uber reality

Originally posted by twhitehead
If time and space started at the big bang, then it is illogical to say the big bang started somewhere. Just as illogical as saying Southness starts at 91 degrees South, or length starts at minus 1.

[b] It doesn't make sense that all existence popped into being from nothing.
An I fully agree. My point was that if the 'nothing' in question is as mu ...[text shortened]... ding time and space, began with that singular event. [/quote]
Which contradicts your OP.[/b]

Your first point, that is exactly why I invoked an uber-reality. Btw, your very last point, that is also why I didn't contradict myself. Maybe I said "time" when I should of said, what, uber-time or something. Work with me here.

I understand why we believe the big bang doesn't have a central location in our universe.

An I fully agree. My point was that if the 'nothing' in question is as much nothing as the nothing South of the South Pole, then one shouldn't even suggest that all existence popped into being from nothing.

It feels like I'm missing a point here that I should want to grasp. The whole "south" thing depends on an arbitrary limitation or boundary.

We agree that it doesn't make sense that something can literally come from nothing. I don't see how the "south" thing helps resolve my confusion.

Btw, I don't deny the big bang theory. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but I do see that science sees our reality seems to have expanded from a single point. Our physics and math has pinned it down really close to the event itself.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Can you give a link to the exact words Hawking said, what theory he is talking about? If it is going like you said, it would seem to imply there was an agency, or as creationists like to say, an intelligent designer.

As far as I know, Hawking is atheistic. Not sure if he would tout such a theory.

He wasn't touting the theory, it was just one theory among others he was explaining. It was on a PBS broadcast, so he obviously didn't go into any great detail about the theories he was talking about. I did listen carefully to that one, to make sure he wasn't talking about something else, but he was clearly talking about something coming from absolute nothingness.

Hawkins is an atheist, and it's obvious how he feels about anyone who seriously entertains the idea of there being a God. I can understand why he might harbor feelings of resentment. He's not the first to suffer from a disability and be angry toward a god that allows the suffering he's had to endure. I know this is self contradictory, and he's obviously not angry toward something he doesn't believe in, but feelings aren't necessarily logical. His anger is actually directed toward the people who believe in God. You can disagree with this, but after listening to him talk about it I can come to no other conclusion... he definitely has an axe to grind.

Originally posted by lemon lime
He wasn't touting the theory, it was just one theory among others he was explaining. It was on a PBS broadcast, so he obviously didn't go into any great detail about the theories he was talking about. I did listen carefully to that one, to make sure he wasn't talking about something else, but he was clearly talking about something coming from absol m talk about it I can come to no other conclusion... he definitely has an axe to grind.

I know this is self contradictory

Exactly! So it must logically be false! He cannot be “angry toward a god “ if he is an atheist.

but feelings aren't necessarily logical.

so how do you know his feelings are not 'logical' in exactly the way (in which ever way that is -I have no idea of exactly what you are trying to say here) you are trying to describe? How can you read his mind to work out this precise detail of his feeling?

Originally posted by apathist
Your first point, that is exactly why I invoked an uber-reality. Btw, your very last point, that is also why I didn't contradict myself. Maybe I said "time" when I should of said, what, uber-time or something. Work with me here.

I think the danger of invoking uber dimensions is you simply can't resist connecting them. Dimensions simply don't work that way. If there is uber-time, then it won't be a continuation of our current time. It will be totally separate, so to talk of 'before' time began would still be in error.

I understand why we believe the big bang doesn't have a central location in our universe.
Except its not a belief. If the big bang took place then it follows logically that it has no central location in the universe, because it was the universe.

It feels like I'm missing a point here that I should want to grasp. The whole "south" thing depends on an arbitrary limitation or boundary.
The surface of the earth is finite, and any dimension used to map it is necessarily finite too. The exact location of a boundary is arbitrary, that there is a boundary is not.
Similarly we could use a different coordinate system for space and make one or more of the dimensions finite. eg polar co-ordinates.

We agree that it doesn't make sense that something can literally come from nothing. I don't see how the "south" thing helps resolve my confusion.
I hoped it would illustrate a true 'nothing' and let you realise that one should not make the mistake of giving it a location.

Btw, I don't deny the big bang theory. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but I do see that science sees our reality seems to have expanded from a single point. Our physics and math has pinned it down really close to the event itself.
And I don't think anyone knows whether time started with the big bang or not, but if it did, then there was no before, and the big bang did not come from nothing. It is entirely self contained.

Originally posted by humy

I know this is self contradictory

Exactly! So it must logically be false! He cannot be “angry toward a god “ if he is an atheist.

but feelings aren't necessarily logical.

so how do you know his isn't logical in exactly the way (in which ever way that is) you are trying to describe? You cannot read his mind to work out this precise detail.

I'm basing my observation on conversations I've had with people with disabilities. Anger can cloud judgement, so I'm not judging anyones anger toward a god or toward people who believe in God.

This is just my own observation and not a hard fact, so you can agree or disagree. Normally I'm not confident enough of my own observations to make this kind of statement, because then I would be doing the same thing... I would be basing it on a feeling rather than on what I've observed. But I'm fairly confident I'm right about Hawking... I've seen this before and have heard it often enough to be able to recognise it when I see it.

Originally posted by humy

I know this is self contradictory

Exactly! So it must logically be false! He cannot be “angry toward a god “ if he is an atheist.

but feelings aren't necessarily logical.

so how do you know his feelings are not 'logical' in exactly the way (in which ever way that is -I have no idea of exactly what you are trying to s ...[text shortened]... trying to describe? How can you read his mind to work out this precise detail of his feeling?

In case you haven't noticed, I use a lot of qualifiers. Words like if, possible, possibly, might, may, could, would, etc etc. This is intentional, to let readers know I'm not saying something is a fact, or is something I know for a fact. There is actually very little I can claim to know for a fact, so this is the reason for the qualifiers.

Most of our reasoning is a process known as inference to the best explanation. The assumption is we can't always hit the target squarely in the middle of the bulls eye... okay, I'm being facetious, the assumption actually is that we can't expect to hit the center of the bulls eye on the first shot. This is what scientists mean when they talk about refining a theory, or getting closer to the truth, etc etc.

And when I talk about a god or people who believe in God I'm intentionally making a distinction between atheists who do not believe in a god and people who believe in God. If anyone wants to argue against someones belief in God they will immediately invalidate their argument by misrepresenting it as a belief in a god. I don't believe I'm putting too fine a point on this as I've already seen loads of misrepresentational argumentation on almost any other topic.


Try saying misrepresentational argumentation very fast, five times in a row.

Originally posted by lemon lime
.... If anyone wants to argue against someones belief in God they will immediately invalidate their argument by misrepresenting it as a belief in a god. ....

Um, actually no.

If you present an argument that is valid against all gods then it will be by definition
valid against any specific god.

The god of the bible is but one among many imagined gods over the millennia.
As none have any supporting evidence (and more than enough contradicting evidence)
no hypothesised god had any claim to greater significance or validity other than
popularity. Although some gods have greater or lesser prior probabilities which you
could I suppose use to rank them if you really felt like it, this would penalise omni-max
monotheistic gods as they are inherently less probable than less powerful deities.

In fact an omni-max god is infinitely improbable a priori.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm basing my observation on conversations I've had with people with disabilities. Anger can cloud judgement, so I'm not judging anyones anger toward a god or toward people who believe in God.

This is just my own observation and not a hard fact, so you can agree or disagree. Normally I'm not confident enough of my own observations to make this kind of een this before and have heard it often enough to be able to recognise it when I see it.

So exactly which specific personal observations of him makes you judge that he, despite you say that he is an atheist, is inexplicably, as you said, feels "angry toward a god"?
And towards any god in particular?
Simply noting any anger he may have toward theism doesn't really explain it and the only so called 'evidence' I have heard of so far that he has such anger is that you say he is an atheist. And he isn't even an atheist! He is an agnostic:

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

"...As Hawking explained "If the universe has no boundaries but is self-contained... then God would not have had any freedom to choose how the universe began."[144] But Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, ..."

so where is this 'anger' you speak about? exactly which observation leads you to think he is showing anger towards anything at all!? -let alone a god!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um, actually no.

If you present an argument that is valid against all gods then it will be by definition
valid against any specific god.

The god of the bible is but one among many imagined gods over the millennia.
As none have any supporting evidence (and more than enough contradicting evidence)
no hypothesised god had any claim to greater sig ...[text shortened]... obable than less powerful deities.

In fact an omni-max god is infinitely improbable a priori.

I was referring to my own personal arsenal of reasoning tools. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's not an exact science, but it does help me to understand what I'm dealing with.

Your statement for example, The god of the bible is but one among many imagined gods over the millennia does not lead me to believe you are actually talking about a god or gods, because in your own words they are imagined gods. This is a referece to people who hold to this belief, and not to the belief itself. If I said The big bang theory is but one among many imagined theories, the implication is these theories are not about anything real, but are only about what we imagine.

Originally posted by humy
So exactly which specific personal observations of him makes you judge that he, despite you say that he is an atheist, is inexplicably, as you said, feels "angry toward a god"?
And towards any god in particular?
Simply noting any anger he may have toward theism doesn't really explain it and the only so called 'evidence' I have heard of so far th ...[text shortened]... n leads you to think he is showing anger towards anything at all!? -let alone a god!

Sorry, but my experiences and observations aren't directly transferable to you or anyone else. And your experiences and observations aren't directly transferable to me, so you won't see me questioning your experiences and observations... I will assume you saw what you saw and experienced what you experienced.

I've already said you can agree or disagree. You obviously disagree, so what is your point?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was referring to my own personal arsenal of reasoning tools. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's not an exact science, but it does help me to understand what I'm dealing with.

Your statement for example, The god of the bible is but one among many imagined gods over the millennia does not lead me to believe you are actually talking about [i ...[text shortened]... mplication is these theories are not about anything real, but are only about what we imagine.

Prove that a god actually exists and we can start talking about real gods.

Till then...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Prove that a god actually exists and we can start talking about real gods.

Till then...

Prove that a big bang actually happened and we can start talking about a real event.

Till then...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Prove that a big bang actually happened and we can start talking about a real event.

Till then...

Yeah, but I can actually do that.

People who claim god exists can't.

That's the difference.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah, but I can actually do that.

People who claim god exists can't.

That's the difference.

No you can't.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
Sorry, but my experiences and observations aren't directly transferable to you or anyone else. And your experiences and observations aren't directly transferable to me, so you won't see me questioning your experiences and observations... I will assume you saw what you saw and experienced what you experienced.

I've already said you can agree or disagree. You obviously disagree, so what is your point?

What has my “experiences” got to do with this? That's irrelevant.
I have just shown EVIDENCE that he is an agnostic and NOT, as you claim, an atheist.

Reminder:

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

"...But Hawking did not rule out the existence of a Creator, ..."

How is that evidence just my personal “experience”? It is NOT my “experience” but a FACT. It is NOT mere personal opinion because you can look it up for yourself.

And just stating that you are judging by your own personal experiences and observations does NOTHING to explain WHICH SPECIFIC observations have lead you to think he was angry about something or angry about a god. I am not yet disagreeing here that your conclusion does not follow from your premise because you have yet to say what your premise actually is, I am ONLY asking you to tell us exactly WHICH personal observations make you think he is angry and how so -that is all. I am not making any “point” other than just asking the question which you have yet to answer.
Well? What is your answer? What personal observations are they?