God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, it does if the universe were a great deal larger the temperature would be lower.

No sir, that simply is not true. If the observable universe was spread out further, yes, it would drop in temperature. But if the extent of the universe is greater that what we can see, that would not lower its temperature.

I have presented the argument that the universe is larger than what we can see. You have ignored it and declared victory. You can't do that.

The argument begins with the scientific consensus that the universe has no edge. Do you or do you not agree that the universe has no edge?

Actually cosmologists now have a good idea of how many of each type of galaxy the universe contains.

You are referring to the observable universe.

Scientists do not know how many galaxies are out there that are so far away the light from them has not had time to reach us.

Most cosmologists believe it started at a point with NO dimensions.

I have shown you leading scientists who say it is only a hypothesis that the universe began from a single point of infinite density. It could have begun from a finite sized point (such as Planck length) at less than infinite density. If you disagree, please present your argument.

Only a few people understand what cosmologists are talking about when they talk about what might have happened before Planck time. With all due respect, I do not think you are one of those few.

Without causality science is impossible. Therefore if you have disproven causality then you destroy all your arguments using science.

I never said I disproved causality. I said your law of causality was bunkers, adding in things that were not verified.

It may not prove it, but it is rational to assume it does since in times past whenever it was assumed that logic applied in unusual situations great truths were discovered.

I am fine with valid logic.

But you cannot declare that the bunkers logic you presented in another thread has the same validity of all other logic.

It is simple logic that at least points to His existence and then my experience confirms it.

And your simple logic about what happened before a singularity is bunkers.

If a singularity occurred, then there is no way to know anything about any causes "beyond" that singularity. All our mathematics would break down at that point.

Your error is that you say, since we don't know, therefore Ed1Wolf is probably right. As I told you many times, and you ignore, "We don't know" is not the same thing as saying "Ed1Wolf is probably right".

But you will just ignore that again, yes?

So let's repeat that: "We don't know" is not the same thing as saying "Ed1Wolf is probably right".

Well that is the way it appeared to me.

Ah so you say that this statement:

I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite [in size]. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite [in size].​

means:

I know for sure it is infinite in size.​

Huh?

(And if you think I am making it up that you just said that, click on the link to see the post I am responding to.)

Somehow you interpret my "perhaps infinite in size" as "for sure infinite in size" and refuse to back down, even when you are told repeatedly that you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

Judging by your inability to acknowledge what I am saying when I say "perhaps infinite in size", then, with all due respect sir, I am not sure that you are able to understand what physicists are saying about the Big Bang.

Please give me a quote from a leading physicist that says he knows the universe began from a point with zero dimensions and truly infinite density. Also, please tell me how he knows that.

According to most cosmologists dark energy is what is stretching out spacetime.

Which is what I just said. At least we agree on something!

 

[doubtingmerle]

So Merle claims to have disproven God.

That is not what I said.

 

[Paulomycin]

That is not what I said.

But you're not explaining what you were saying, nor your purpose for saying it. Is this going to be another round of 20 questions? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's very odd how people who are allegedly pro-Big Bang also feel the need to mitigate it just to special-plead away the existence of an omnipotent being.

​

Which is magically just as good as an actual alternative scientific theory.

​

- But how reliable are these proposals?
- What are the proposals based on, outside of mere conjecture?
- Why create a proposal that would end up asking more questions that you're trying to solve? <-- Oh, wait. I forgot, because we're trying to avoid God as hard as we can.
- How is this any different from, "Doubt is the ends on a pedestal, therefore God does not exist?"
- And, most importantly, how is this NOT an appeal to infinite regress?



Therefore, you don't have to rationally account for it?

I explained this before, and probably should not explain it again, but hey, I like you so much here it goes again.

Our knowledge of physics completely breaks down at Planck Time, at which point the universe was in the order of Planck Length in size. To put this in perspective, you could fit as many Planck Lengths in a human hair as you can fit human hairs across the known universe, so Planck Length is very, very small.

We can see that the galaxies are spreading apart. At one time in the distant past they must have all been squashed together into a big ball.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can say that ball must have come from an even smaller ball where even protons and neutrons were broken down into constituent parts. We can see how the universe could have been squished to the size of a beach ball.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can see how it looks like it got to that size though a period of inflation.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can see how it looks like that inflation would have been preceded by a so-called GUT era.

And we can go all the way back to Planck Time, when the entire universe was squished into a space far, far smaller than the size of a proton.

But at that point known physics stops. At that point Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity would both be totally overwhelming, and they say contradictory things. Perhaps someday we will come to an understanding that reconciles those two, but we can't understand it now. So we lose all possibility of tracing it back further.

But perhaps it went back even further than that, and was a point of zero cubic inches at truly infinite density. If it went back that far, then all the mathematics of space time simply becomes unsolvable. There simply would be no possible way of knowing what was "before" that, or even defining what "before" would mean.

And that's the way it is.

 

[Paulomycin]

Our knowledge of physics completely breaks down at Planck Time, at which point the universe was in the order of Planck Length in size. To put this in perspective, you could fit as many Planck Lengths in a human hair as you can fit human hairs across the known universe, so Planck Length is very, very small.

We can see that the galaxies are spreading apart. At one time in the distant past they must have all been squashed together into a big ball.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can say that ball must have come from an even smaller ball where even protons and neutrons were broken down into constituent parts. We can see how the universe could have been squished to the size of a beach ball.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can see how it looks like it got to that size though a period of inflation.

Our physics can go back further than that. We can see how it looks like that inflation would have been preceded by a so-called GUT era.

And we can go all the way back to Planck Time, when the entire universe was squished into a space far, far smaller than the size of a proton.

But at that point known physics stops. At that point Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity would both be totally overwhelming, and they say contradictory things. Perhaps someday we will come to an understanding that reconciles those two, but we can't understand it now. So we lose all possibility of tracing it back further.

But perhaps it went back even further than that, and was a point of zero cubic inches at truly infinite density. If it went back that far, then all the mathematics of space time simply becomes unsolvable. There simply would be no possible way of knowing what was "before" that, or even defining what "before" would mean.

And that's the way it is.

So, essentially you're gambling on a "perhaps" as-if it were an "is."

Maybe you'd be willing to concede that, at the point of regression where everything fundamentally breaks down, naturalism alone cannot account for everything.

You think?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But you're not explaining what you were saying, nor your purpose for saying it. Is this going to be another round of 20 questions? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

So therefore you conclude, "Merle claims to have disproven God." I do not see how not explaining one's motives proves that one claim to have disproven God. That seems like a non seqitur to me.

My purpose for being here? I enjoy talking with the people here, and think I have some ideas worth sharing.

"Is this going to be another round of 20 questions?" I don't know how many questions I will ask, but yes, I strongly believe in asking questions. I like the Socratic Method.

"Is it bigger than a breadbox?" That depends on what you mean by "it".

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, essentially you're gambling on a "perhaps" as-if it were an "is."

Maybe you'd be willing to concede that, at the point of regression where everything fundamentally breaks down, naturalism alone cannot account for everything.

You think?

At the point where everything breaks down, we cannot make any definitive statements.

"Therefore, God exists" is a definitive statement.

 

[Paulomycin]

So therefore you conclude, "Merle claims to have disproven God." I do not see how not explaining one's motives proves that one claim to have disproven God. That seems like a non seqitur to me.

My purpose for being here? I enjoy talking with the people here, and think I have some ideas worth sharing.

"Is this going to be another round of 20 questions?" I don't know how many questions I will ask, but yes, I strongly believe in asking questions. I like the Socratic Method.

"Is it bigger than a breadbox?" That depends on what you mean by "it".

So if you're not here to disprove God, and you've pretty much disavowed that's even what you were attempting, then what's the argument even worth?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So if you're not here to disprove God, and you've pretty much disavowed that's even what you were attempting, then what's the argument even worth?

My purpose for being here? I enjoy talking with the people here, and think I have some ideas worth sharing.

Want me to repeat that again?

 

[Paulomycin]

At the point where everything breaks down, we cannot make any definitive statements.

"Therefore, God exists" is a definitive statement.

Therefore, you conclude that an indeterminate = a determinate. Didn't we argue this point once already?

Also, why are you arguing against deduction with induction?

 

[Paulomycin]

My purpose for being here? I enjoy talking with the people here, and think I have some ideas worth sharing.

Want me to repeat that again?

You're evading the question. I'll ask again: So if you're not here to disprove God, and you've pretty much disavowed that's even what you were attempting, then what's your argument even worth?

^ Not your purpose. Most atheists claim that arguing with theists is the most entertaining thing imaginable. We get that. I'm referring to your argument.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're evading the question. I'll ask again: So if you're not here to disprove God, and you've pretty much disavowed that's even what you were attempting, then what's your argument even worth?

I make many arguments here. I think I have valuable insights to share, so I share them.

Is there a particular argument you want me to discuss?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Therefore, you conclude that an indeterminate = a determinate. Didn't we argue this point once already?

Please go back and read my posts. I am emphatic that indeterminate is indeterminate. I never say it is determinate.

Also, why are you arguing against deduction with induction?

???

 

[Paulomycin]

I make many arguments here. I think I have valuable insights to share, so I share them.

To what ends? Why do you think your ideas are worth sharing? How do your ideas cause and/or facilitate enlightenment?

 

[Paulomycin]

Please go back and read my posts. I am emphatic that indeterminate is indeterminate. I never say it is determinate.

Then it doesn't disprove God. Nor does it dismiss the necessity of God.

???

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between inductive vs. deductive logic. Are we playing 20 questions again?

 

[doubtingmerle]

To what ends? Why do you think your ideas are worth sharing?

I have had people like my posts. Others have written and told me they appreciate reading what I have written. So that makes me think that at least some of my thoughts are worth sharing.

And some of my thoughts, maybe not so much.

How do your ideas cause and/or facilitate enlightenment?

My ideas come from my own experience, and deal with issues I have personally wrestled with for years.

How do my writings enlighten? Evolution has worked in us brains that understand each other. When we speak, people can listen and be enlightened.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then it doesn't disprove God. Nor does it dismiss the necessity of God.

I never said it disproved God. Regarding God, I don't know.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between inductive vs. deductive logic. Are we playing 20 questions again?

I counted 3 questions marks.
I do understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic yes. I don't understand why you are asking me this.

 

[Paulomycin]

I have had people like my posts. Others have written and told me they appreciate reading what I have written. So that makes me think that at least some of my thoughts are worth sharing.

So, no other goal other than gambling that others will like them?

My ideas come from my own experience, and deal with issues I have personally wrestled with for years.

If I could make one request, some context would be great. Lack of context, specifics, and transparency makes the message look dodgy.

How do my writings enlighten? Evolution has worked in us brains that understand each other. When we speak, people can listen and be enlightened.

Implying that if someone fails to understand, then they are either not listening, or their brains are not evolved.

 

[Paulomycin]

I never said it disproved God. Regarding God, I don't know.

Okay, thanks.

I do understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic yes. I don't understand why you are asking me this.

Because atheists generally tend to interpret every discussion inductively.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, no other goal other than gambling that others will like them?

Like I said, I get good conversation here, and I find people who like to read my posts, even If they don't respond.

So I stay.