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.
There's only one guy holding a book about god. There should be approx 100 all holding different books, clay tables, cave drawings ect. All saying something different.
Proving if a god exists, no one on Earth has a clue what he's about.
I´m glad I had pre-emptively explained that, how and why I don´t, and what my point actually was . Please reread the explanation and address the rest of the post.
I'll call your bluff. Tell me whether or not the following vectors form a basis. <1,1,0>, <2,2,0>, <0,0,1>. That should literally take you 10 seconds if you know what you say you know.
thanks for the bluff. I'll not hesitate to explain then that I took every college physics course available and had a 4.0 average in those classes. I've also read multiple books on relativity, particle physics, I remember reading about Schrodinger's cat, Young's dual slit experiments, etc. and a few on quantum physics. I'll also admit that I'm much older now than when I first took those classes. So yes, even though it might take me a few minutes to remind myself about vectors, that does not mean I am unfamiliar with the concepts. Taking less than 10 seconds only proves that I might have taken the course yesterday, or that I read that stuff everyday, which I don't anymore.
So now for your bluff.
The coordinate format looks familiar to me. I would have to remind myself of how they represent vectors before I could answer your question.
So, this in no way means that your paper was valid and that you have proved anything wrong in relation to the KCA. You've merely attacked me, which does nothing to prove the KCA right or wrong.
So where do you want to go from here? Did you want to delve into your idea and see if it floats? It might take me a while to analyze it, but I have been open to doing that since you insisted. I'm curious as to how your proved the KCA to be wrong.
As Vilenkin (a scientist) said, even inflation models had a beginning. Why are we going back to try to disprove what even most atheistic scientists agree with, that the universe had a beginning? You guys pick like one or two atheists scientist who say that the universe could have always existed, and they only cite theoretical models and not one iota of scientific evidence. The ones who believe that the universe probably did have a beginning can cite not only theoretical models, but also scientific evidences and logic.
The proof Man needs gods. Joshua can't explain why the Big Bang happened. Even as we debate others are trying to find out. Experiments to prove big bang theory.
So we don't know 100% yet and he hangs his whole argument on what we haven't yet discovered. Ignoring all the proof the bible doesn't have an ounce of proof abou god, creationism, except. Believe me I know best.
I´m glad I had pre-emptively explained that, how and why I don´t, and what my point actually was . Please reread the explanation and address the rest of the post.
The rest of your post does nothing. If all we've seen in this universe is efficient and material causes, that in no way proves that the immaterial does not exist. That's like saying that because you've never seen a horse, horses don't exist. You are a priori ruling out the existence of an immaterial being because it hasn't materialized for you yet. You are in effect a materialist and there's no point in denying it.
wait a minute...are we going to go off into another rabbit trail? Let's stay on topic. Present your paper (in a readable format) and we'll see if you actually proved the KCA to be wrong.
If you had a 4.0 GPA and took those classes, this is something that should easily ring a bell. Especially in physics. We're essentially having a debate about how the universe started or didn't start. You claim a specific god did it, cite scientific papers, and claim to know physics. But when I ask you a very simple question regarding something you claim you are good at, you can't even remember what a vector was (or represented as you put it)? Come on.
There's only one guy holding a book about god. There should be approx 100 all holding different books, clay tables, cave drawings ect. All saying something different.
Proving if a god exists, no one on Earth has a clue what he's about.
If you had a 4.0 GPA and took those classes, this is something that should easily ring a bell. Especially in physics. We're essentially having a debate about how the universe started or didn't start. You claim a specific god did it, cite scientific papers, and claim to know physics. But when I ask you a very simple question regarding something you claim you are good at, you can't even remember what a vector was (or represented as you put it)? Come on.
No I do remember vectors, and I excelled in that subject. But that is not the subject at hand. I should point out here that you have made a truth claim, that you have proved the KCA to be wrong. The onus is on you right now to provide your proof. I'll await your genius.
No I do remember vectors, and I excelled in that subject. But that is not the subject at hand. I should point out here that you have made a truth claim, that you have proved the KCA to be wrong. The onus is on you right now to provide your proof. I'll await your genius.
These survey results indicate that most professional philosophers are atheists, so presumably most philosophers don't find the KCA convincing, if they've heard of it.
So this is an argument that draws on cosmology and philosophy, and neither discipline finds it convincing. Huh. What the heck is going on here? It's almost as if the argument has obvious and blatant flaws and is really, really unconvincing.
wow. so much to unpack here.
things that begin to exist:
a car (cause was the manufacturer)
a baby (cause was mommy and daddy)
a tree (cause was a seed that was nurtured)
a song (cause was the songwriter)
an idea (cause was the thinker)
the reformation (cause was people like Luther)
the character Tom Sawyer (cause the author Mark Twain)
None of these things "begin to exist" the way you think the universe "began to exist". That is a very clear shift in definition of the meaning of "exist". Each thing here is either a concept (which exists only in the mind and as such is based on an arrangement of matter and energy) or a rearrangement of existing matter and energy, neither of which can reasonably be said to come into existence.
note that not all of the causes above are material.
Yes, actually, they all are. The person thinking about the idea is using his material brain to come up with a different material brain state. The songwriter is a person. A thing. A material. Nothing here has an "immaterial" cause.
I'll call your bluff. Tell me whether or not the following vectors form a basis. <1,1,0>, <2,2,0>, <0,0,1>. That should literally take you 10 seconds if you know what you say you know.
thanks for the bluff. I'll not hesitate to explain then that I took every college physics course available and had a 4.0 average in those classes. I've also read multiple books on relativity, particle physics, I remember reading about Schrodinger's cat, Young's dual slit experiments, etc. and a few on quantum physics. I'll also admit that I'm much older now than when I first took those classes. So yes, even though it might take me a few minutes to remind myself about vectors, that does not mean I am unfamiliar with the concepts. Taking less than 10 seconds only proves that I might have taken the course yesterday, or that I read that stuff everyday, which I don't anymore.
So now for your bluff.
The coordinate format looks familiar to me. I would have to remind myself of how they represent vectors before I could answer your question.
Hi, Comp-Sci dropout over here. I saw those coordinates and could immediately tell you the answer, and the class that covered it was one I barely passed over two years ago. The idea that someone who claims to have studied physics and passed with flying colors doesn't know the answer is kind of stunning.
<1,1,0><2,2,0><0,0,1> is not a basis of R^3, because no combination of these vectors can give you <1,0,0> or <0,1,0> or any multiple thereof. Alternatively, you could prove this by pointing out that two of the vectors are linearly dependent and as such are effectively the same vector, and that as a result you're trying to fill 3 dimensions with two vectors, which isn't going to work. That fact alone moves this problem from "really basic" to "incredibly trivial for anyone who knows anything about vectors and mathematics".
Stop trying to rescue your credentials. This is the internet. The men are men, the women are men, and the 14-year-old girls are FBI agents. The way you demonstrate your credentials on the internet is by demonstrating competence. You just claimed to excel in a subject, after failing to provide an answer to a really simple question in that subject. It's like if someone said they were an expert in RNA transcriptase, and couldn't tell me what "RNA" stands for. I think at this point we should just move on, and you should just accept that nobody believes you when you say you're an authority on physics.
wait a minute...are we going to go off into another rabbit trail? Let's stay on topic. Present your paper (in a readable format) and we'll see if you actually proved the KCA to be wrong.
It wasn't meant to prove KCA wrong. The KCA basically just says the universe had a beginning. I was just throwing ideas around. You have a space (of which may or may not have had a beginning, I wasn't specific at all), that was encapsulated in another space, and so on. That's all it was. Basically, the idea in my head (of which I probably can't express mathematically), is you have a universe, say it had a beginning, but that universe is contained in another higher dimensional space, a kind of "infinite onion" of spaces encapsulating the lower dimensional ones. The only thing that had going against KCA, and indirectly at best, was the use of infinity.
Hi, Comp-Sci dropout over here. I saw those coordinates and immediate could immediately tell you the answer, and the class that covered it was one I barely passed over two years ago. The idea that someone who claims to have studied physics and passed with flying colors doesn't know the answer is kind of stunning.
<1,1,0><2,2,0><0,0,1> is not a basis of R^3, because no combination of these vectors can give you <1,0,0> or <0,1,0> or any multiple thereof. Alternatively, you could prove this by pointing out that two of the vectors are linearly dependent and as such are effectively the same vector, and that as a result you're trying to fill 3 dimensions with two vectors, which isn't going to work. That fact alone moves this problem from "really basic" to "incredibly trivial for anyone who knows anything about vectors and mathematics".
The rest of your post does nothing. If all we've seen in this universe is efficient and material causes, that in no way proves that the immaterial does not exist.
Indeed, and that wasn´t my point. My point was:
Unlike you postulate, the rule "there must be material causes" (which is all we could possibly tell from our observations) in no way supports the idea that there is a non-material cause for the existence of something material.
That's like saying that because you've never seen a horse, horses don't exist.
No, it´s not - because that´s not what I say (even though I see how it would be more convenient for you if that were my claim).
It´s more like you saying: "We know there are (material) horses, thus in the absence of material horses we must conclude that there are spiritual horses".
I am not saying there are no or can´t be spiritual horses. I´m just saying that your premise doesn´t help your conclusion.
You are a priori ruling out the existence of an immaterial being because it hasn't materialized for you yet. You are in effect a materialist and there's no point in denying it.
You don´t get to tell me what my positions are, sorry.
I repeat: My argument was not that there can only be material causes. My argument was that pointing to material causation (which is all that a rule extrapolated from our experiences and observations can possibly do at this point in time) does in no way support (even less prove) your claim that there is a non-material cause for anything. I´m sorry, it´s not my problem that you are basing your argument on a premise that (upon having a closer look at it) doesn´t help your cause at all.
That kinda is what it boils down to, though. How do you people want to know I'm not a woman, or a man, or a very precocious 13-year-old? If you're not willing to timestamp your diploma here (which I wouldn't recommend, pseudonymity has its advantages), you're left with only one thing as a basis for your claims to expertise: the knowledge you show in the public forum.
