything existing in space? Check.
Everything existing in time? Check.

Why? I mean that certainly is true within the universe, but not necessarily true with the rules that existed before the universe.

So the universe had to come from somewhere and so to did the energy from that is contained within the universe, though we have other views on this thread that it didn't come from anywhere.

So where we're at is:


all effects have a cause (an intuitive rule, for which I am aware of no proof)
the universe is an effect (again intuitive, we say "universe" for a thing vast in space and time and beyond our personal experience)
the effect cannot be its own cause, therefore some "non-universe" must have pre-existed.
that non-universe is God.

If God is defined as nothing but the cause of the existence of the universe, then it follows that there is no God IN the universe. I think I can keep a straight face for that.

If you are refering to the possibility of an infinite time, I have already stated why this is impossible a few pages back.

oh, of course, i'm blind. The most brilliant scientists in the world debate constantly on this very subject. Nobel prize winners, physicists of the highest caliber, literally the smartest people who ever lived grapple, debate, and argue about this very question for their entire careers.

What fools they have been, when the question could have been proven impossible by...um....this guy, on the internet.

The creation of the universe is simultaneously the creation of space-time. They came into existence at the same time. The universe is the space time continuum. From the OED: universe (n.) - The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively

Everything existing in space? Check.
Everything existing in time? Check.

so you agree with me? Good, I'm glad that we are now on the same page now.

And, if you use that little skill called reading, you can see that after my *sigh* I did answer the question.

It was the fist bit I was talking about.

Potential energy spontaneously becoming kinetic energy.

Objects possess potential energy. What object possessed this pre-creative potential energy.

*sigh* Only things in space-time have to have a cause. God is outside of space-time, thus God does not need a cause.

You again assume that "God" is the only possible concept "outside of space time",

you still don't understand the premise of infinite recursion,

and you're still contradicting yourself: if God needs no cause because he's outside space time, then the big bang (an even which resulted in space time and thus precedes it and is "outside" it) doesn't need a cause either.

You're still restating claims that have been demonstrated as erroneous by several people several times. My wife is getting the baby ready to go.

so you agree with me? Good, I'm glad that we are now on the same page now.

I have made this same point the whole time. I'm sorry if it wasn't in clear enough terms.

So the universe had to come from somewhere and so to did the energy from that is contained within the universe, though we have other views on this thread that it didn't come from anywhere.

your use of the term "somewhere" isn't exactly correct. That's the problem with these discussions, you're trying to explore concepts that have no words in our language.

There was no "where". There was no "when". Things like space and time are totally bound within our universe. It didn't come from "somewhere". It quite literally came from nowhere. There was no where for it to come from.

Potential energy spontaneously becoming kinetic energy.

Yes but the energy is already there, potential to kinetic is just the energy changing (excause the poor term) itself.

Even they agree to this.
That every event has a cause? You are entirely mistaken. There may or may not be a cause why a particular radioactive nucleus decays this instant, rather than not doing so: but within physics, there is no assignable cause; and not all physicists that it even means anything to speak of there being a non-physical cause.
If you are refering to the possibility of an infinite time, I have already stated why this is impossible a few pages back.
You have ASSERTED that it is impossible. You have not given any reason why it would be impossible.

So the universe had to come from somewhere and so to did the energy from that is contained within the universe, though we have other views on this thread that it didn't come from anywhere.

No, the rules which you are using to say that the universe had to have a cause came into existence with the universe and therefor are not applicable. Granted it would have been better if I had said:Why? I mean that certainly is true within the universe, but not necessarily true with the rules(or lack thereof that existed before the universe.

The creation of the universe is simultaneously the creation of space-time. They came into existence at the same time. The universe is the space time continuum. From the OED: universe (n.) - The whole of created or existing things regarded collectively

Everything existing in space? Check.
Everything existing in time? Check.

The term "creation" is itself an assumption that implies a creator without proving it. All of your axioms already assume your proposition to be true. Look up logic again.

Even with your assumptions, if the universe came into being simultaneously with space-time, the necessary states or conditions are also "outside of space time" by your logic and thus don't need a cause, by your logic.

Again, you contradict yourself.

EDIT: Okay, now I have to go, and GnI has already systematically rebutted every central premise of your argument. Seriously, though, if you want to be taken more seriously, come up with more than just assumptions, restatements, and ignoring key critques and alternatives.

I have made this same point the whole time. I'm sorry if it wasn't in clear enough terms.

No, actually you have, I stated (obliquely) that there is no need for a creator, you have been arguing that there is a need. I'm glad we convinced you though. ;)

That every event has a cause? You are entirely mistaken. There may or may not be a cause why a particular radioactive nucleus decays this instant, rather than not doing so: but within physics, there is no assignable cause; and not all physicists that it even means anything to speak of there being a non-physical cause.

You have ASSERTED that it is impossible. You have not given any reason why it would be impossible.

These have causes. The nucleus decays due to a certain number of factors that exist leading to that state. Just because we are not able to discern all of them... Still, it is postulated that the entry and exit of an electron into the nucleus leads to this decay.

And I did give a reason. Read the post. Post it again if you feel it is necessary.

No, actually you have, I stated (obliquely) that there is no need for a creator, you have been arguing that there is a need. I'm glad we convinced you though. ;)

The creator I am refering to is the cause of the space-time continuum.

Now, you're turn. Prove to me that there need be no creator.

In a sense. Time is a closed system, there couldn't be time since before there was time. So time has existed only as long as the universe has existed, so in that sense it's always been there, since there was not time before there was time.

So what was before time.

Now is the universe simply a collection of galaxies and empty space? Before the universe would we still not have had the universe? An endless space of nothingness? Would that still not be the universe? And while there may be no time, and no beginning, and if there was no begining then why is it even here?


It's been there as long as time has been there, thus in that sense it's "always", but not in the sense you're probably thinking, of an infinite time.

Well, yes as in it was always here before time.

your use of the term "somewhere" isn't exactly correct. That's the problem with these discussions, you're trying to explore concepts that have no words in our language.

Well that is true.

There was no "where". There was no "when". Things like space and time are totally bound within our universe. It didn't come from "somewhere". It quite literally came from nowhere. There was no where for it to come from.

But how did it come at all? Even if it was from nowhere, it would have to have been existing the entire time.

Now, you're turn. Prove to me that there need be no creator.

You cant prove a negative.

Besides, you personally havent proven anything.

The creator I am refering to is the cause of the space-time continuum.
And we (by we I mean primarily GnI and Neo A) have shown how your reasoning is flawed, you keep trying to apply the rules of the system to something which occured outside the system.
Now, you're turn. Prove to me that there need be no creator.
OK, this is going to be really, really hard to articulate....

There is no reason to assume that the rules that exist within this universe existed before this universe.


Wait, I was wrong, that wasn't hard at all.

*shouts at sky*

Oi!! Answer me you bearded cretin!

*listens*



No answer.

That's enough proof to satisfy me.
That only proves that nobody in the sky wants to talk to you. Hardly surprising considering how rude your shout was. I wouldn't answer you, either. :tongue:

What proof do you have that he does exsist?
None. But then, (A) I'm not the one making claims about the existence/non-existence of god, and (B) he's not my god anyway. I don't know the first thing about him.

You cant prove a negative.

Besides, you personally havent proven anything.

You can prove a negative.

Read this:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

And we (by we I mean primarily GnI and Neo A) have shown how your reasoning is flawed, you keep trying to apply the rules of the system to something which occured outside the system.

OK, this is going to be really, really hard to articulate....

There is no reason to assume that the rules that exist within this universe existed before this universe.


Wait, I was wrong, that wasn't hard at all.

No, you have not give any reasons as to why it is flawed yet. You have just said that is flawed. And all I have said about before this universe is that something existed then that created this universe, something that was not a space-time continuum.

So what was before time.

Nothing.

Now is the universe simply a collection of galaxies and empty space? Before the universe would we still not have had the universe? An endless space of nothingness? Would that still not be the universe? And while there may be no time, and no beginning, and if there was no begining then why is it even here?

No, it's actually more complicated than that...

OK, here's the easiest way I can explain it. Imagine a book. A giant, heavy tome. It is entitled "the rules of existence", and within its massive text are all the rules of reality, all the physical realities, the formula, the vast truth of the universe, the thing that the greatest minds of science would sell their soult o glance at. It's all there, every rule. "time goes this way --->" , "e=mc^2", "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a cold glass of milk is delicious" etc. etc.

And everything in that book is absolutely, utterly true. It has to be, such is the nature of the book that everything in it is true. And within the myriad of rules is a rule that says "no rules may appear in this book spontaneously and without cause, every rule in the universe must exist with cause, and every rule that exists must have a cause for its existence"

And thus we see this rule, and some people, like this person we're discussing with, sees that rule and says "AHA! This rule says ever rule in this book must be written by someone! The rules can't spontaneously appear, so there MUST be a writer!"

Which is...not a totally foolish presumption, just an unsound one, for one simple question. What happened before that rule was there? If the rule says "all rules in this book must be written by something", then what about before that rule was there? if the only thing stopping rules from appearing, at random, in the book, is the rule that says they can't, then before that rule appeared, rules could indeed just...appear. There was nothing stopping it. The rule didn't apply before it applied, and there was nothing preventing the entire book, completely filled with rules, from appearing, all by itself, out of nowhere. True, once it did, the rule that says "nothing appears from nowhere" kicks in, but that didn't exist until it existed, and prior to that, nothing was stopping it from happening.

[QUOTE=Neo Art;14149294]Nothing.
[QUOTE]

Please tell me how something comes out of nothing. It just...appears? Ha! You think that God is illogical.

That only proves that nobody in the sky wants to talk to you. Hardly surprising considering how rude your shout was. I wouldn't answer you, either. :tongue:

Bah! If god exsists then he's an asshat and deserves everything he gets.

None. But then, (A) I'm not the one making claims about the existence/non-existence of god, and (B) he's not my god anyway. I don't know the first thing about him.

That's a good answer. :D

It just...appears?

Of course, why couldn't it?

Of course, why couldn't it?

Next time you see something appear from nothing (truly from nothing, not just from some cause that you did not see), please tell me, because I see this as a logical impossibility.

You can prove a negative.

Read this:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
Someone a while ago, maybe Free Soviets, pointed out that assuming we can't prove a negative, we have no way of proving that we can't prove a negative. I thought that was quite clever (and true).

No, you have not give any reasons as to why it is flawed yet. You have just said that is flawed. And all I have said about before this universe is that something existed then that created this universe, something that was not a space-time continuum.

No, you stated that the had to be something, we have shown why the assumption that there had to be a pre-causal entity is flawed. (It based on rules that exist within the universe, rules which did not necessarily exist before the universe)

You know, here's a very simple example, from my own profession. There are two rules:

1) nobody can be a lawyer without having first passed the bar exam.

2) the bar exam must be written by lawyers.

Both of those statements are true. Now we see the problem here, if lawyers must pass the bar exam to be lawyers, but the bar exam must be written by lawyers...where did the first bar exam come from???

If we resort to the "logic" of killogram we must accept that there's a special kind of lawyer, some lawyer that existed before lawyers, who defied all the rules, an "uber lawyer" who could exist before the rules that allowed him to exist existed, and he created the first bar exam.

We could accept that.

Or we could just say "rules changed", we could recognize that the rule was "no lawyer from this point on can be a lawyer without having passed the bar exam" and have far less of a headache.

Next time you see something appear from nothing (truly from nothing, not just from some cause that you did not see), please tell me, because I see this as a logical impossibility.

So then what created God? If everything needs a creator...


You have yet to give a satisfactory answer to this.

Next time you see something appear from nothing (truly from nothing, not just from some cause that you did not see), please tell me, because I see this as a logical impossibility.

1) your failure to comprehend something doesn't mean it can't exist. I'm not at all comforted by a god born from your ignorance

2) since you didn't exist before the universe existed, you're hardly in a position to speak towards what was possible before existence existed.

You know, here's a very simple example, from my own profession. There are two rules:

1) nobody can be a lawyer without having first passed the bar exam.

2) the bar exam must be written by lawyers.

Both of those statements are true. Now we see the problem here, if lawyers must pass the bar exam to be lawyers, but the bar exam must be written by lawyers...where did the first bar exam come from???

If we resort to the "logic" of killogram we must accept that there's a special kind of lawyer, some lawyer that existed before lawyers, who defied all the rules, an "uber lawyer" who could exist before the rules that allowed him to exist existed, and he created the first bar exam.

We could accept that.

Or we could just say "rules changed", and have far less of a headache.



You dont believe in the Uber Lawyer?

Youre going to Lawyer Hell.

Nothing.

So then the universe had to appear at the start of time? Or did time start when the universe appeared?

No, it's actually more complicated than that...

OK, here's the easiest way I can explain it. Imagine a book. A giant, heavy tome. It is entitled "the rules of existence", and within its massive text are all the rules of reality, all the physical realities, the formula, the vast truth of the universe, the thing that the greatest minds of science would sell their soult o glance at. It's all there, every rule. "time goes this way --->" , "e=mc^2", "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a cold glass of milk is delicious" etc. etc.

And everything in that book is absolutely, utterly true. It has to be, such is the nature of the book that everything in it is true. And within the myriad of rules is a rule that says "no rules may appear in this book spontaneously and without cause, every rule in the universe must exist with cause, and every rule that exists must have a cause for its existence"

And thus we see this rule, and some people, like this person we're discussing with, sees that rule and says "AHA! This rule says ever rule in this book must be written by someone! The rules can't spontaneously appear, so there MUST be a writer!"

Which is...not a totally foolish presumption, just an unsound one, for one simple question. What happened before that rule was there? If the rule says "all rules in this book must be written by something", then what about before that rule was there? if the only thing stopping rules from appearing, at random, in the book, is the rule that says they can't, then before that rule appeared, rules could indeed just...appear. There was nothing stopping it. The rule didn't apply before it applied, and there was nothing preventing the entire book, completely filled with rules, from appearing, all by itself, out of nowhere. True, once it did, the rule that says "nothing appears from nowhere" kicks in, but that didn't exist until it existed, and prior to that, nothing was stopping it from happening.

You are going to have to give me some time to think through this properly.

Though if that book did have a law saying "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a cold glass of milk is delicious" then I would doubt the validity of that book :p

You dont believe in the Uber Lawyer?

Youre going to Lawyer Hell.

I thought he qualified for that just based on the fact that he is a lawyer...
:p

Could you give me some examples? Only the ancient Greeks were really that cross-discipline, and I don't think we really accept anything of what they said anymore apart from some basic mathematics.

Plato's irrational hatred of poets makes me doubt the logic of his Republic. What's wrong with that?
I think I already explained what's wrong with it. And I could go look up some comments from humanist and enlightenment philosophers having to do with medicine and navigation and other hot science-y topics of their time, about which they were completely wrong, but I can't be bothered.

Ha! I don't think you can give that beating! What I'm scared of is a gigantic thread about truth. AGAIN.
Oh, yeah, sure, right, that's the ticket, yeah. You're just trying to save server space. Sure. :p

PS

*meow*
The catbox is down the hall.

I thought he qualified for that just based on the fact that he is a lawyer...
:p

Thats regular Hell. Lawyer Hell is different. Its just a room filled with other laywers. Its pretty bad.

1) your failure to comprehend something doesn't mean it can't exist. I'm not at all comforted by a god born from your ignorance

2) since you didn't exist before the universe existed, you're hardly in a position to speak towards what was possible before existence existed.

I am not saying that I cannot comprehend it. I am saying that it is a logical impossibility. To correct me, you must tell me how it happens. And, in any case, I could also say that, just because you don't understand God doesn't mean he does not exist.

And you are also supposing you know what was before the universe by saying that nothing was there.

The universe exists. This simple fact proves the existance of God.
No, it doesn't.*



(*At the risk of making HC&S's head explode and in full acknowledgement that I have not yet read all the pages in which I'm sure it is explained to you why it doesn't.)

Thats regular Hell. Lawyer Hell is different. Its just a room filled with other laywers. Its pretty bad.

Wow.

I don't think anybody deserves that. That's just horrible.

So then the universe had to appear at the start of time? Or did time start when the universe appeared?

Both, in a way. Time exists as a continuity only within the confines of the universe. Thus time could not exist until there was a universe for it to exist in. Conversely, The universe could not exist at any point after the start of time, since that would require time to exist without its framework.

It's like asking does the glass hold the water, or does the water sit inside the glass. Both. There could be no time without the universe, and the universe had to start at the beginning of time, since whenever it started would be the beginning.

Don't forget pirates and ninjas.
Pirates, totally.

The creator I am refering to is the cause of the space-time continuum.

Now, you're turn. Prove to me that there need be no creator.

Suppose that I have an orange before me.

I am convinced of the existence of this orange, though unfortunately the basis of my conviction is not in fact proof. I trust my senses, if in doubt I can do various experiments (eating, throwing against wall, measuring pH of juice) but they do not amount to a logical proof.

The nearest to a logical proof I have is Occam's Razor. An alternative theory as to why I see, smell and feel the orange -- other than It Is There -- would be more complicated, and absent any real doubt of the existence of the orange, unnecessary. That does not make an alternative theory wrong, it just gives a reason to prefer the intuitive and simpler theory.

Now, I am content that unless I or someone else eats the orange, or it rots, or some other CAUSE makes it cease to be an orange, the orange will continue to exist. That is, it WILL exist only because IT DOES now exist.

Ergo, the orange is its own creator when seen from this moment when it already exists.

This answers your demand. The universe exists from some point in time, without any need for a creator other than itself. Only when you insist that "the entire universe" must have come into existence do you make a requirement for something "not of the universe" to have existed as it's cause.

Now, why are you certain that the universe has not always existed?

Wow.

I don't think anybody deserves that. That's just horrible.

But, but, Neo A doesn't believe in the Über Lawyer...

Wow.

I don't think anybody deserves that. That's just horrible.

Lawyers do.


Im sure talking a lot of smack for a guy whos going to law school pretty soon:p

So then what created God? If everything needs a creator...


You have yet to give a satisfactory answer to this.

Another God and so on and so forth. :wink: Or the universe created God and he is a being that was created by it or something.

I am not saying that I cannot comprehend it. I am saying that it is a logical impossibility. To correct me, you must tell me how it happens.

It happens because it can happen, since prior to the universe, there was nothing stopping it from happening. I can't use physical laws to explain the creation of the universe to you, those laws didn't exist. It happened because it could.

it could because there was nothing to stop it.

And you are also supposing you know what was before the universe by saying that nothing was there.

Exactly, there was nothing there. Nothing at all, no laws to say it couldn't happen. And in a meaningless vacuum of the absence of time, which is both infinity long and no time at all, anything that can happen will, because it can, and therefore must.

Wow.

I don't think anybody deserves that. That's just horrible.

you have no idea....

Both, in a way. [b] Time exists as a continuity only within the confines of the universe. [b] Thus time could not exist until there was a universe for it to exist in. Conversely, The universe could not exist at any point after the start of time, since that would require time to exist without its framework.

It's like asking does the glass hold the water, or does the water sit inside the glass. Both. There could be no time without the universe, and the universe had to start at the beginning of time, since whenever it started would be the beginning.

And sometimes not even then, when you get into things like relativity and black holes. Time's a funny thing to pin down.

What the Christian might call discernment, and might consider a holy gift.

The problem is - a whole load of people running around with inner editors, isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking for ways to comprehend, rationalise, or choose to discard the things I'm being told as truth.

Internal editors are, obviously, subjective. What does that tell us about objective truth?
So...are you saying you don't want to do your own thinking? You want a tool or system that will do the discerning for you? I'd rather have everyone rely on their inner editors, thanks.

I agree it is unreasonable to expect people to be right about everything. However, some people insist on trotting out these EXTRA quantities... like an infallible God. By THEIR definitions of what he's supposed to be - he SHOULD be right about everything.

So - when they present his 'truths' and half of them are horseshit... it's hard to attach much significance to the rest. Infallible is only any good until you fall.
Yeah, but they're just people. What the fuck do they know about god(s)? People say all kinds of things. If you're going to dismiss every single thing a person says just because 80-90% of what they say is horseshit, then you won't be able to give credence to anything anyone says, since most of what most people say is horseshit.

\
Now, why are you certain that the universe has not always existed?

I am glad to see someone else who can argue rationally. The reason that the universe cannot have always existed is known as the Kalam argument, which I have, albeit in few words, already explained. It might be easier just to look it up, though.

Both, in a way. Time exists as a continuity only within the confines of the universe. Thus time could not exist until there was a universe for it to exist in. Conversely, The universe could not exist at any point after the start of time, since that would require time to exist without its framework.

It's like asking does the glass hold the water, or does the water sit inside the glass. Both. There could be no time without the universe, and the universe had to start at the beginning of time, since whenever it started would be the beginning.

Could there be a beginning though? If the universe was always here then that means there can't have been a beginning and there always had to be time. But then that means time has no starting point and no ending point I would say it just continues but then that would mean that it must be travelling in a straight line, could it be possible that time simply exists? Now if the universe was always here so to has time been it still leaves the question as to how did the universe come about, but if it was always here and always will be it can't have come about at all nor could it have come from nowhere.

I know my questions and musings are all over the place.

My problem with this debate was best expressed by Douglas Adams, and I can't do anything but a poor paraphrase, so apologies in advance.

Why is religion the one area we're just not allowed to probe with any kind of rational lines of questioning? We can be empirical or scientific about anything BUT religion. People say it's impolite or rude or whatever, but I have to agree with Adams and ask why that one part of life gets the free pass from critical inquiry?

Until I can get an answer that's not a load of dingo's kidneys, I'll always be suspicious of religious motives. Less so of motives like charity but more so of virtually all others. Especially those connected to politics.

Objects possess potential energy. What object possessed this pre-creative potential energy.

Ah, so Newtonian and three-dimensional.

Objects possess kinetic energy because they can have potential reactions in proportion to other objects. Their potential energy is the displaced kinetic energy.

In the case of a pre-Universal non-time-non-space continuum, the potential energy would be the energy potentiated by the non-existence of time/space-continual time-space.

Obviously.

I am glad to see someone else who can argue rationally. The reason that the universe cannot have always existed is known as the Kalam argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_argument), which I have, albeit in few words, already explained. It might be easier just to look it up, though.

Except you haven't explained anything, you have simply repeated that "everything must have a cause (except god) so the universe had a cause (which was god).

edit linked to the wiki for the flawed argument you're using

Yes but the energy is already there, potential to kinetic is just the energy changing (excause the poor term) itself.

Exactly.

The 'event' we call the Big Bang... was nothing more than the trasformation of potential energy to kinetic.

So then what created God? If everything needs a creator...


You have yet to give a satisfactory answer to this.
I'm guessing God, not being an universalite, is not bound by the same laws that exist in it (and thus needs no creator).
That being said, I'm wondering whether the idea of a Meta-God really contradicts Christianity, or an religion. It's monotheistic, but God probably wouldn't consider His Creator a God. It's not illogical, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't fit with the rest of Christian belief.
New denomination, here I come...

If you are refering to the possibility of an infinite time, I have already stated why this is impossible a few pages back.

No, you haven't.

Dishonesty doesn't suit you.

I am glad to see someone else who can argue rationally. The reason that the universe cannot have always existed is known as the Kalam argument, which I have, albeit in few words, already explained. It might be easier just to look it up, though.

The Kalam arguement uses the universe having a beginning as a premise, i.e. it assumes it is so. The actual arguement goes to proving that everything must have a cause.

How does this prove the universe hasn't always exsisted?

An Atheist in the Woods

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. "What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.

As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes. Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear raising his paw to take a swipe at him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out: "Oh my God!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. It was then that a bright light shone upon the man and a voice came out of the sky saying,

"You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others that I don't exist and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the BEAR a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice. The light went out. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

The bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke,

"Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful."
-.-

-shakes head- I'm Atheist Agnostic, and saying 'my God', or something similar doesn't mean it refers to the Christian God. It could mean Zeus, Pluto, the Horned God, or any other.

My problem with this debate was best expressed by Douglas Adams, and I can't do anything but a poor paraphrase, so apologies in advance.

Why is religion the one area we're just not allowed to probe with any kind of rational lines of questioning? We can be empirical or scientific about anything BUT religion. People say it's impolite or rude or whatever, but I have to agree with Adams and ask why that one part of life gets the free pass from critical inquiry?

Until I can get an answer that's not a load of dingo's kidneys, I'll always be suspicious of religious motives. Less so of motives like charity but more so of virtually all others. Especially those connected to politics.

Adams is wrong, it is not getting a free ride it is getting and always has been getting crictical inquiry even in this thread.

No, you have not give any reasons as to why it is flawed yet. You have just said that is flawed. And all I have said about before this universe is that something existed then that created this universe, something that was not a space-time continuum.

No - by your OWN definitions, the laws of cause and effect do not apply to 'events' that occur 'before' the formation of time/space.

You have not shown that ANOTHER space-time continuum could not have spawned THIS continuum. You have not shown any characteristic about the prime source other than that it must be outside of space-time.

ANY event or object existant before the creation, MUST conform to your definition.

Thus - god is no more likely that infinite recursion. Less, even - because we at least have evidence of universes.

My problem with this debate was best expressed by Douglas Adams, and I can't do anything but a poor paraphrase, so apologies in advance.

Why is religion the one area we're just not allowed to probe with any kind of rational lines of questioning? We can be empirical or scientific about anything BUT religion. People say it's impolite or rude or whatever, but I have to agree with Adams and ask why that one part of life gets the free pass from critical inquiry?

Until I can get an answer that's not a load of dingo's kidneys, I'll always be suspicious of religious motives. Less so of motives like charity but more so of virtually all others. Especially those connected to politics.

Plenty of people apply critical inquiry to religion. Sometimes it verifies what they already believe, sometimes they come up with radically new religions, and sometimes they leave religion altogether. People may say it's impolite or rude, but that means you shouldn't bring it up during a cocktail party or something, not that there's an univeral ban.

Let's try this again.

1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

2a. Infinity cannot progress.
b. Time progresses.
c. Time cannot be infinite.

I am glad to see someone else who can argue rationally. The reason that the universe cannot have always existed is known as the Kalam argument, which I have, albeit in few words, already explained. It might be easier just to look it up, though.

Hmm, a quick look at the Kalam argument doesn't convince me I'm afraid. Seems to hinge around the non-existence of an infinite quantity, which I fear cannot be applied to time.

If it DID, we could leap a very difficult scientific question: is time infinitely divisible? If I believe an hour exists, I must accept the existence of an infinity: subdivisions of that hour. Either the principle is wrong, when applied to time ... or hours don't exist. I know which of those I prefer!

OK, I'll have a longer look at this Kalam argument now.

2a. Infinity cannot progress.
b. Time progresses.
c. Time cannot be infinite.Time is a human invention; therefore, it is inherently flawed.

Hmm, a quick look at the Kalam argument doesn't convince me I'm afraid. Seems to hinge around the non-existence of an infinite quantity, which I fear cannot be applied to time.

If it DID, we could leap a very difficult scientific question: is time infinitely divisible? If I believe an hour exists, I must accept the existence of an infinity: subdivisions of that hour. Either the principle is wrong, when applied to time ... or hours don't exist. I know which of those I prefer!

OK, I'll have a longer look at this Kalam argument now.

Time is infinitely divisible, but not infinitely regressive.

So...are you saying you don't want to do your own thinking? You want a tool or system that will do the discerning for you? I'd rather have everyone rely on their inner editors, thanks.



I have my own internal editor, and it tells me that I don't need someone else's rule book, and that the universe is - probably - mostly as it appears to be. Given my pragmatic nature... that's about enough for me.

But it says nothing to OBJECTIVE truth.


Yeah, but they're just people. What the fuck do they know about god(s)? People say all kinds of things. If you're going to dismiss every single thing a person says just because 80-90% of what they say is horseshit, then you won't be able to give credence to anything anyone says, since most of what most people say is horseshit.

Missing the point. If the information is supposed to be coming from 'god'... and god is as much of a twonk as most people I meet... what exactly is the qualification for 'god'? And why should I believe ANYTHING attributed to him?

Let's try this again.p

Yes, lets.

1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have had a cause.

The bolded part is where you go off track. No such thing has ever been proven. To claim that you know it to be true, despite such proof, is the height of arrogance.

In fact, since we can not know what existed before existence, there is absolutely no way to prove that statement. Thus your entire premise is based on an unfounded claim, and, thus, fails.

Let's try this again.

1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

2a. Infinity cannot progress.
b. Time progresses.
c. Time cannot be infinite.

Imaginary Time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time)

Time is a human invention; therefore, it is inherently flawed.

No it is not. Our labels for time are, but time would exist even if we nuked ourselves to extinction.

Imaginary Time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time)

You know, physicists would probably get a lot more acceptance if they stopped coming up with labels like "imaginary time."

No it is not. Our labels for time are, but time would exist even if we nuked ourselves to extinction.The word time is also a human invention. Without humans to recognize time "passing by", time would not exist.

The word time is also a human invention. Without humans to recognize time "passing by", time would not exist.

So something only exists if you are there to see it?! Tell me more.

Let's try this again.

1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

2a. Infinity cannot progress.
b. Time progresses.
c. Time cannot be infinite.

1 is an assumption based on nothing more than belief. There is no reason to accept this premise.

2 is debatable.

3 is bad logic. Just because a thing exists, doesn't mean it had a cause.

2a is confused and wrong. It assumes that infinity acts as a boundary.

2b may or may not be true.

2c is bad logic, based on bad assumptions.

You know, physicists would probably get a lot more acceptance if they stopped coming up with labels like "imaginary time."

Normal people don't pay a blind bit of notice to what physicists call anything. They just like having microwaves and aeroplanes.

It's only the kind of people who frequent forums like this that ever read anything they do anyway.

Time is infinitely divisible, but not infinitely regressive.

Not really. In fact, if the graviton exists, which currently ongoing high-energy physics experiments are attempting to determine, it will show that spacetime itself is quantized, meaning it is not, in fact, infinitely divisible.

Even with currently existing models, it's generally understood that the Planck Time is the smallest unit if time that has any physical meaning.

Not really. In fact, if the graviton exists, which currently ongoing high-energy physics experiments are attempting to determine, it will show that spacetime itself is quantized, meaning it is not, in fact, infinitely divisible.

Even with currently existing models, it's generally understood that the Planck Time is the smallest unit if time that has any physical meaning.

I stand corrected.

You know, physicists would probably get a lot more acceptance if they stopped coming up with labels like "imaginary time."

It's largely an artifact of the math. Imaginary numbers, and whatnot, which are not themselves (in certain physical systems) really all that imaginary.

Normal people don't pay a blind bit of notice to what physicists call anything. They just like having microwaves and aeroplanes.

It's only the kind of people who frequent forums like this that ever read anything they do anyway.

That's true. In fact, I bet public ignorance of physics is actually a reason for these names. Phyicists originally tried to sound professional and use a nomenclature similar to taxonomy and chemistry, rooted in Classical languages. Then they saw no one was paying attention and began naming things after friends, sci-fi concepts, and nonsense phrases from Irish novelists.

So something only exists if you are there to see it?! Tell me more. So, even without humans to define a thing, it would still exist to humans? Because, you know, no human would know of its existence if no human ever defined it.

That's true. In fact, I bet public ignorance of physics is actually a reason for these names. Phyicists originally tried to sound professional and use a nomenclature similar to taxonomy and chemistry, rooted in Classical languages. Then they saw no one was paying attention and began naming things after friends, sci-fi concepts, and nonsense phrases from Irish novelists.

You'd be surprised. I remember reading a book not too long ago that mentioned the origin of the names for the "flavors" of elementary particles actually having a root in Buddhist theology (something about an 8-fold path, or such).

1 is an assumption based on nothing more than belief. There is no reason to accept this premise.

2 is debatable.

3 is bad logic. Just because a thing exists, doesn't mean it had a cause.

2a is confused and wrong. It assumes that infinity acts as a boundary.

2b may or may not be true.

2c is bad logic, based on bad assumptions.

1. There is no reason for me to believe that nuclear fission occurs inside nuclear reactors. I've never seen it happen. Yet most would say that it does.

2. Is answered by 2 a b and c.

3. It does if you follow 1 and 2.

2a. You misunderstand. This may help. Add infinity to infinity and what do you get? Infinity!

2b. Is true if 2a is.

2c. Is true if 2a and 2b are.

Time is infinitely divisible, but not infinitely regressive.

Firstly, time may not be infinitely divisible. If we are determined to see cause and effect at every level, we may even have to look for a "quantum of time" wherein things happen.

But that's by the by. You argue that time cannot be infinitely regressive because ... what? The universe would already be at maximum entropy? Or do you have a "logical" rather than scientific reason?

So, even without humans to define a thing, it would still exist to humans? Because, you know, no human would know of its existence if no human ever defined it.

So can humans have an experience of a thing without defining it?

It's largely an artifact of the math. Imaginary numbers, and whatnot, which are not themselves (in certain physical systems) really all that imaginary.

I'm not so sure "imaginary numbers" is the best bit of marketing, either. I like math, but I remember that it was when we started learning about imaginary numbers in middle school that many people thought, "I think I've officially learned enough math to get me by" and dropped the subject.

So, even without humans to define a thing, it would still exist to humans? Because, you know, no human would know of its existence if no human ever defined it.

It would not exist to humans, but it would exist to other things.

So, even without humans to define a thing, it would still exist to humans? Because, you know, no human would know of its existence if no human ever defined it.

I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of examples of things for which no definition existed when its discovery was first made.

I think it makes better sense to point out that without humans, the definition and existence of a thing wouldn't matter, at least not in any meaningful way. It could certainly still be there, but it wouldn't really affect anything worthy of note.

It would not exist to humans, but it would exist to other things.But we would not know of its existence, correct?

So can humans have an experience of a thing without defining it?Hm. That's a good question. I, personally, have never had such an experience.

I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of examples of things for which no definition existed when its discovery was first made.

I think it makes better sense to point out that without humans, the definition and existence of a thing wouldn't matter, at least not in any meaningful way. It could certainly still be there, but it wouldn't really affect anything worthy of note.That does make more sense than what I was saying.

It would not exist to humans, but it would exist to other things.

"Other things"? Like what, space aliens and subterranean lizards? At present, given humanity's status as the only known sentient organism humanity is aware of, I find this a somewhat silly statement for you to have just made.

I'm not so sure "imaginary numbers" is the best bit of marketing, either. I like math, but I remember that it was when we started learning about imaginary numbers in middle school that many people thought, "I think I've officially learned enough math to get me by" and dropped the subject.

What a shame. Imaginary (and especially complex numbers, which are a linear combination of real and imaginary components) pop up in practical physics all the time. The differential equation for simple harmonic motion actually contains an imaginary component that can be removed after some algebraic tweaking. There are other examples that I can fish around for if you're curious.

Hm. That's a good question. I, personally, have never had such an experience.

Let's assume that you have had an experience of something you did not define. Even were it to happen, how would you know that it had? After all, without a conceptualization of the thing, how would you process the experience in your conceptual matrix, let alone communicate it to someone else?

"Other things"? Like what, space aliens and subterranean lizards? At present, given humanity's status as the only known sentient organism humanity is aware of, I find this a somewhat silly statement for you to have just made.

I do not mean that it exists in the sense that other things are aware of it, but that other things exist in relation to it. Imagine a distant asteroid getting trapped in an unknown planet's gravity field. This would occur whether or not we knew of it.

So can humans have an experience of a thing without defining it?

This is actually one of the things that ties directly back to the general subject of the thread: "genuine" spiritual experience is often described as being ineffable. An experience that defies explanation so thoroughly as to defy ones ability to even describe it.

Certainly, though, one can define it as a spiritual experience after the fact, but no, one need not have a definition going into the experience.

1. There is no reason for me to believe that nuclear fission occurs inside nuclear reactors. I've never seen it happen. Yet most would say that it does.


The are many reasons to believe that nuclear fission occurs inside nuclear reactors... not least being that we can measure it, but also - let's not forget that we've seen nuclear fission OUTSIDE of reactors too.

The difference is - you're making an assumption that there is NO way to verify.

That's a claim of faith, not of science.


2. Is answered by 2 a b and c.


No, it isn't.


3. It does if you follow 1 and 2.


Yes. 3 works if you ignore the fact that it's based on faith, and the fact that the math doesn't add up.


2a. You misunderstand. This may help. Add infinity to infinity and what do you get? Infinity!


I don't misunderstand, at all. That's the problem.

Infinity isn't an intrinsic value, or a boundary. To treat it like either is a mistake, and explains why the math doesn't work.


2b. Is true if 2a is.


Which it isn't, so it isn't. But it doesn't DEPEND on 2a anyway.


2c. Is true if 2a and 2b are.

Maybe. But since the logic leading to it is flawed, and the assumptions are false, it's irrelevent.

Let's assume that you have had an experience of something you did not define. Even were it to happen, how would you know that it had? After all, without a conceptualization of the thing, how would you process the experience in your conceptual matrix, let alone communicate it to someone else?Very easily.
By admitting my own ignorance of the subject, and attempting to rectify it, perhaps?

That does make more sense than what I was saying.

Always a pleasure, GF. *hat tip*

1. There is no reason for me to believe that nuclear fission occurs inside nuclear reactors. I've never seen it happen. Yet most would say that it does.

This would largely be as a result of direct observation of nuclear fission. One can observe the energy released fom the absorption of neutrons in uranium isotopes and the resulting reactions, the effect this has on graphite and cobalt neutron-absorbers, and whatnot.

Just because you haven't observed it does not mean it is unobservable. Unlike god, for instance.

Consider the infinite set "positive integers." It is bounded: no member of the set is smaller than 1. Yet it is unbounded at the other end (has no other end.)

If it is correct to reject infinitely regressing time because it is unbounded, we should likewise reject infinitely progressing time.

So let's do that shall we? We can just pick a date (say 3010) and assert that time ends there, there will be no universe after that. But we'll look pretty stupid when 3010 rolls around and time goes on (why would it obey our belief?) so what we need is a scientific approach to discovering the date of this bound to the potentially infinite future.

But we can't do that, can we? We can't observe the future, can't even observe the effects of time in the future as we can in the past. We're stuck with an infinite future ...

Leaving me again to wonder what is so impossible about an infinite past.

Very easily.
By admitting my own ignorance of the subject, and attempting to rectify it, perhaps?

Have you considered that ignorance is simply our perception of a lack of definitions for things?

In any case, how would you go about rectifying your ignorance of the undefined?

What a shame. Imaginary (and especially complex numbers, which are a linear combination of real and imaginary components) pop up in practical physics all the time. The differential equation for simple harmonic motion actually contains an imaginary component that can be removed after some algebraic tweaking. There are other examples that I can fish around for if you're curious.

I am, thank you. I know they also occur in electrical engineering, but have never been told why. Is it just because some of the numbers you're dealing with (like charge) can be negative?

I'm off to bed now. If you have more examples or links, could you send me a telegram? I'll check it in the morning. (Or just post it here.)

I do not mean that it exists in the sense that other things are aware of it, but that other things exist in relation to it. Imagine a distant asteroid getting trapped in an unknown planet's gravity field. This would occur whether or not we knew of it.

Since we're debating 'god' and other unmeasurable quantities... it's not unfair to suggest that NOTHING happens which 'we' are unaware of.

Reality is a small ball, centred on the human race, and everything outside of it is conjured up ONLY when we look at it. Hell, if no one is looking at Malaysia, it simply ceases to exist until someone looks back again.

Right?

I do not mean that it exists in the sense that other things are aware of it, but that other things exist in relation to it. Imagine a distant asteroid getting trapped in an unknown planet's gravity field. This would occur whether or not we knew of it.

Yes, but it's existence wouldn't matter to us, wouldn't affect us in any meaningful way. Sure it could exist, but who cares?

This is similar to other physical concepts like tachyons. Based on what we know of Relativity, tachyons, that is, particles that travel faster than the speed of light (and have an imaginary mass [that is, a mass * i, not a mass that does not actually exist]) could exist. But the same physics that tells us they could exist also shows us that their existence would have no effect on us in any way we could discern.

So why care about tachyons?

Why care about god?

I have my own internal editor, and it tells me that I don't need someone else's rule book, and that the universe is - probably - mostly as it appears to be. Given my pragmatic nature... that's about enough for me.

But it says nothing to OBJECTIVE truth.
There is no objective truth. The closest we come to objective truth is the truth offered by science, but even it is biased by its times, by scientists, and by the limits of available other truth/facts at any given time. Even that scientific truth is constantly under revision and correction. At any given moment, it only comes close to objectivity. It does not achieve it.

And that's why you use your inner editor, just like everybody else on the planet.

Btw, inner editors are not objective, either.

Missing the point. If the information is supposed to be coming from 'god'... and god is as much of a twonk as most people I meet... what exactly is the qualification for 'god'? And why should I believe ANYTHING attributed to him?
You're missing the point. Something that is attributed to a god, is actually coming to you from somebody other than the god.

Did a god appear before you and claim to be infallible? No? It was some guy telling you that his god is infallible? That's called hearsay. It tells me nothing about either a god or the religion claiming to represent that god. It just tells me what some people think about it. Claims of infallible divinity, etc, etc, are just so much chin music, to me. My inner editor skips over them with a quickly muttered, "yeah-yeah-yeah, get to the point."

What my inner editor focuses on is stuff like moral precepts, for example. And my inner editor doesn't compare them to irrelevant window dressing like some dude in a funny outfit claiming that his god is infallible because he read it in this here big book over here. No, my inner editor compares moral precepts to things like practical life experience to judge whether I think they work or not. And if my judgement is that they do work, then they work, and I'm not going to say they don't just because the guy I first heard them from likes to talk a lot of outlandish nonsense to get people's attention.

Have you considered that ignorance is simply our perception of a lack of definitions for things?

In any case, how would you go about rectifying your ignorance of the undefined?To the first, I have not.
To the second, it would depend upon the actual experience itself.

Have you considered that ignorance is simply our perception of a lack of definitions for things?

In any case, how would you go about rectifying your ignorance of the undefined?

Duh! Wiki!

This is actually one of the things that ties directly back to the general subject of the thread: "genuine" spiritual experience is often described as being ineffable. An experience that defies explanation so thoroughly as to defy ones ability to even describe it.

Certainly, though, one can define it as a spiritual experience after the fact, but no, one need not have a definition going into the experience.

Agreed. I just wonder if, by the very act of defining it, we trivialize the experience. After all, definitions pare things down, put them in categories, make them easier for us to juggle mentally. And in doing so, an ineffable and profound experience becomes a relatively insignificant phrase once it is defined and communicated.

To the first, I have not.
To the second, it would depend upon the actual experience itself.

Fair enough.

Duh! Wiki!

Good answer. :D

I am, thank you. I know they also occur in electrical engineering, but have never been told why. Is it just because some of the numbers you're dealing with (like charge) can be negative?

I'm off to bed now. If you have more examples or links, could you send me a telegram? I'll check it in the morning. (Or just post it here.)

I'll put something together and post it here/TG you.

Though a quick summary is that many situations involving a phase offset tend to involve imaginary numbers. For instance, in electricity and magnetism, DC voltages can be described by just a single value: the amplitude. However, AC voltages vary periodically in time, and so must be described with an additional parameter: a phase offset. This offset can be described using a complex number: that is a sum of a real number and an imaginary number. These two pieces of information can then be used to determine the amplitude and phase for any pair of real and imaginary numbers.

(i.e. for a situation where the real component = 0, the imaginary component = 120 since the magnitude of the AC circuit is constant. The phase offset is arctan (im/re), which comes out to 90 degrees in this case.)

It also pops up in Quantum Mechanics, though that's a whole other, and more painful story.

Good answer. :DWiki knows everything! :p

There is no objective truth.


An interesting idea.

I wonder if you actually mean that.

The concept of an infinitely fluid and capricious universe is enigmatic.


The closest we come to objective truth is the truth offered by science, but even it is biased by its times, by scientists, and by the limits of available other truth/facts at any given time. Even that scientific truth is constantly under revision and correction. At any given moment, it only comes close to objectivity. It does not achieve it.


Ah... you're not talking about 'objective truth'... you're talking about US, and OUR ability to express it.


You're missing the point. Something that is attributed to a god, is actually coming to you from somebody other than the god.


And if all there is, is an infinite progression of someone-telling-me, then there's no reason to even give room in my thoughts to 'god'.


Did a god appear before you and claim to be infallible? No? It was some guy telling you that his god is infallible? That's called hearsay. It tells me nothing about either a god or the religion claiming to represent that god. It just tells me what some people think about it. Claims of infallible divinity, etc, etc, are just so much chin music, to me. My inner editor skips over them with a quickly muttered, "yeah-yeah-yeah, get to the point."

What my inner editor focuses on is stuff like moral precepts, for example. And my inner editor doesn't compare them to irrelevant window dressing like some dude in a funny outfit claiming that his god is infallible because he read it in this here big book over here. No, my inner editor compares moral precepts to things like practical life experience to judge whether I think they work or not. And if my judgement is that they do work, then they work, and I'm not going to say they don't just because the guy I first heard them from likes to talk a lot of outlandish nonsense to get people's attention.

I'm a little confused.

You're basically saying that religion is bullshit. Not just the bits that claim to be about creating the world, and all that - but the whole thing. Right?

All of which distracts me from where I thought we were coming from. When we're discussing the sort of religion that makes claims about the real and the meta-real... errors in the 'real' portion do suggest errors in the meta-real. Or, at least, the possibility.

Agreed. I just wonder if, by the very act of defining it, we trivialize the experience. After all, definitions pare things down, put them in categories, make them easier for us to juggle mentally. And in doing so, an ineffable and profound experience becomes a relatively insignificant phrase once it is defined and communicated.

I guess it really depends on the depth of language used to describe a thing. Certainly there's a level of richness to a description that communicates much, if not all, of an experience to a receiver, that evokes a level of sensation that could be roughly equivalent to the actual experience itself. You'd inevitably lose some things, but I'd imagine you could get pretty close, and the human mind's pretty good at filling in the blanks.

Have you considered that ignorance is simply our perception of a lack of definitions for things?

In any case, how would you go about rectifying your ignorance of the undefined?

Get a big dictionary and start defining stuff.

No, hang on, there would still be stuff that the dictionary doesn't define. An Undictionary, then? Containing non-words for things which don't exist, along with a handy undefinition.

I guess it really depends on the depth of language used to describe a thing. Certainly there's a level of richness to a description that communicates much, if not all, of an experience to a receiver, that evokes a level of sensation that could be roughly equivalent to the actual experience itself. You'd inevitably lose some things, but I'd imagine you could get pretty close, and the human mind's pretty good at filling in the blanks.

Back on topic! ;)

I guess it really depends on the depth of language used to describe a thing. Certainly there's a level of richness to a description that communicates much, if not all, of an experience to a receiver, that evokes a level of sensation that could be roughly equivalent to the actual experience itself. You'd inevitably lose some things, but I'd imagine you could get pretty close, and the human mind's pretty good at filling in the blanks.

You'll excuse me if I express a certain amount of distrust that the human mind fills the blanks in correctly? :p

You'll excuse me if I express a certain amount of distrust that the human mind fills the blanks in correctly? :p

I never did say correctly :D. Though I have to wonder what precisely correctly is given the subjective nature of direct experience.

I never did say correctly :D. Though I have to wonder what precisely correctly is given the subjective nature of direct experience.

Hehe.

But that makes me think. Do you believe that subjective experience and objective reality are two distinct sets, or that the subjective experience is a subset of objective reality?

Hehe.

But that makes me think. Do you believe that subjective experience and objective reality are two distinct sets, or that the subjective experience is a subset of objective reality?

The latter. I think our perceptions of the world around us are subjective inasmuch as they are products of our individual brain chemistry, but that we all exist in an objectively real ....reality (for lack of a better word).

I suppose it's a bit like constantly playing telephone. There's objective truth in the world around us, but our minds color our perceptions of it all in a way that can alter that truth, to us.

An interesting idea.

I wonder if you actually mean that.

The concept of an infinitely fluid and capricious universe is enigmatic.
That's a pretty sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by it. (I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure where you're going with it.)

Ah... you're not talking about 'objective truth'... you're talking about US, and OUR ability to express it.
Does any truth exist outside of that, and if so, how do you know? And how can you explain your knowledge to me?

I refer you to HotRodia's excellent points on this as well.

And if all there is, is an infinite progression of someone-telling-me, then there's no reason to even give room in my thoughts to 'god'.
The only reason I could think of would be because you want to. You may have any reason you like for wanting to.

I'm a little confused.

You're basically saying that religion is bullshit. Not just the bits that claim to be about creating the world, and all that - but the whole thing. Right?
No.

All of which distracts me from where I thought we were coming from. When we're discussing the sort of religion that makes claims about the real and the meta-real... errors in the 'real' portion do suggest errors in the meta-real. Or, at least, the possibility.
Anything is possible, but no, I do not agree that errors in the real suggest anything at all about the meta-real.

The latter. I think our perceptions of the world around us are subjective inasmuch as they are products of our individual brain chemistry, but that we all exist in an objectively real ....reality (for lack of a better word).

I suppose it's a bit like constantly playing telephone. There's objective truth in the world around us, but our minds color our perceptions of it all in a way that can alter that truth, to us.

So basically, our perceptions are a part of reality, but their content may not fully correspond to the content of that reality?

I would agree with that.

"Objective reality" is a synthetic viewpoint, which we can adopt (not always well) in order to be talking about the same thing as someone else.

In the absence of other people, I would expect my conception of objective reality to merge with and become indistinguishable from direct perception.

So basically, our perceptions are a part of reality, but their content may not fully correspond to the content of that reality?

I would agree with that.

That states it very succinctly, yes. :)

Hehe.

But that makes me think. Do you believe that subjective experience and objective reality are two distinct sets, or that the subjective experience is a subset of objective reality?
I suppose, if I had to bet, I'd bet on the subjective being a subset of the objective, but I tend to discount the objective as irrelevant, since the only way I have to experience reality is the subjective. Since the subjective is all I have and all I have to work with, for all practical intents and purposes, it is all that matters.

That's a pretty sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by it. (I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure where you're going with it.)


You seem to be suggesting that reality changes.


Does any truth exist outside of that, and if so, how do you know? And how can you explain your knowledge to me?


Does any truth exist beyond our capacity to express it?

Again - this seems to be suggesting that reality is fluid. I like the concept, but I'm not sure there's a real reason to accept it.


The only reason I could think of would be because you want to. You may have any reason you like for wanting to.


Why would I want to believe something that's based on nothing?


No.


Errr... that's helpful. If you're ignoring the 'fact' stuff, and you only accept the 'morality' stuff that agrees with what you already believe... how is that NOT saying that religion is bullshit?


Anything is possible, but no, I do not agree that errors in the real suggest anything at all about the meta-real.

How? If the message claims to tell about the real and the meta-real, then it is claiming to present a unified view. If that unified view is half flawed, it seems like it's all tainted.

"Objective reality" is a synthetic viewpoint, which we can adopt (not always well) in order to be talking about the same thing as someone else.

In the absence of other people, I would expect my conception of objective reality to merge with and become indistinguishable from direct perception.

Are you suggesting that objective reality is simply a social illusion that we use for the purposes of communication?

Are you suggesting that objective reality is simply a social illusion that we use for the purposes of communication?

People seem to be using 'objective reality' to mean a host of different things here... it's very confusing.

It's the subjective reality as expressed by more than one person.

It's the expression of objective reality.

It's something fluid.


How many of us are using it to mean 'it's reality, objectively'...?

People seem to be using 'objective reality' to mean a host of different things here... it's very confusing.

It's the subjective reality as expressed by more than one person.

It's the expression of objective reality.

It's something fluid.

Hence our exploration of our respective understandings of it, no? :)

You seem to be suggesting that reality changes.
Oh. Well, change is constant. ;)

Does any truth exist beyond our capacity to express it?

Again - this seems to be suggesting that reality is fluid. I like the concept, but I'm not sure there's a real reason to accept it.
I see no particular reason NOT to accept it, either. Do as you please.

Why would I want to believe something that's based on nothing?
Why would you want to eat at Denny's? Why would you want to store your glass eye in a jar of pickled onions? How the fuck should I know why you would want to do anything? :p

You have your realty, right? The one you perceive and explain, right? And that reality doesn't include a god. Fine.

My reality, the one I perceive and explain, contains countless gods and other stuff.

In your reality, my stuff is based on nothing. In my reality, it is based on personal experience.

Is there an overarching Reality, of which each our personal realities is merely a representation of only bits and pieces? Sure, why not? But how can we possibly ever measure that in a way that would not be subjective?

Errr... that's helpful. If you're ignoring the 'fact' stuff, and you only accept the 'morality' stuff that agrees with what you already believe... how is that NOT saying that religion is bullshit?
A) Easy. I'm saying only that parts of what somone tells me about their god is just as likely to be bullshit as not. That does not in any way address, let alone invalidate, anything ELSE they may say. If the moral precepts are part of the religion, then if I say they are valid, then I am NOT saying the whole religion is bullshit.

B) I didn't say I agreed with it. I said I judged whether it works or not. There's a difference.

How? If the message claims to tell about the real and the meta-real, then it is claiming to present a unified view. If that unified view is half flawed, it seems like it's all tainted.
Your "unified view" is a standard YOU apply. You know, subjectively, according to your own tastes.

I would think it would be apparent to you by now that my subjective standard is different. I do not assume the view is "unified." Someone gives me a list of points, and I address and judge each point individually, then I look at the construct as a whole. I judge the construct and its constituent parts individually. If the whole construct and all its parts all work together, then I am likely to adopt the entire package. If not, then I will adopt only those parts of it that work and discard the rest.

This is why I am able to say things like "Christianity has very good moral concepts, but its attachment to scripture seems to cause it problems. Still, it's a perfectly okay religion." And "We can learn a lot about intellectual pursuit of spiritual understanding from Islam, but it's social rules are non-starters. Still, a perfectly valid religion for those able to separate form from substance." And I can find these points on which to learn from both of those religions even though I have never had any inclination to follow either of them.

Our view of the world is absolutely shaped by our perception, imagine we saw at 300 frames per second instead of 30 frames per second, or 1 frame per second.

EDIT: ...and this would simply segue into brain frequency.

None of it necessitates a God, and certainly not one so defined as a Christian god.

You have your realty, right? The one you perceive and explain, right? And that reality doesn't include a god. Fine.

My reality, the one I perceive and explain, contains countless gods and other stuff.

In your reality, my stuff is based on nothing. In my reality, it is based on personal experience.

Is there an overarching Reality, of which each our personal realities is merely a representation of only bits and pieces? Sure, why not?


And it is that overarching - objective - reality, that I'm interested in.


But how can we possibly ever measure that in a way that would not be subjective?


That's a totally different question.


This is why I am able to say things like "Christianity has very good moral concepts, but its attachment to scripture seems to cause it problems. Still, it's a perfectly okay religion." And "We can learn a lot about intellectual pursuit of spiritual understanding from Islam, but it's social rules are non-starters. Still, a perfectly valid religion for those able to separate form from substance." And I can find these points on which to learn from both of those religions even though I have never had any inclination to follow either of them.

The world is flat, we're all descended from this naked guy who married a bone, and you're going to hell because you don't believe it.

Any ultimate truths touched upon are going to be absolutely by luck, not judgment. The premise tells me that any gems of wisdom I encounter are going to be accidents.

Let's try this again.

1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have had a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

2a. Infinity cannot progress.
b. Time progresses.
c. Time cannot be infinite.
1 is an assumption based on nothing more than belief. There is no reason to accept this premise.

2 is debatable.

3 is bad logic. Just because a thing exists, doesn't mean it had a cause.

2a is confused and wrong. It assumes that infinity acts as a boundary.

2b may or may not be true.

2c is bad logic, based on bad assumptions.
GnI is correct though maybe too easy on you.

1. Baseless Assumption: We have no evidence that the universe had a cause. In fact, we have no evidence that it "came to exist." The Big Bang only points to it coming into this form.

2. Baseless Assumption: We only have evidence for the start of this iteration of the universe, there is no information what preceded the BB. In fact, our info starts after the BB occurred.

3. Unattainable Conclusion: Due to baseless assumptions in 1. and 2.

2a False Assumption: By definition, infinite is able to progress in someway continuously. Even a double bounded infinity (e.g. the set of real numbers between any two integers)

2b Reasonable Assumption: This is the only part of your argument that fits with reality as we know it,... and even then it's debatable depending on your definition of "progresses"

2c False Conclusion: due to 2a



Overall, failed argument that wouldn't stand up in an introductory logic course.

Are you suggesting that objective reality is simply a social illusion that we use for the purposes of communication?

Not exactly. We think in ways we have learnt to think ... thinking is a social activity!

The "objective viewpoint" may in fact be very valuable to a person. The idea that they could express a belief cogently to another person gives that belief more strength for them ... in a way, they play the thought to an internal audience: their perception of "common sense" or of received wisdom.

Thinking seems a very personal thing I know, and language as a barrier behind which the thinking of others is concealed. But really I doubt any of us would think much at all, but that we learnt words and were granted recognition as people for using them to demonstrate thought.

And it is that overarching - objective - reality, that I'm interested in.



That's a totally different question.
It's the one that matters to me. Because you can be interested in an overarching objective reality till the cows come home, and you'll get nowhere with it as long as you can only perceive it with your subjective mind. EDIT: And no matter what you think you may discover about that objective reality, you will not be able to communicate it to me in any way that is not subjective, nor will I be able to perceive your communication any way that is not subjective.


The world is flat, we're all descended from this naked guy who married a bone, and you're going to hell because you don't believe it.

Any ultimate truths touched upon are going to be absolutely by luck, not judgment. The premise tells me that any gems of wisdom I encounter are going to be accidents.
That comment reflects more about your prejudices/presuppositions than it does about the religion, in my opinion.

Great skepticism is called for on the matter of Creation. We easily fall into believing in a Purpose for the universe, if we allow our own existence as toolmakers and artists to inform the next question: why was the universe created?

It simply wouldn't matter whether the universe came from a singularity or the act of a pre-existing God ... except that we are so subjective, and almost cannot help asking the second question. "Why was the universe created?"

I wonder if there is anyone anywhere who can fully believe in a God who is ONLY Creator, yet not project from human experience some Purpose to that Creation.

(So yes, far more of any religion stands condemned by their Creation myth, than just whether they're right on wrong on that one subject.)

Certainly I find it hard to imagine. An entity with the power of Creation (effect without cause) would be radically different from what we know as a sentient being. Cause and effect would not rule their perceptions ... they would be source, not subject, of reality.

Which is to say, by our standards God would not be a living creature. All choice, or no choice ... it amounts to the same thing, and lacks the relationship to time (past knowable, future not) which is fundamental to our own consciousness.

Our view of the world is absolutely shaped by our perception, imagine we saw at 300 frames per second instead of 30 frames per second, or 1 frame per second.

EDIT: ...and this would simply segue into brain frequency.

None of it necessitates a God, and certainly not one so defined as a Christian god.

Hmm. The only way a God could be recognizable as a living being, with will and intention, is if that God had experience of other gods.

You can't just toss in a monopole, a being personifying effect without cause ... and then claim to have explained anything. No, all that does is interfere with the consideration of real causes ...

*shrug* monotheism, big fat lose. Nothing new here.

Let's try this again.

And again, the same refutations you've been unable to address:


1. Everything in and including space-time that has come to exist must have
had a cause.

Even if this were true, the simple premise of infinite recursion means there doesn't have to be a first cause or causer.


2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.

Even assuming both, disproved above. Also, you said anything outside space time needs no cause, so whatever conditions exist within which space time arise needs no cause. Thus, any state of existence, non-existance or set of governing principles outside that, would satisfy, therefore requiring no God. By your own logic, anything outside of space time needs no cause. God is only one particularly anthropocentric possibility.


2a. Infinity cannot progress.

Actually, that's the main thing infinity does. You can add infinity to infinity, it continues to progress. As accomplished mathematician Angel Muleshkov put it, "Infinity is not a number, it is a process." A process that iterates endlessly, progresses endlessly. See calculus, cardinality theory, and several other fields of mathematics.


b. Time progresses.

Arbitrary. See Feynman, Einstein, et al.


c. Time cannot be infinite.

Cyclic iterations of sinusoidal space time can be.

Kilogramm, much of what you're attempting to do appeals to physics, yet so far, you don't seem particularly versed on the subject. I'm no expert either, my own publication limited to solid state physics, but, just to know how much background I can assume, what is your training in mathematics and physics?

GnI is correct though maybe too easy on you.

1. Baseless Assumption: We have no evidence that the universe had a cause. In fact, we have no evidence that it "came to exist." The Big Bang only points to it coming into this form.

2. Baseless Assumption: We only have evidence for the start of this iteration of the universe, there is no information what preceded the BB. In fact, our info starts after the BB occurred.

3. Unattainable Conclusion: Due to baseless assumptions in 1. and 2.

2a False Assumption: By definition, infinite is able to progress in someway continuously. Even a double bounded infinity (e.g. the set of real numbers between any two integers)

2b Reasonable Assumption: This is the only part of your argument that fits with reality as we know it,... and even then it's debatable depending on your definition of "progresses"

2c False Conclusion: due to 2a



Overall, failed argument that wouldn't stand up in an introductory logic course.

Quote for... well, the simple fact that someone says I was too easy on someone.

Red Letter day.

It's the one that matters to me. Because you can be interested in an overarching objective reality till the cows come home, and you'll get nowhere with it as long as you can only perceive it with your subjective mind. EDIT: And no matter what you think you may discover about that objective reality, you will not be able to communicate it to me in any way that is not subjective, nor will I be able to perceive your communication any way that is not subjective.


What other people's subjective versions tells me is... well, what they perceive. I already KNOW what I perceive, and I know its subjective.

Why would I trade MY subjective reality for someone else's?

I guess I wouldn't. I seek, instead, to make my subjective reality s accurate a representation of the objective reality as I can.


That comment reflects more about your prejudices/presuppositions than it does about the religion, in my opinion.

It tells you I am dismissive of that particular religion - but if you honestly learn more from that little revelation, than you do from the articles it addresses, then I just can't understand how you prioritise.

I think I already explained what's wrong with it. And I could go look up some comments from humanist and enlightenment philosophers having to do with medicine and navigation and other hot science-y topics of their time, about which they were completely wrong, but I can't be bothered.

Oh, yeah, sure, right, that's the ticket, yeah. You're just trying to save server space. Sure. :p


Oh, yeah, sure, right, that's the ticket, yeah. You're just trying to save server space. Sure. :p

The catbox is down the hall.

I'll use your pillow, thanks ;)

No, it doesn't.*



(*At the risk of making HC&S's head explode and in full acknowledgement that I have not yet read all the pages in which I'm sure it is explained to you why it doesn't.)

Thanks - I thought I could feel a headache coming on :D

These have causes. The nucleus decays due to a certain number of factors that exist leading to that state. Just because we are not able to discern all of them...

No, we cannot discern ANY factors leading to the decay. Not as a matter of "it is too difficult; the engineering is not feasible": rather, "there is no physical possibility of observing any cause".
Still, it is postulated that the entry and exit of an electron into the nucleus leads to this decay.

Wrong. No physical event is, or possibly can be, the cause.
You may prefer to believe that some cause does exist; it is a natural human tendency; however, the universe is not under any compulsion to behave in ways that humans find easy to understand.
And I did give a reason. Read the post. Post it again if you feel it is necessary.
You ASSERTED, as a PREMISE, that "infinity does not progress". You gave no reason for believing that this is true.

i think that there is no god or any thing of the sort. but the relgious ppl have brought up an intersting topic. how was the universe created? im sure that man kind will figure it out one day.

p.s. i think one of the main reasons that ppl turn to religion is the fact that there is no life after death- they just cant fathom it

A question for all Jews, Christians and Muslims:
If God told you to kill your son, would you?
If not then you're a blasphemer.
If yes then you're dangerous and I don't want you anywhere near me.

No, we cannot discern ANY factors leading to the decay. Not as a matter of "it is too difficult; the engineering is not feasible": rather, "there is no physical possibility of observing any cause".

I actually think the "computability problem" is a quite strong objection to determinism ... though not proof against an arbitrarily intelligent and omniscient Creator.

Wrong. No physical event is, or possibly can be, the cause.
You may prefer to believe that some cause does exist; it is a natural human tendency; however, the universe is not under any compulsion to behave in ways that humans find easy to understand.

This is interesting!

All I have is undergrad physics from decades ago, but from what you just said it seems that determinism is dead. I mean, nuclear decay can be used to generate true random numbers, and these can be used to control a process on a macro scale, eg a machine. Even without such an artifice, it is inconceivable that these decays (events without cause) have not lead to macro (ie observable) effects in the entire history of the universe!

This came up in an NSG discussion a year or so ago, but none of us could really say whether such nuclear decay had a cause (tho perhaps hidden in the eigenstates of the component particles) but you seem to have answered that now.

Poor old philosophers. "All events have a cause" was no more than wishful thinking, huh?

Neato! I got post #666 in a religious thread!

What's my prize ... plague of locusts perhaps?

Neato! I got post #666 in a religious thread!

What's my prize ... plague of locusts perhaps?

You get to miraculously recover from your next head wound, and the kings of the earth will pay you tribute, and 10% off at Deseret Books.

What other people's subjective versions tells me is... well, what they perceive. I already KNOW what I perceive, and I know its subjective.

Why would I trade MY subjective reality for someone else's?
I notice that you never answered my question about why you would want to store your glass eye in a jar of pickled onions. ;) :tongue:

I guess I wouldn't. I seek, instead, to make my subjective reality s accurate a representation of the objective reality as I can.
That's what everybody does, even religious people.

It tells you I am dismissive of that particular religion - but if you honestly learn more from that little revelation, than you do from the articles it addresses, then I just can't understand how you prioritise.
What I mean is that it tells me that you start from your conclusion. You have an idea about religion. Naturally, as with most people, every issue you consider will be viewed through the prism of your own pre-existing ideas. That's not wrong, nor even really prejudiced, because what other point can any of us start from?

But the fact that you always reach the same conclusion -- and that conclusion is your premise -- indicates to me that you are judging religion by an unfair standard, a standard no religion can ever hope to satisfy. To be honest, GnI, a lot of what I have seen you say about religion sounds to me like, "It isn't want I want it to be, therefore it is wrong." But what you want it to be is something other than religion.

So when you say things like what I responded to, it seems to me that you have not really given religion a hearing about its own merits at all.

You get to miraculously recover from your next head wound, and the kings of the earth will pay you tribute, and 10% off at Deseret Books.

I'll keep my camera handy. The kings of the earth paying anyone anything should be a hit on YouTube.

I notice that you never answered my question about why you would want to store your glass eye in a jar of pickled onions. ;) :tongue:

To keep an eye on them, of course! Pickled onions have a notable tendency to dwindle, an open jar rarely lasts out a week.

To keep an eye on them, of course! Pickled onions have a notable tendency to dwindle, an open jar rarely lasts out a week.
This is true.

Or rather, I should say your subjective reality and my subjective reality apparently share the same truth, which I guess means we each have to get our own pickled onions?

"The Nature Objective Truth as deduced from a Jar of Pickled Onions"

That's a thesis right there.

God created the universe. It is almost impossible for the WHOLE universe to be made by coincidence. Also where the heck did the matter that caused the big bang come from?

Let's start with your first assertion.
What evidence do you have to support your theory?

God is an IMMORTAL. Is your tiny little golf ball sized matter immortal? :p

Again your first assertion. What evidence do you have that supports your immortality assumption?

Just read Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" and Richard Dawkins' "The God delusion" and you will see why atheism is the logical explanation

We as humans can not fathom that there is a being that has always been here.

This assumes there is one, which we have no proof of, therefore your statement is presumptuous.