-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Best Argument For or Against God's Existence
- Thread starter Achilles6129
- Start date
- Status
Bananas - nightmare.Ice cream. Now there is an argument for God.
Not really, but I do wonder why no one tries leading with that.
Upvote
0
Joshua -- I may regret jumping back in here, but you repeatedly reference Hawking, and seemingly out of context. For example:
Here is an article of Hawking's you previously picked from, where I'll quote from to show a fuller context:
"It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football."
That doesn't sound like Hawking is claiming imaginary time is nothing more than an imaginative contrivance. If you want to claim something like this is just imagination and philosophy and involves no mathematics, I'd like to see you flesh that out and explain how you come to that conclusion.
Also, if you further read that article, you'll see that Hawking DOES state the singularity exists ... in "real" time. The time we experience now. It doesn't exist in imaginary time, in imaginary time it's just a point from which the universe expands smoothly.
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again."
If I understand at least the basics correctly, he is stating that there *is* a singularity from which time and the universe (I believe he is basically meaning the observable universe, considering the way he describes it throughout the lecture) came forth from, but when attempting to explain the origins of the entire universe from the context of the Hartle-Hawking state ... that point appears like any other point in time along the imaginary time axis. IOW ... it didn't ALL originate with the singularity, as previously thought. "What came before the singularity ?" is what the Hartle-Hawking state attempts to address. So he is describing two periods of "existence" ... the beginning the universe where things like "beginning of time" apply, and then BEFORE that (before the Planck Epoch), when things like that don't apply and break down (at the singularity) and may become meaningless. I believe when you reference him, you are picking things out of context, and mixing and mashing ideas. I haven't read ABHOT in a long while, however simply referencing that lecture and other online articles, it seems to me you are taking him out of context.
I've already gone through some of these circles with you weeks ago in this thread, so it's not totally fair of me to post and run, but I'm not interested in going round with you again. However if you'd like to address, in detail and with equations that you understand AND can explain, why the very concepts you are referencing are nothing more than imaginative contrivances ... feel free. Seeing as how you pick from those same proposals and concepts to try and support your own statements, which I think you do out of context.
Here is an article of Hawking's you previously picked from, where I'll quote from to show a fuller context:
"It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football."
That doesn't sound like Hawking is claiming imaginary time is nothing more than an imaginative contrivance. If you want to claim something like this is just imagination and philosophy and involves no mathematics, I'd like to see you flesh that out and explain how you come to that conclusion.
Also, if you further read that article, you'll see that Hawking DOES state the singularity exists ... in "real" time. The time we experience now. It doesn't exist in imaginary time, in imaginary time it's just a point from which the universe expands smoothly.
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again."
If I understand at least the basics correctly, he is stating that there *is* a singularity from which time and the universe (I believe he is basically meaning the observable universe, considering the way he describes it throughout the lecture) came forth from, but when attempting to explain the origins of the entire universe from the context of the Hartle-Hawking state ... that point appears like any other point in time along the imaginary time axis. IOW ... it didn't ALL originate with the singularity, as previously thought. "What came before the singularity ?" is what the Hartle-Hawking state attempts to address. So he is describing two periods of "existence" ... the beginning the universe where things like "beginning of time" apply, and then BEFORE that (before the Planck Epoch), when things like that don't apply and break down (at the singularity) and may become meaningless. I believe when you reference him, you are picking things out of context, and mixing and mashing ideas. I haven't read ABHOT in a long while, however simply referencing that lecture and other online articles, it seems to me you are taking him out of context.
I've already gone through some of these circles with you weeks ago in this thread, so it's not totally fair of me to post and run, but I'm not interested in going round with you again. However if you'd like to address, in detail and with equations that you understand AND can explain, why the very concepts you are referencing are nothing more than imaginative contrivances ... feel free. Seeing as how you pick from those same proposals and concepts to try and support your own statements, which I think you do out of context.
Then why not just stick with referencing the Holy Spirit ... why go through all of this with the KCA and whatnot ?
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
As soon as you revisit the objections you have yet to address.
If God is the only entity in the category of entities Not Beginning to Exist, then it does beg the question.
And? We should care about what the Bible has to say on the matter because?
We have already covered this territory.
If the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then we could say the same of the universe: there was no time in which the universe did not exist; it has always existed.
"It just so happens."
You don't need to feign surprise when your argument was engineered to reach this very conclusion.
Upvote
0
nonbeliever314
....grinding teeth.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 398
- 49
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
In terms of KCA, at this point I don't know what to say besides. Kangaroo Car Awesomeness. (Sorry, it's unrelated)
Upvote
0
nonbeliever314
....grinding teeth.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 398
- 49
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
nonbeliever314
....grinding teeth.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 398
- 49
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
But I seriously don't know where else we can go with this argument. I think we've tried everything. Last off topic thing, I promise... What if we make a time machine, go back 2500 years, and remove the KCA from history?
Upvote
0
Tsk tsk lolI felt bad about posting it. But, I am sure I will get over that.
You didn't do anything, it did it to itself.
Upvote
0
nonbeliever314
....grinding teeth.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 398
- 49
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
