Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Original sin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    it all comes down to wishful thinking and magic.
    For the theist it comes down to “wishful thinking and magic”, it’s all they’ve got.

    Kinda like "we don't know how it happened, therefore imaginary multiverse?"
    Not at all.

    “Our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse…there's good physics behind it”.

    https://www.space.com/18811-multiple...-theories.html

    Conversely, there’s nothing behind the notion that ‘god did it’?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      For the theist it comes down to “wishful thinking and magic”, it’s all they’ve got.



      Not at all.

      “Our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse…there's good physics behind it”.

      https://www.space.com/18811-multiple...-theories.html

      Conversely, there’s nothing behind the notion that ‘god did it’?
      A pop science article?

      Oh please, "good physics behind it" is nonsense. By the very nature of the universe we can't know what is outside it or what came before it. Sure we can come up with theories and math to explain the results but they are still nothing but theories, not EVIDENCE. When the scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe, they had theories and math that confirmed it, and even explained how all of the planets orbited the earth, including the retrograde motion observed in various planets, using epicycles. It all worked out great and was very accurate. YET COMPLETELY WRONG. Theories are not evidence.

      The end result is that you are just putting your faith in theories without evidence. Magic spells.

      And there is indeed something behind "God did it" -- he told us so.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        There is no evidence for your belief about what happened before the big bang either. There can't be, because it wasn't in our universe and there was no time, or space, or energy. So we each have our faith.
        The evidence is simply that there is no other evidence than that of the material world. There is no evidence that something can come from nothing. And you can't on the one hand say that you can't know what was before the Big Bang and then on the other assert that there was nothing, no space, no time, no energy.


        That makes no sense. If I design a game, I make the rules. If the game works according to those rules, it is because I made them. Your argument is senseless. The physical laws did not have to work the way they do. And they didn't exist before God created the universe.
        No, if the game works it is because the rules conform to logic. You can't just make up any nonsensical rules, they would have to conform to the already existing rules of logic.
        God could have created the universe with entirely different physical properties and rules.
        Was god always, eternally omniscient, or did he become knowledgeable of the physical laws and how they would work only after creating them?


        Notice the bolded red words I highlighted for you...
        Yes, so, I used that word appropriately.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          The evidence is simply that there is no other evidence than that of the material world. There is no evidence that something can come from nothing. And you can't on the one hand say that you can't know what was before the Big Bang and then on the other assert that there was nothing, no space, no time, no energy.
          So your evidence is that there IS no evidence? And you are mocking us for believing "God did it?"






          No, if the game works it is because the rules conform to logic. You can't just make up any nonsensical rules, they would have to conform to the already existing rules of logic.
          Logic and physical laws are two different things Jim. Physical laws are changeable. They don't HAVE to exist the way they do. Gravity could be a non-existent force in this universe, or it could be stronger or weaker than it is, for example.


          Was god always, eternally omniscient, or did he become knowledgeable of the physical laws and how they would work only after creating them?
          Knowing what you want to create and creating them are two different things. I might know I want to create an object and decide to make it act in a certain way, but until I do, neither that object or the rules it obeys actually exist. I am surprised that this concept is eluding you.


          Yes, so, I used that word appropriately.
          Sure. You BELIEVE blah blah blah. But you don't KNOW. So you are stuck with the same thing as I am: Faith.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            So your evidence is that there IS no evidence? And you are mocking us for believing "God did it?"
            No, the evidence is that there is no evidence of the supernatural i.e no evidence of what you believe. We have only evidence of the natural world and that nothing comes from nothing. Your belief on the other hand is just made up, non-evidential.





            Logic and physical laws are two different things Jim.
            I was speaking of you creating something. You, obviously, can not create a thing that does not comply with physical laws.

            Physical laws are changeable. They don't HAVE to exist the way they do. Gravity could be a non-existent force in this universe, or it could be stronger or weaker than it is, for example.
            In an eternal and omniscient gods case, yes they would have to exist and work the way they do, that's why he would know them eternally. Unless you want to argue that god is not eternally omniscient and therefore didn't know the physical laws and how they would work before putting them to use.

            Knowing what you want to create and creating them are two different things. I might know I want to create an object and decide to make it act in a certain way, but until I do, neither that object or the rules it obeys actually exist. I am surprised that this concept is eluding you.
            Then, if you are saying that god didn't know the physical laws and how they would work beforehand, then you are suggesting that god is not omniscient. We are not talking about "knowing what you want to create" we're talking about Knowing how to create it, i.e. knowing the physical laws and how they will work. God, the eternal and omniscient creator would have to have known that eternally, no?


            Sure. You BELIEVE blah blah blah. But you don't KNOW. So you are stuck with the same thing as I am: Faith.
            Well, sort of, but again there is no evidence of the supernatural, nor evidence that something can come from nothing by simply saying "let there be, and it was." There is simply no sound reason to believe that.
            Last edited by JimL; 09-11-2019, 08:28 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              A pop science article?
              Science.com consists of legitimate science for the layman and uses credible scientific sourcing. It also respects the consensus of experts in a given scientific field and strives to publish peer reviewed science. Do you really think you could handle the actual complex mathematical argumentation of eminent physicists such as Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark, who explain why the multiverse would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested.

              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

              Oh please, "good physics behind it" is nonsense. By the very nature of the universe we can't know what is outside it or what came before it. Sure we can come up with theories and math to explain the results but they are still nothing but theories, not EVIDENCE. When the scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe, they had theories and math that confirmed it, and even explained how all of the planets orbited the earth, including the retrograde motion observed in various planets, using epicycles. It all worked out great and was very accurate. YET COMPLETELY WRONG. Theories are not evidence.
              No, the scientists did not. Natural philosophers such as Aristotle may have believed these theories based upon logical argumentation, but not on empirical observation and testing. However, they were superseded by scientists of the order of Copernicus and Galileo employing scientific methodology who showed them to be, as you say, "COMPLETELY WRONG".

              The end result is that you are just putting your faith in theories without evidence. Magic spells.
              Actually no, you are.

              And there is indeed something behind "God did it" -- he told us so.
              There's no "putting your faith in theories without evidence" and "Magic spells" here I see.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Well, sort of, but again there is no evidence of the supernatural, nor evidence that something can come from nothing by simply saying "let there be, and it was." There is simply no sound reason to believe that.

                Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

                That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as wel
                l.”


                http://discovermagazine.com/2013/sep...starting-point
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

                  That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? “It’s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don’t even know how to approach it,” Vilenkin admits. “But before inflation came along, we didn’t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we’ll pass this barrier as wel
                  l.”


                  http://discovermagazine.com/2013/sep...starting-point
                  There being unknowns, as there always will be, which is the driving force in science does not justify your belief with 'arguing from ignorance.'
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    There being unknowns, as there always will be, which is the driving force in science does not justify your belief with 'arguing from ignorance.'
                    Just stop Shuny, read the link there are good reasons (scientific) for why Vilenkin is making this argument.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      No, the evidence is that there is no evidence of the supernatural i.e no evidence of what you believe. We have only evidence of the natural world and that nothing comes from nothing. Your belief on the other hand is just made up, non-evidential.
                      But you have no evidence for your view either. A theory isn't evidence. It's a guess.





                      I was speaking of you creating something. You, obviously, can not create a thing that does not comply with physical laws.
                      I was giving you an example. But sure, I could design a computer modeled universe that used different physical laws. If I had the skill that is.


                      In an eternal and omniscient gods case, yes they would have to exist and work the way they do, that's why he would know them eternally. Unless you want to argue that god is not eternally omniscient and therefore didn't know the physical laws and how they would work before putting them to use.
                      No. he could just make up different parameters if he wanted to. The laws are not "things" they are just man-made descriptions of how we observe the universe to work. If God made the universe work differently, like changing the speed of light, then we would describe THAT as our "physical law"


                      Well, sort of, but again there is no evidence of the supernatural, nor evidence that something can come from nothing by simply saying "let there be, and it was." There is simply no sound reason to believe that.
                      Sure there is. God told us. There is no reason to believe your idea that we came form some multiverse. Or how that multiverse got there. It is nothing more than a "god replacement" - there is no evidence of it. Magic.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Science.com consists of legitimate science for the layman and uses credible scientific sourcing. It also respects the consensus of experts in a given scientific field and strives to publish peer reviewed science. Do you really think you could handle the actual complex mathematical argumentation of eminent physicists such as Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark, who explain why the multiverse would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested.

                        https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/



                        No, the scientists did not. Natural philosophers such as Aristotle may have believed these theories based upon logical argumentation, but not on empirical observation and testing. However, they were superseded by scientists of the order of Copernicus and Galileo employing scientific methodology who showed them to be, as you say, "COMPLETELY WRONG".
                        You have zero idea about the history of this do you? Of course they used empirical observation and testing. They watched the stars and planets, and came up with complex mathematics to describe their motion, and it was tested by checking their calculated positions to their actual positions.

                        In fact, did you know that the Ptolemaic model was so accurate that we still use it in planetariums?


                        As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle.
                        http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/Eveni...unit2_sub1.htm


                        So, yes, it was SCIENCE not theology.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          But you have no evidence for your view either. A theory isn't evidence. It's a guess.
                          Actually it's more of an hypothesis, an hypothesis based upon how nature works, ex nihilo nihil fit., whereas your belief is an hypothesis based upon ignorance.



                          I was giving you an example. But sure, I could design a computer modeled universe that used different physical laws. If I had the skill that is.
                          No, you could not create a universe like ours using different physical laws.


                          No. he could just make up different parameters if he wanted to. The laws are not "things" they are just man-made descriptions of how we observe the universe to work.
                          Right, they are descriptive, but it amounts to the same thing, if you change the description, your essentially changing th way the universe works.

                          If God made the universe work differently, like changing the speed of light, then we would describe THAT as our "physical law"
                          If the laws, or if the universe, worked differently, you wouldn't be here to describe anything.


                          Sure there is. God told us. There is no reason to believe your idea that we came form some multiverse. Or how that multiverse got there. It is nothing more than a "god replacement" - there is no evidence of it. Magic.
                          Actually there is more reason to believe in a natural birth to the universe than an unnatural or supernatural one. The latter, ie. creation out of nothing would be magic, the former would not be magic.
                          Last edited by JimL; 09-12-2019, 10:10 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Actually it's more of an hypothesis, an hypothesis based upon how nature works, ex nihilo nihil fit., whereas your belief is an hypothesis based upon ignorance.
                            Dumbass. A hypothesis is MORE of a guess than a theory is. It is what you have before you come up with a theory.







                            No, you could not create a universe like ours using different physical laws.
                            Who says it has to be like our universe? What are you smoking? It would be a different universe built on different physical laws. Just like God could have created a different universe with different laws.



                            Right, they are descriptive, but it amounts to the same thing, if you change the description, your essentially changing th way the universe works.
                            Duh. That's the whole point.


                            If the laws, or if the universe, worked differently, you wouldn't be here to describe anything.
                            Maybe some other creature would be. With another idiot creature like you saying the same dumb things you are.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Dumbass. A hypothesis is MORE of a guess than a theory is. It is what you have before you come up with a theory.

                              No kidding, dumbass. Why would you conclude I thought otherwise?




                              Who says it has to be like our universe? What are you smoking? It would be a different universe built on different physical laws. Just like God could have created a different universe with different laws.
                              Right, so he had to create this universe according to these laws? Correct?

                              Duh. That's the whole point.
                              Right, so god had to create the way he did in order for it to function the way it does, Correct?

                              Maybe some other creature would be. With another idiot creature like you saying the same dumb things you are.
                              Right, but you wouldn't be here, which is what you don't seem to get.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post

                                No kidding, dumbass. Why would you conclude I thought otherwise?
                                Because when I said it was a theory just a guess, you countered with it was an [sic] hypothesis as if that meant it was more than a theory.

                                So what you are saying is that you think it is even less than a theory, it is just a guess based on nothing but imagination? A theory would have at least a proposed methodology behind it.








                                Right, so he had to create this universe according to these laws? Correct?
                                no. Jim. no. Are you blind or just not actually reading what I am writing? If he created a universe based on different parameters we would have a different universe and this one would not exist. And it would have different physical laws. He could have created a universe where the speed of light was 500 miles an hour if he wanted. That would change how everything works in that universe. He could have created a universe where gravity was twice as strong as in this universe. He could have created a universe without light at all, or atoms. Anything he wanted.



                                Right, so god had to create the way he did in order for it to function the way it does, Correct?
                                And if he had created it differently, you (or whatever equivalent of you in the other universe) would be asking the same question. It's a nonsense question. Of course to create THIS universe he had to create it the way he created it. Because if he didn't it would be a different universe and that universe would have to be created the way he created it in order to be that universe.

                                Right, but you wouldn't be here, which is what you don't seem to get.
                                So what? I didn't have to exist in THIS universe. My mom might never have met my Dad and I would not exist.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X