little bang

[standing_alone]

Bonky, about the Creator we can only know what He tells us about Him. Hence, as Teditis correctly observed, the Bible.

 

As for the universe, well, we do know some basic things, such as it’s full of stars. But don’t we already know that too from… the Bible? OR that it is expanding. But don't we already know that also from... the Bible?

Edited February 9, 2015 by standing_alone

[standing_alone]

And Bonky, could you please tell me why are you a non-believer? The decisive argument. Thanks.

[Bonky]

And Bonky, could you please tell me why are you a non-believer? The decisive argument. Thanks.

It's pretty much the same answer for whatever I don't believe in, because I haven't been convinced that the proposition is true. My observations of the many Christians in my family and in my life don't show me that they have any special access to information that I don't. Faith based religions operate the way they do because they don't have anything concrete to offer...just what they claim.

I tried it, I tried it for more than 2 decades....sorry I just don't see the evidence one bit.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021, please let’s not scrutinize every word, otherwise, if we must define each word we use, we can’t really communicate. So by religion I meant your Christian faith.

 

And yes, I think you are wrong by considering that the so-called laws of nature (what we observe on Earth or very nearby) are truly the laws of nature (i.e. universal). However, even if you right, that is pretty much forever unprovable, so it’s not science.

 

And no, I’m not saying at all that big bang is possibly true. It’s certainly strange to accuse me of saying that, since I’m the fellow who started this thread against big bang.

 

I welcome your support for the scientific method. Indeed, before even debating if big bang is true or not, people should know that it’s not even science. It’s simply faith that the universe did this, and it did that, so that it eventually would align itself with current observations. Only that the universe must have done a lot of things to eventually align with observations, and that’s one of the most severe problems of the paradigm. Not only its supporters have to take things on faith, but they have to take a lot of things on faith.

 

As for my “Argument from Ignorance”, OK I will accept that if you accept that you make your arguments from the position of all-knowing. Is it God you’re proclaiming here, or is it yourself? So yes, I stand behind my (and apparently Tristen’s) position that (obviously!) we don’t know what we don’t know. Feel free to show me how you do know what you don’t know.

 

If you believe there are no different laws in other parts of the universe, feel free to prove it. I'm very skeptic about that. You have to take it on faith, one way or the other (actually, in one case not so much on faith, since for example they can’t seem able to find other Earths out there).

 

As for “Argument to the Future”, oh boy. Again, you seem to believe yourself to be all-knowing. My friend, even when you make an experiment, and then you repeat it, and then again, this doesn’t exclude alternative explanations – current or future or even past, since for example I believe aether was banished prematurely.

 

As for proving things to other people, if you think you can prove anything (other than their core beliefs) to people that believe that Moon, or anything, isn’t there when they’re not looking, then please do so.

 

As for “alternative explanations within current physics”, if you would have been patient to read the example that followed you wouldn’t put that question.

 

I agree with you on Genesis. Although, where exactly did your all-knowing physics go?

 

Please don’t see a dispute between us, because there isn’t - other than you claiming to have access to cosmic understanding. Forgive my battle stance, but it’s you who actually brought it out, with your sharp questions and arguments.

 

 

=========================================================================================================================

 

 

please let’s not scrutinize every word, otherwise, if we must define each word we use, we can’t really communicate. So by religion I meant your Christian faith.

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  Who said we needed to define EVERY word?  I asked you to define "Religion".  And, if we have different meanings for "WORDS" then how can we communicate effectively?

 

For example: if I walked up to somebody in Germany and said "I have a Gift for you" they would either Konk me on the head or run to the nearest Polizei Station.  "Gift" in German means "Poison".

 

So WORDS...they mean things.

 

Perfect example....

 

So by religion I meant your Christian faith

 

 

My "Christian Faith" isn't Religion.

 

Religion is man's attempt to reconcile himself with GOD.  a Preposterous Supposition IMHO.

 

Jesus Christ was the most anti-"religious" person to ever walk the earth; Ergo....Christianity is not a Religion.

 

 

And yes, I think you are wrong by considering that the so-called laws of nature (what we observe on Earth or very nearby) are truly the laws of nature (i.e. universal)

 

 

So the Laws of Nature aren't the Laws of Nature.   Can you CITE a source supporting what "You Think"......?

 

 

It’s simply faith that the universe did this, and it did that, so that it eventually would align itself with current observations.....  Not only its supporters have to take things on faith, but they have to take a lot of things on faith.

 

 

Faith??  You're speaking to "Blind Faith" here. Biblical Faith has Substance and Evidence: (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Blind Faith:  is belief without substance or evidence and is expressly admonished against in Scripture, by proxy: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

And, conjectures of Past Events never "align" with current Observations; it Non Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

 

OK I will accept that if you accept that you make your arguments from the position of all-knowing. Is it God you’re proclaiming here, or is it yourself?

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  My arguments are based on the Exact Opposite of Arguments from Ignorance; they are based on Experimentally Validated Scientific Laws.

 

I never claimed to be "all knowing"....it's a Prima Facie preposterous assertion.

 

 

If you believe there are no different laws in other parts of the universe, feel free to prove it.

 

 

Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).....AGAIN.  

 

 

As for “Argument to the Future”, oh boy. Again, you seem to believe yourself to be all-knowing.

 

 

No.  All I need to "Know"....is what an Argument to The Future (Logical Fallacy) is; you provided the Textbook example of it.

 

Argument to the Future --- arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support the point.  http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

 

 

if you think you can prove anything (other than their core beliefs) to people that believe that Moon, or anything, isn’t there when they’re not looking, then please do so.

 

 

No Problem...

 

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly!  A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly via Quantum Mechanics; SEE:

Double Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

 

So when asked: "does a tree make a sound in the woods when it falls and nobody is around?"; the answer is an unequivocal....NO!  There is no sound and more importantly...there is NO TREE! lol

 

"Who deserves to trust their intuition more than Einstein; and Einstein's intuition told him, like everyone's intuition tells them, that things are really there when you're not looking at them.  Well, he was Wrong!  That intuition is Incorrect."

Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering MIT

 

 

As for “alternative explanations within current physics”, if you would have been patient to read the example that followed you wouldn’t put that question.

 

 

Just state them please and stop playing games.

 

 

I agree with you on Genesis. Although, where exactly did your all-knowing physics go?

 

 

The Laws Obviously weren't Codified until: (Genesis 2:1-2) "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  {2} And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

[standing_alone]

I'm sorry,  but is that why you believe in big bang, and the rest of the formal (wildly theoretical!) paradigms, because they "have anything concrete to offer"? Please share that particular anything that you find in them as... concrete.

 

As for the evidence for God, please show me how can anything exist without God. Literally anything. But please don't waste my time. In other words, if your mind is already settled in a certain position, no matter what one tells you, please be honest and tell me that.

[Bonky]

I'm sorry,  but is that why you believe in big bang, and the rest of the formal (wildly theoretical!) paradigms, because they "have anything concrete to offer"? Please share that particular anything that you find in them as... concrete.

 

As for the evidence for God, please show me how can anything exist without God. Literally anything. But please don't waste my time. In other words, if your mind is already settled in a certain position, no matter what one tells you, please be honest and tell me that.

I'm not "concrete" on the big bang, the big bang doesn't impact my life one way or the other.

How can anything exist w/o timeless, spaceless eternal Cosmic Elves?? You're begging the question here.

My mind is not closed to a creator or a God. I do need to be convinced first before I start believing however. I would hope the most powerful/intelligent being in existence would find this commendable, not upsetting.

[standing_alone]

Enoch, actually “re-ligare” doesn’t say to whom the initiative to reconcile belongs. But of course that doesn’t mean that we should mistake religion with what people, including many Christians, make of it. If by religious people, or supporters of religion, we understand people like the Pharisees, then I agree with you that they are wrong. If instead we understand by religion God’s attempt to reconcile man with Himself, then the term was properly used.

 

No, I can’t “ CITE a source supporting what "You Think" “. But the fact that you ask me for one is very disappointing. I mean, if I would think what others tell me to think, then I wouldn’t actually think, would I? And if you look for others to tell you what to think, why exactly aren’t you an evolutionist?

 

As for faith in case of big bang supporters, I stand corrected. Indeed, in their case is blind faith. A Christian should indeed be more careful when using the term ‘faith’.

 

As for:

“ My arguments are based on the Exact Opposite of Arguments from Ignorance; they are based on Experimentally Validated Scientific Laws. ”,

well, you certainly extend them beyond validation by experiment. In other words, you still have to prove that what we see on Earth is valid everywhere in the universe. Good luck.

 

And no, it’s no “Argument from Ignorance”, as you continuously claim. It’s instead your blind faith that it is so. Just as in the case of the atheists, by the way.

 

I haven’t checked any of your links from your quantum trip, nor will I. I’m pretty sure whatever they say it’s been said before, as well as the arguments against them. I can’t tell, though, if you’re serious or not when you claim that “A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist”. If you’re serious, then you splendidly refuted yourself (your expectation for universal laws).

 

Coming yet again (why?) to alternative explanations, not only I gave yesterday one clear example, but I gave today yet another one. It seems that a dialogue with you is very tiring.

 

As for the Laws not being “Codified” before “……”, you still miss my point that the former laws are not the current laws. If they are (universal) laws, in the first place.

 

I find this dialogue very strange, and pointless since you too seem a YEC, and hence there is nothing fundamental separating us. Other than, again, your illusion that you know the universe. So, on my side, I’m stopping this here. Good luck in your future dialogues (not with me).

[standing_alone]

No, Bonky, I’m not begging any question about elves, or whatever. But I am putting forward the question (your question) about God, as the Creator. If you want to believe that it was elves that created the universe, you’re of course free to do so, although you wouldn’t be making any sense. God, by definition, is the only Creator. That’s one of His attributes.

 

Please tell me what theories you do believe in, and why. Just a few arguments, so that I’ll have an idea about what you understand by “convincing”.

 

Which should be indeed “commendable, not upsetting”. Hence my prior challenge, about the existence of anything.

 

But make sure you understand that if you don’t want to be convinced, you’ll never be convinced. Of anything. And God is the last that in general people want to be convinced about. And vice versa, if you want to be convinced of some things (such as certain theories), you’ll stay convinced no matter the amount of arguments against them.

 

So be honest with both yourself and me, and don’t waste anyone’s time, please.

[Bonky]

No, Bonky, I’m not begging any question about elves, or whatever. But I am putting forward the question (your question) about God, as the Creator. If you want to believe that it was elves that created the universe, you’re of course free to do so, although you wouldn’t be making any sense. God, by definition, is the only Creator. That’s one of His attributes.

I'm aware the storyline of Judeao Christianity is that there is only one Creator [even though Genesis says "we/us"]. You're really addressing a concept, a God concept that has been tinkered with for thousands of years.

 

Please tell me what theories you do believe in, and why. Just a few arguments, so that I’ll have an idea about what you understand by “convincing”.

I'm convinced that the heliocentric model of the solar system is accurate. Plate tectonics would be another.

But make sure you understand that if you don’t want to be convinced, you’ll never be convinced. Of anything. And God is the last that in general people want to be convinced about. And vice versa, if you want to be convinced of some things (such as certain theories), you’ll stay convinced no matter the amount of arguments against them.

 

So be honest with both yourself and me, and don’t waste anyone’s time, please.

I'm not going to sit in a room and start sweating because I'm trying so hard to believe. If something is true, you really don't need to work hard at believing it. You just need access to the data.

[Guest]

I'm not going to sit in a room and start sweating because I'm trying so hard to believe....

 

If something is true, you really don't need to work hard at believing it....

 

You just need access to the data....

 

 

Amen Beloved, This Is Spot On~!

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, Romans 10:17(a)

 

And Access Is Allowed

 

and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17(b)

 

With The Key 

 

But without faith

 

it is impossible to please him:

 

for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,

 

and that he is a rewarder of them

 

that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

 

Called 

 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,

 

the evidence of things

 

not seen. Hebrews 11:1

 

Faith