Why God is not real to you

Originally posted by sonship

And your ignorance in thinking Ford invented the internal combustion engine is astounding. Most people would surely answer Benz (although not strictly true) who was making automobiles in the 1880's ... 20 years before the Model T.

It is relatively a very very small matter concerning Henry Ford.
You're making a big fat deal out of a tin ...[text shortened]... he material details of the operation of the universe to avoid contemplation of the Author of it.

You can be happy poo pooing science because science is still in kindergarten, in its development. Come back in a couple hundred years of continued growth of science and in particular the origin of life question, wallow in it while you can. Eventually scientists are going to figure out exactly how life got here and maybe there is life on planets around other stars too and maybe we will be able to put together a comprehensive picture of how life started on OUR planet and others nearby, perhaps a cloud of organic prebiotic material coming into the solar system making life on Mars first, and of course all that is pure speculation so laugh it off while you can because your kind of thinking will inevitably have a rather short lifetime. I imagine when the origin question is fully answered the religious set will just rationalize it all away just like Hinds poo poo's almost ALL sciences, especially those that say Earth is way over 6000 years old and so forth.

This is the 21st century and even with the limited understanding of science we admittedly have right now, we know for certain Earth is billions of years old not a few thousand and anyone who says otherwise has his or her head in the sand, covering ears saying , NYA NYA NYA, I can't hear you'.

Originally posted by sonship
Conformed to the image of Christ, made like Him, transformed into His likeness we will enjoy eternity.

The reason you offer your foolish fear of boredom is because you fail to grasp that you will be changed.

What you fail to grasp is that the god I want (as opposed to the god you want)
gives me eternal life (with caveats) without changing me into something else

If I am changed - then its not [i]my[/] life which is eternal. It's the thing I become.

I mean would you want eternal life if it meant an IQ of 80?

Originally posted by twhitehead

The laws of physics exist because ___________________ ?
Why should I do that? You seem to believe that if someone disagrees with you about something then they must believe in and defend whatever strawman you make up. Sorry, but that tactic doesn't work.
I never said anything about knowing why the laws of physics exist, nor did I say I could explain how they were 'legislated'. In fact I strongly implied that I didn't think they were legislated, and essentially stated that there is no good reason to think that they were.
Perhaps you could explain why you think I would be able to complete that sentence. Do you honestly believe that it follow from what I said that I can answer it? Or were you being dishonest? See, I can make dichotomies too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting you to take even a stab at complete the sentence is the quickest way to get to the point I desire to get to. You can do the very same to me, so don't whine.


List your absolute top three "won" points which you say I simply will not admit you "won".

Go back ten years if you wish.
I am probably not going back over hundreds of posts to see if your recollection is my recollection.

You are free to parade out now the most important top three "won" arguments that you refer to.

As to this last question to which you reply "Why should I ... ?" [answer] essentially, concerning where the laws of physics come from -

I take your reply to be that the laws of physics are just a brute fact that you do not feel you have to give any opinion on about their source.

Well, some of us don't feel to leave it as just a brute fact that needs no speculation concerning. We notice that the universe runs on laws, many of which we can plainly detect. And there is absolutely nothing irrational or illogical or superstitious about surmising that these laws reveal design, intelligence, and purposeful planning.

A few weeks ago I spent some hours marveling at the periodic table of elements, atomic numbers, and such things. And I will never apologize or admit some alledged confession you fancy you're owed, because of believing our intelligence only READS OUT the intelligible scheme because some intelligence authored and READ IN the intelligible scheme.

Originally posted by sonship
Getting you to take even a stab at complete the sentence is the quickest way to get to the point I desire to get to.

Except when its a strawman, in which case it goes nowhere.

List your absolute top three "won" points which you say I simply will not admit you "won".
I can't be bothered to start sorting them etc (because I know you will never admit to them as has been demonstrated many many times in the past), so I will just list these two from this thread:
1. Your initial false dichotomy.
2. Your claim of a scientific consensus that:
Space , time, energy, matter trace their beginning to the cosmic creation event. That's what the Big Bang explanation has cosmologists at large agreeing on.

I am probably not going back over hundreds of posts to see if your recollection is my recollection.
Yes, I am sure that if I quote any old thread you will run away with 'but I don't recall that'.

I take your reply to be that the laws of physics are just a brute fact that you do not feel you have to give any opinion on about their source.
No, I do not know whether or not they are just brute fact. Yes, I do not feel I have to, nor should I, give any opinion on their source. To do so would be unwarranted speculation on my part given that I have zero knowledge in that regard (as do you).

Well, some of us don't feel to leave it as just a brute fact that needs no speculation concerning. We notice that the universe runs on laws, many of which we can plainly detect.
All well and good.

And there is absolutely nothing irrational or illogical or superstitious about surmising that these laws reveal design, intelligence, and purposeful planning.
Yes, that is irrational and illogical and superstitious given that the real reason you draw that conclusion is because it fits well with your religion. You didn't actually follow any logical process to derive the conclusion from the facts (or you would have stated your process here). Instead you think that stating it over and over and over ad nauseam will somehow make it logical or rational. Don't agree? Then please explain your reasoning rather than simply stating the conclusion and declaring it logical.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I can't be bothered to start sorting them etc (because I know you will never admit to them as has been demonstrated many many times in the past), so I will just list these two from this thread:
1. Your initial false dichotomy.

Looking back over this post and how I was led away from my true "initial" discussion, I assume that somewhere around here is what you are refering to.

me: That means that you have always been in existence since eternity then, which you should know is not true.

tw: False dichotomy. And given the number of times this has been discussed, you should already know that.

If you want me to retract this false dichotomy (as you say), then what is a third or fourth alternative to it ?

Human life has always existed.

Human life began to exist.

______________________ (as something breaking up the dichotomy )

2. Your claim of a scientific consensus that:
Space , time, energy, matter trace their beginning to the cosmic creation event. That's what the Big Bang explanation has cosmologists at large agreeing on.

Maybe you can say that it is arguable that a clear consensus may not think the Big Bang was a beginning of space, time, energy, matter.

Can you explain how Stephen Hawking could say space and time are finite but have no boundary ?

Another remarkable achievement of Hawking's using these techniques was his "no boundary proposal" made in 1983 with Jim Hartle of Santa Barbara. Hawking explains that this principle would mean:- ... that both time and space are finite in extent, but they don't have any boundary or edge. ... there would be no singularities, and the laws of science would hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe.

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

If you cannot explain finite but no boundary, I would appreciate it if you would just say so.

However, I Stephen Hawking seems to speak of the consensus taking for granted the beginning of the universe:

"
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. "

copied without permission from -

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Latter Hawking says:

But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star.

While Hawking proposes some novel theory, I don't think you're right to assume a consensus of cosmologists have caught up to his ideas. IE. a finite space / time with no boundary. (whatever that means). I notice he speaks of "imaginary time" in this lecture.

Maybe that's your imaginary won argument.

I am probably not going back over hundreds of posts to see if your recollection is my recollection.
Yes, I am sure that if I quote any old thread you will run away with 'but I don't recall that'.

And any request for reference will be met with your "I cannot be bothered ...".

No, I do not know whether or not they are just brute fact. Yes, I do not feel I have to, nor should I, give any opinion on their source. To do so would be unwarranted speculation on my part given that I have zero knowledge in that regard (as do you).

It is noticed how speculation is "unwarranted" when it may lead to a place the atheist doesn't want to go.

And there is absolutely nothing irrational or illogical or superstitious about surmising that these laws reveal design, intelligence, and purposeful planning.

Yes, that is irrational and illogical and superstitious given that the real reason you draw that conclusion is because it fits well with your religion.

It would be a genetic logical fallacy to pronounce it wrong only because it fits well with " my religion. "

That the laws of our universe seem calibrated to support us as living intelligent beings ... I think it leads away from yours.

You didn't actually follow any logical process to derive the conclusion from the facts (or you would have stated your process here).

You may say that I ask strongly, "Why does logic so well explain what I may intuitively feel ? "

There is such a thing as logic and rational thought confirming what one intuitively senses. You have been given the opportunity to rationalize otherwise as a possibility. I don't see you taking the opportunity to theorize.

Is that because laws of physics are just brute facts that you simply and rather reverently acknowledge as just absolutely omnipotent, eternal, supreme ?

Instead you think that stating it over and over and over ad nauseam will somehow make it logical or rational. Don't agree? Then please explain your reasoning rather than simply stating the conclusion and declaring it logical.

You can not agree.
But if you can't be bothered to really explain why you do not agree, the nauseam is that somehow you think you've proved something ... other than that you do not agree.

Okay then.
The laws of physics are just the laws of physics.
And you don't need to think about it beyond that.
Much nauseam though, in thinking this attitude puts you on some rational / logical high ground. It doesn't.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote]
Can you explain how Stephen Hawking could say space and time are finite but have no boundary ?

.

You already understand the concept.
The surface of the earth is finite but has no boundary.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You already understand the concept.
The surface of the earth is finite but has no boundary.

Two dimensionally what you say is true,
But an object can come from outer space, plunge into the atmosphere and land on the boundary of the earth, its surface.

I am open to hear the concept of Hawking. I am not hostile to his concept. But I am not leaping blindly after the concept.
That is finite time and space with no boundary.

Now, why do I think the laws of physics have an intelligent legislator with a purpose, plan, scheme then ?

One reason I believe it is because of the fine calibration of many constants of those laws that permit a life supporting universe such as we have.

Nobel physicist Bill Phillips agrees - the universe is a put-up job!

YouTube

Halfway through this video about questioners of the Big Bang as a beginning, the announcer says that the idea of the Big Bang not being a beginning of the universes is "almost mainstream".

So I will say that it is arguable where the mainstream of physicists' thinking is about the matter.

Twitehead, "arguabe" is not a full fledged admition of error that you crave. Its better for you than nothing (no pun intended).

BBC Documentary 2015 | What Happened Before the Big Bang | Documentary 2015 || Universe Documentary

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
If you want me to retract this false dichotomy (as you say), then what is a third or fourth alternative to it ?

I did. You pretended I didn't and never admitted you are wrong. I could present them again, but you will simply ignore them again surely?

Human life has always existed.

Human life began to exist.
Funny how you even make strawmans with your own claims. The quote quite clearly does not say 'human life' but refers directly to the poster Ghost of a Duke. Nor does it, in context, deal with 'began to exist' but is rather offering as one option Christians believing they were created.

Maybe you can say that it is arguable that a clear consensus may not think the Big Bang was a beginning of space, time, energy, matter.
It is not 'arguable', it is factual. There is no consensus whatsoever, clear or otherwise, that the Big Bang was a beginning of space, time, energy and matter. And once again you are throwing in a strawman in that what you said was 'the cosmic creation event.' and not 'a beginning of space, time, energy, matter.' They are not the same thing at all.

Can you explain how Stephen Hawking could say space and time are finite but have no boundary ?
I could try, but I doubt you would understand it, and doubt that you would try to understand it.

If you cannot explain finite but no boundary, I would appreciate it if you would just say so.
I can, but I fail to see why I should other than this being an attempt by you to sidetrack the discussion in order to get out of admitting that you were wrong.

While Hawking proposes some novel theory, I don't think you're right to assume a consensus of cosmologists have caught up to his ideas.
I make no such assumption. There is no consensus of cosmologists as to what happened before the big bang. It is an unknown and always has been.

Maybe that's your imaginary won argument.
Playing with words (or cheap jokes based on your ignorance of mathematics) will get you no where. You are wrong. Have the decency to admit it.

It is noticed how speculation is "unwarranted" when it may lead to a place the atheist doesn't want to go.
You notice incorrectly.

It would be a genetic logical fallacy to pronounce it wrong only because it fits well with " my religion. "
You will notice that I did no such thing.

That the laws of our universe seem calibrated to support us as living intelligent beings ... I think it leads away from yours.
You think wrong.

You may say that I ask strongly, "Why does logic so well explain what I may intuitively feel ? "
Huh? Can you expand on that, I don't quite get what you are saying.

There is such a thing as logic and rational thought confirming what one intuitively senses.
Well lets see it then. So far we have you claiming that you thought logically and rationally when in fact all you did was intuit.

Is that because laws of physics are just brute facts that you simply and rather reverently acknowledge as just absolutely omnipotent, eternal, supreme ?
I acknowledged no such thing. When will you learn that putting words in other peoples mouths is dishonest?

So, I have presented two cases where you were wrong, and as predicted, rather than simply admit it, you have done your best to try every trick you can think of to avoid admitting it including attempts at side tracking the discussion, changing the meaning of what was written, putting words in my mouth, and more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did. You pretended I didn't and never admitted you are wrong. I could present them again, but you will simply ignore them again surely?

[b]Human life has always existed.

Human life began to exist.
Funny how you even make strawmans with your own claims. The quote quite clearly does not say 'human life' but refers directly to the poster Ghost ...[text shortened]... g the discussion, changing the meaning of what was written, putting words in my mouth, and more.[/b]

I can notice your non-comment on my post. It must have hit a nerve to make you non cummunicado.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can notice your non-comment on my post. It must have hit a nerve to make you non cummunicado.

Are you responding to me or sonship?

Originally posted by twhitehead

My responses to your last post are not in order.

me: [b]That the laws of our universe seem calibrated to support us as living intelligent beings ... I think it leads away from yours. [

You think wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I admit that you have another opinion.

And I admit that I still think the evidence is leaning more towards exquisite calibration of many constants for the existence of higher forms of life, like us people.

me: Human life has always existed.

Human life began to exist.
-------------------------------------------------

The evidence has convinced me that the latter is the case.
And if someone doesn't like the word "create" they can substitute "caused to come into being."

I don't think any serious person argues that humanity was never caused to come into being.

As a Christian I have no shame in saying in believing humankind was created.

It is not 'arguable', it is factual. There is no consensus whatsoever, clear or otherwise, that the Big Bang was a beginning of space, time, energy and matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain

The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it, most scientists say. But was it the first beginning, and will it be the last?

Arguable.

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began extremely hot and extremely dense. Around 14 billion years ago, space itself expanded and cooled down, eventually allowing atoms to form and clump together to build the stars and galaxies we see today.

On this, most scientists are agreed.

"I would say that there is 100 percent consensus, really," University of Pennsylvania particle physicist Burt Ovrut said of the Big Bang theory. "There is overwhelming evidence ? all of the predictions are true."

For example, this theory predicted that the universe today would be filled with pervasive light left over from the Big Bang. This glow, called the cosmic microwave background radiation, was discovered in 1964, almost 20 years after it was forecast.

However, what caused the Big Bang, what happened at that exact moment, and what came immediately after it, are much more open to debate.

Arguable.

And once again you are throwing in a strawman in that what you said was 'the cosmic creation event.' and not 'a beginning of space, time, energy, matter.' They are not the same thing at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A scientist has every right to call the "Big Bang" but an alternative name "The Cosmic Creation Event".

Created or "Cause to come into being" is pretty interchangeable.

me: Can you explain how Stephen Hawking could say space and time are finite but have no boundary ?

I could try, but I doubt you would understand it, and doubt that you would try to understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps then you can write mathematician John Lennox. He should be able to understand your shop talk. Then I'd like to ask him about it. Here's the Oxford professor's website:

http://www.johnlennox.org/

There is no consensus of cosmologists as to what happened before the big bang. It is an unknown and always has been.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it is a consensus of not knowing and speculating and arguing about it. I notice some say there was no Big Bang. I notice that rehashings of one type or another of bouncing or steady state LIKE theories are proposed.

Playing with words (or cheap jokes based on your ignorance of mathematics) will get you no where. You are wrong. Have the decency to admit it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You posts to me are really mostly extended ad homs.
Pretending, dishonest, stubborn, uneducated ,,,
There's not a whole lot behind these repetitive ad homs.

I am looking for some more substance now.

me: There is such a thing as logic and rational thought confirming what one intuitively senses.

Well lets see it then. So far we have you claiming that you thought logically and rationally when in fact all you did was intuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If intuition is some kind of dirty world to you why is it used by this mathematician ?

Building intuition of hypothesis testing

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/674323/building-intuition-of-hypothesis-testing

So, I have presented two cases where you were wrong, and as predicted, rather than simply admit it, you have done your best to try every trick you can think of to avoid admitting it including attempts at side tracking the discussion, changing the meaning of what was written, putting words in my mouth, and more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From memory now -

I do not admit that a third alternative is more probable than a choice between humankind coming into existence (or created) and humankind being forever in existence.

I do not admit that you have presented a believable alternative.
Humankind was created - of if you will, came into being.

I do admit there is speculation plenty about what happened before the Big Bang. Many are looking for an alternative to seeing that space, time, energy, matter came into being 15 some billion years ago.

And I already indicated that in the post above:

Halfway through this video about questioners of the Big Bang as a beginning, the announcer says that the idea of the Big Bang not being a beginning of the universes is "almost mainstream".

So I will say that it is arguable where the mainstream of physicists' thinking is about the matter.

Twitehead, "arguabe" is not a full fledged admition of error that you crave. Its better for you than nothing (no pun intended).

BBC Documentary 2015 | What Happened Before the Big Bang | Documentary 2015 || Universe Documentary

YouTube