What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

sjastro · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Can you explain briefly what you mean instead of my having to watch a video.

The video gives the simplest explanation why Einstein eventually came to the conclusion energy is not conserved in general relativity.
I could have explained it in a more technical fashion that Hilbert and Einstein found the time derivative of the energy matter tensor does not vanish in all coordinate systems indicating energy is not conserved.
While this makes sense to a physicist or mathematician the layperson would struggle to understand this.

essentialsaltes · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Tell me what a field in space does.

It wiggles around spontaneously with quantum fluctuations.

pitabread · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
We can ignore your worthless opinion then. KCA came out of the big bang theory. What came out of evolutionary cosmology with big bang? I know. It was the fine tuning parameters from Stephen Hawking and his fellow scientists trying to describe the big bang -- which helped the creationists side.

It's not my opinion. Criticisms of the cosmological argument (including the Kalam cosmological argument) have been long discussed and documented. If you want to ignore those criticisms, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make them go away.

Insofar as fine tuning, etc., I'm sure how any of that "helps" the creationist side. At the end of the day, you still don't have an actual explanation for anything. Just attempts at arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity.

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

Skreeper said:
Please explain how something or someone can exist when there is no space or time. I'm dying to know how that would work without magic.

Yes. The evolutionists cannot explain how the big bang could happen.

OTOH, @Bungle_Bear and I just did.

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
It wiggles around spontaneously with quantum fluctuations.

No. With the electromagnetic field, it is non-quantum. Second, it has to have moving electric waves in order to generate the electromagnetic field in a space. I think every living organism produces an EM field, albeit weak fields.

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

pitabread said:
Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument (including the Kalam cosmological argument) have been long discussed and documented. If you want to ignore those criticisms, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make them go away.

The world revolves around cause and effect. I think you're referring to David Hume and he just made up his world of no cause and effect. Can you provide a few examples of such? I don't think Hume ever did.

Thus, a simple study of his ideas shows that he's not practical. We can form valid conclusions using inductive reasoning such as I am doing with EMS as a supernatural force. It's falsification would be based on a natural explanation of why it occurred when there was no space and no time. Even the big bang took energy and a lot of it. Let's say it had no cause. Then where did the energy for it happen to come from?

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

sjastro said:
The video gives the simplest explanation why Einstein eventually came to the conclusion energy is not conserved in general relativity.
I could have explained it in a more technical fashion that Hilbert and Einstein found the derivative of energy matter tensor does not vanish in all coordinate systems indicating energy is not conserved.
While this makes sense to a physicist or mathematician the layperson would struggle to understand this.

You're right. It's not for the layman, but a discussion for in-depth physics. Pass.

Do you have anything that Einstein stated that he changed his mind?

Speedwell · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
The world revolves around cause and effect. I think you're referring to David Hume and he just made up his world of no cause and effect. Can you provide a few examples of such? I don't think Hume ever did.

Thus, a simple study of his ideas shows that he's not practical. We can form valid conclusions using inductive reasoning such as I am doing with EMS as a supernatural force. It's falsification would be based on a natural explanation of why it occurred when there was no space and no time. Even the big bang took energy and a lot of it. Let's say it had no cause. Then where did the energy for it happen to come from?

We don't know what there was "before" the Big Bang, so why should we say it had no cause?

pitabread · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
The world revolves around cause and effect. I think you're referring to David Hume and he just made up his world of no cause and effect. Can you provide a few examples of such? I don't think Hume ever did.

I'm not referring to Hume at all.

That said, what you are describing is an classical physics view of the universe. Whether such a view is application to the origin of the universe is not settled.

We already have examples in the quantum realm where our classical view of the universe does not apply.

Thus, a simple study of his ideas shows that he's not practical. We can form valid conclusions using inductive reasoning such as I am doing with EMS as a supernatural force. It's falsification would be based on a natural explanation of why it occurred when there was no space and no time. Even the big bang took energy and a lot of it. Let's say it had no cause. Then where did the energy for it happen to come from?

What you appear to be doing is simply invoking an argument from incredulity and invoking an incorrect usage of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis of a natural explanation is not a supernatural explanation, nor vise-versa.

If you want to concoct a supernatural explanation for something, you need to do it from the ground up and have it stand on its own. That will probably start with explicitly defining the supernatural.

essentialsaltes · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
No. With the electromagnetic field, it is non-quantum.

Er, I believe you'll find that the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1965 shows that you're wrong.

Open to Interpretation · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
One of things I've discovered is the Big Bang Theory from the evolutionist side does not readily explain what happened before the big bang. It wasn't an explosion, but an expansion so where did all the energy come from? I think we both agree there was a beginning from discovering the CMB. With creation science, we have the start of the spacetime caused by God -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

This can be readily demonstrated by the fourth dimension and how the x, y, and z-axes follow. We usually call the fourth dimension time, but it also includes space with the other three dimensions that time can access. It becomes spacetime. Us humans, being in three dimensions cannot control time. We cannot stop it, but we can make it appear faster or slower. We can time travel into the future, but can't travel backward in time. It's strange how time can be started from evolution when it affects only the three dimensions.

Anyway, we have the universe, Earth, and everything in it as evidence for God or for evolution depending on what beliefs you hold.

I think what makes the argument stronger for God is that he also tells us that he created the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) on the first day. "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3

What we find is that the EMS contains all of the energy in the universe. Later, we find both Newton and Einstein stated the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only transferred.

Thus, my point is does the EMS show something that is supernatural? We cannot have anything like this just pop up in our three dimensional universe as it would have to be created before the universe started to expand. It is a tremendous amount of energy that isn't present in quantum mechanics. I do agree that what Newton and Einstein discovered is part of our natural world, but not the creation of the EMS.

So, I thought where did this energy come from? The creationists have an explanation.

Energy can cancel each other out. An equal positive charge and negative charge can exist but combine to have no charge at all. Try reading my attached PDF

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
Er, I believe you'll find that the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1965 shows that you're wrong.

An award while impressive does not explain how I am wrong when I am right -- The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921

essentialsaltes · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
An award while impressive does not explain how I am wrong when I am right -- The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921

So Einstein's work explaining the photoelectric effect in terms of quantum mechanics is supposed to demonstrate that EM fields are not quantum?

Yttrium · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
So, I thought where did this energy come from? The creationists have an explanation.

So did the guy who came up with the Big Bang theory in the first place. It wasn't a scientific explanation either, though. He was a Catholic priest.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia

Just sayin'.

Bungle_Bear · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
I did explain and gave you the Bible verses Genesis 1:4-5 to show time and energy after yours. We see that he started time after what you said as he separated the light part which became day and the black part night. (This does explain that one can't just create time and space will follow. One has to have space, i.e. x, y, z-axes first.) We assume this is 24 hours, but others make it so one day = a longer time in order to fit evolution's 4.54 billions of years. It also means that what evolutionists think as spacetime beginning at the same time is in question from the big bang. One of their questions is what did the big bang expand into?

Have you read my posts? You appear to have no idea what they say. In extremely simple terms:

Your claim is that EMS contains all energy and was created on Day 1. That would mean EMS was created before earth and water. Do you understand that?

Genesis says (in the verses I quoted and which you appear not to have read) that earth and water were created before EMS.

Can I put you down as somebody who has accepted their error?

sjastro · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
You're right. It's not for the layman, but a discussion for in-depth physics. Pass.

Do you have anything that Einstein stated that he changed his mind?

I suppose before Einstein developed GR he was like any other physicist of the late 19th early 20th century in having a conventional view on the conservation of energy.
It was David Hilbert amongst others who recognized there was something decidedly strange about GR with regards to the conservation of energy and requested the services of Emmy Noether who was mentioned in the video.
It was unheard of for a woman to tackle such a formidable problem given the sign of the times.

In 1915, two of the world’s top mathematicians, David Hilbert and Felix Klein, invited Emmy Noether to the University of Göttingen to investigate a puzzle. A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge.....

How Mathematician Emmy Noether's Theorem Changed Physics

jamesbond007 · Dec 3, 2020

Bungle_Bear said:
Have you read my posts? You appear to have no idea what they say. In extremely simple terms:

Your claim is that EMS contains all energy and was created on Day 1. That would mean EMS was created before earth and water. Do you understand that?

Genesis says (in the verses I quoted and which you appear not to have read) that earth and water were created before EMS.

Can I put you down as somebody who has accepted their error?

Yes, I agreed that Earth and water (likely water vapor) were created before EMS. However, time and energy flow didn't start until afterward, i.e. the separation of light and dark and what I think as 24 hours periods. That's why I mentioned evos want to know what the big bang expanded into. We learn that one has to have space and the things that go in it first. Afterward, the beginning of time started.

Anyway, you won't understand how all this makes evolutionary thinking of the big bang a failure.

Speedwell · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Yes, I agreed that Earth and water (likely water vapor) were created before EMS. However, time and energy flow didn't start until afterward, i.e. the separation of light and dark and what I think as 24 hours periods. That's why I mentioned evos want to know what the big bang expanded into.

"Evos" don't ask that question.

We learn that one has to have space and the things that go in it first. Afterward, the beginning of time started.

Interesting. Where did you learn that?

Anyway, you won't understand how all this makes evolutionary thinking of the big bang a failure.

I don't even understand what "evolutionary thinking of the big bang" means.

Bungle_Bear · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
Yes, I agreed that Earth and water (likely water vapor) were created before EMS. However, time and energy flow didn't start until afterward, i.e. the separation of light and dark and what I think as 24 hours periods. That's why I mentioned evos want to know what the big bang expanded into. We learn that one has to have space and the things that go in it first. Afterward, the beginning of time started.

Anyway, you won't understand how all this makes evolutionary thinking of the big bang a failure.

You don't understand the problem I've raised, do you?

muichimotsu · Dec 3, 2020

jamesbond007 said:
The big bang and universe having a beginning isn't in question. As I stated, there was an eternal universe first (a priori argument between atheists and creationists -- before evolution and big bang?) and the Book of Genesis didn't make any sense. Now, it does and it led to KCA. Thus, the creationist side has improved their argument.

Kalam doesn't lead necessarily to God, only to some beginning, you grossly oversimplify the argument

And I never claimed eternal universe, I'm saying that the thing prior to the beginning we observe does not have to be an absolute beginning because we have no reason to conclude that beyond a supposed infinite regress, which is not what is at issue in investigating scientifically

Even if I somehow granted this absolute beginning nonsense (and I generally don't), it still doesn't follow to any particular God or even a personal entity at all, it could be the ground of being as in transtheism by Paul Tillich or such, it could be the Force from Star Wars for all we know, or some other impersonal immaterial transcendent force that is eternal without lending any credence to revealed religion

What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

Newbie

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Independent Centrist

Whoot!

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

I Spit On Perfection

Similar threads