Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

It is interesting that someone can rationalize a sugar cube illustration about possibilities and require evidence of God.

Ultimately you're right. If that sugar can assemble itself over time, then a Boltzmann brain could *easily* do the same exact thing.

FYI, all the claims related to 'expansion' are directly related to the observation that photons ultimately lose some small amount of energy over distance. When Hubble first realized this, he published papers that talked about *two* possible explanations for that observation, expansion (of objects), and "tired light", or what we would today call inelastic scattering. Both of these things that Hubble discussed have been verified in the lab, and they both remain viable options to this very day. It could of course be a combination of both the movement of objects *and* inelastic scattering.

The mainstream isn't trying to sell you either of these two options however. They've created a metaphysical sky mythology related to "space expansion" claims that have never been shown to occur in a lab, and never will be. They've created two 'supernatural' sky entities to explain their supernatural claim of "expansion of space" and they called them inflation and dark energy. Inflation performed the first miracle and and put "space" in motion. The second miracle is performed by "dark energy" which supposedly "accelerates" something they call "space".

"Space" isn't even defined in GR theory. GR theory allows for the movement of objects, and it describes distance and "spacetime' curvature. It doesn't say a word about "space'. It doesn't define 'space". "Space" isn't even a part of GR theory, it's a metaphysical kludge they dreamed up. They can't physically define it. They can't explain how it would physically expand.

Having an example of time scale but not going to the Creator of this Creation in their life time.

The "lifetime" of the universe itself depends entirely upon how you 'interpret' that redshift. If it's mostly related to inelastic scattering in plasma and dust, then the universe may not be expanding at all, and objects may not be moving all that much in relationship to each other. In such a scenario, the universe could be infinite and eternal for all we know.

Everybody on this thread keeps acting like He is not, nor the God who is near.

That's because as Jesus said, the Kingdom of Heaven is found within. They'd have to go within themselves and "ask" and develop a real 'relationship' with God. They don't trust other minds, nor their own minds to even be able to do such a thing. It's kind of an ugly catch 22 if you ask me.

That is about how much value He is to some - instead they chose to be debators.

For some at least, it is definitely a form of evangelical atheism.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to them, I need to have "pure absolute faith" in three (or maybe four) invisible metaphysical sky entities.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

I'd also have to simply ignore all the reports of humans having a relationship with something they call "God".

You need to show that it is God.

I have no logical reason to believe that awareness can't be 'scaled to size',

You have no evidence that it has been scaled to size.

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

I noticed you ran from my request to provide a specific paper(s).

You need to show that it is God.

Not if I play by your standards. You didn't show any connection between your sky deities and photon redshift. You *allege* the connection. In fact, you "take it on faith".

You have no evidence that it has been scaled to size.

That sugarcube example is all the evidence I need. Given enough time, there's a *greater* likelihood that a Boltzmann brain would evolve in spacetime than humans would evolve on Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

I noticed you ran from my request to provide a specific paper(s).

I notice that you are attempting to drag another thread off topic with the same subject.

That sugarcube example is all the evidence I need. Given enough time, there's a *greater* likelihood that a Boltzmann brain would evolve in spacetime than humans would evolve on Earth.

Let's see your math.

 

[Michael]

I notice that you are attempting to drag another thread off topic with the same subject.

It just so happens that I started this thread to explain that God can be found "naturally" through 'science' too, so it's not actually off topic. I'd still prefer you respond to my request for an actual paper in the appropriate thread however.

Let's see your math.

Let's see your physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

It just so happens that I started this thread to explain that God can be found "naturally" through 'science' too, so it's not actually off topic.

Then show how that works.

Let's see your physics.

So you have nothing.

 

[Michael]

There has been an error - New Scientist

It may seem impossible for a brain to blink into existence, but the laws of physics don't rule it out entirely. All it requires is a vast amount of time. Eventually, a random chunk of matter and energy will happen to come together in the form of a working mind. It's the same logic that says a million monkeys working on a million typewriters will replicate the complete works of Shakespeare, if you leave them long enough.
Most models of the future predict that the universe will expand exponentially forever. That will eventually spawn inconceivable numbers of Boltzmann brains, far outnumbering every human who has ever, or will ever, live.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Michael]

Then show how that works.

Go read up on Boltzmann Brains. I don't suppose you've actually read a real textbook yet on plasma physics?

So you have nothing.

You mean *besides* those millions of humans that report having a relationship with God, NDE's, and empirical physics?

 

[Loudmouth]

There has been an error - New Scientist




Emphasis mine.

"Given enough time, there's a *greater* likelihood that a Boltzmann brain would evolve in spacetime than humans would evolve on Earth."--Michael

I am still waiting for you to back this up. I am also waiting for the probability calculations supporting the claims in the New Scientist article. On top of that, I am still awaiting evidence that any such brain actually exists.

 

[Michael]

"Given enough time, there's a *greater* likelihood that a Boltzmann brain would evolve in spacetime than humans would evolve on Earth."--Michael

I am still waiting for you to back this up. I am also waiting for the probability calculations supporting the claims in the New Scientist article.

Then go look up the original papers on Boltzmann brains if that floats your boat. I'm not your physics mommy. I quoted the relevant parts of the article for you.

On top of that, I am still awaiting evidence that any such brain actually exists.

Likewise I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that any of your invisible metaphysical sky friends actually exist, *and* I want to see some evidence they have some empirical effect on a photon in controlled experimentation. When might I expect that from you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then go look up the original papers on Boltzmann brains if that floats your boat. I'm not your physics mommy. I quoted the relevant parts of the article for you.

So you have nothing to back what you claimed, is that correct?

Likewise I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that any of your invisible metaphysical sky friends actually exist, *and* I want to see some evidence they have some empirical effect on a photon in controlled experimentation. When might I expect that from you?

No need to drag another thread off topic on the same subject.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

 

[Michael]

So you have nothing to back what you claimed, is that correct?

No, that's not correct. I *never* bark math on command on message boards, not for you nor for anyone else. I'm also not your math mommy or your research mommy.

Have you even read a textbook on plasma physics yet?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that's not correct. I *never* bark math on command on message boards, not for you nor for anyone else. I'm also not your math mommy or your research mommy.

I am just really wondering how you would even start to compare the probabilities of these two occuring. Perhaps you could give a rough sketch?

"Given enough time, there's a *greater* likelihood that a Boltzmann brain would evolve in spacetime than humans would evolve on Earth."--Michael

Have you even read a textbook on plasma physics yet?

Your obsession with plasma is discussed in other threads.

 

[Michael]

Your obsession with plasma is discussed in other threads.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Michael]

I am just really wondering how you would even start to compare the probabilities of these two occuring.

Oh for goodness sake:

[1211.7021] Multi-Vacuum Initial Conditions and the Arrow of Time

Care to show me the odds of life forming on Earth?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll take that as a "no".

And to think plasma makes up 99.99% of the universe, but they see no need to try to understand it. just astounding!

 

[Michael]

And to think plasma makes up 99.99% of the universe, but they see no need to try to understand it. just astounding!

That is sad.

It's actually down right scary when you actually start asking astronomers if they've read any books on plasma physics. I'm pretty sure I've read more books on that topic than most of the astronomers I've ever met. Most of the so called 'skeptics' of EU/PC theory have never even read one!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is sad.

It's actually down right scary when you actually start asking astronomers if they've read any books on plasma physics. I'm pretty sure I've read more books on that topic than most of the astronomers I've ever met. Most of the so called 'skeptics' of EU/PC theory have never even read one!

I agree, it is sad, and it is also down right insulting to say 99% of the universe is plasma and then refuse to even try to understand what it is. There would be no difference in ignoring carbon in the makeup of diamonds. Any theory made about how they were formed would be utterly useless and require the addition of Fairie Dust in an attempt to explain a diamond.

 

[Davian]

It is interesting that someone can rationalize a sugar cube illustration about possibilities and require evidence of God.

Having an example of time scale but not going to the Creator of this Creation in their life time.

Everybody on this thread keeps acting like He is not, nor the God who is near.

That is about how much value He is to some - instead they chose to be debators.

If you can't demonstrate this 'value', then everyone is justified in acting like there is none. You appear to have a god of no significance.

 

[Davian]

Leaving aside your addition of water problem, I'm fine with that concept. Given an infinite amount of time, and *positive net energy*, pretty much anything can happen.

Ah, there's our difference in a nutshell. I personally favor a static universe, or slowly (currently) expanding universe, but not a Big Bang theory. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal.

Of which you also wish it to be so that your gods are eternal. No coincidence there.

You mean besides your claim about the 'end of the cosmos'?
<snip rant>

I was referring to the article you linked to; did you read it?