God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, you need to start reading some writings by Christian scholars.

Been there. Done that.

And I am still not finding any real evidence that the Christian God exists.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here is his exact quote "The question of what existed before the Big Bang remains largely unresolved, though the most widely accepted answer among cosmologists is that nothing existed, not even space and time."

Upon what evidence did this writer base this assertion?

I disagree with his assertion. I have read a number of books by leading cosmologists. All think that there quite possibly was something that existed outside of that which came from the Big Bang.

But if your authority is correct, that nothing existed, then that would include the Christian God not existing.

BTW, another serious problem with the universe being the result of a quantum event. According to many physicists a quantum event can not occur without an observer. There were no human observers 13.8 bya.

You misunderstand quantum physics.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Been there. Done that.

And I am still not finding any real evidence that the Christian God exists.

Well I am still not seeing any real evidence that you have done that. But I am sure at this stage of your life you probably are not going to change your view now.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Here is his exact quote "The question of what existed before the Big Bang remains largely unresolved, though the most widely accepted answer among cosmologists is that nothing existed, not even space and time."
Upon what evidence did this writer base this assertion?

Why dont you send him an email and ask him. He is still alive. As I told you he is Dr. Donald Goldsmith. Donald William Goldsmith (born February 24, 1943), American Astronomer, lawyer, writer | World Biographical Encyclopedia (prabook.com)

dm: I disagree with his assertion. I have read a number of books by leading cosmologists. All think that there quite possibly was something that existed outside of that which came from the Big Bang.

But if your authority is correct, that nothing existed, then that would include the Christian God not existing.

True, as a materialist, he would certainly not posit an immaterial cause to the universe. He would be accused of being a nutty fundie and make him afraid of losing his job and losing his reputation among mainstream astronomers.

ed: BTW, another serious problem with the universe being the result of a quantum event. According to many physicists a quantum event can not occur without an observer. There were no human observers 13.8 bya.
dm: You misunderstand quantum physics.

Have you ever heard of the Copenhagen Interpretation?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why dont you send him an email and ask him. He is still alive. As I told you he is Dr. Donald Goldsmith. Donald William Goldsmith (born February 24, 1943), American Astronomer, lawyer, writer | World Biographical Encyclopedia (prabook.com)

Uh, no, you made the claim, you provide the evidence. I am not going to do your research for you.

But anyway, your quote in no way supports your claim that there probably was a singularity. Your quote doesn't even mention a singularity. It says the question of what was before the Big Bang is unresolved.

True, as a materialist, he would certainly not posit an immaterial cause to the universe. He would be accused of being a nutty fundie and make him afraid of losing his job and losing his reputation among mainstream astronomers.

Not true. Many scientists have proposed that God started the Big Bang. That is a long way from fundamentalism, which teaches a young earth. Most scientists see a big difference between believing in a God as the ultimate cause of the universe, and believing in young earth creationism.

Have you ever heard of the Copenhagen Interpretation?

Of course. But I know of no leading scientist who supports your claim that quantum effects do nothing if there is no observer.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Uh, no, you made the claim, you provide the evidence. I am not going to do your research for you.

I did.

dm: But anyway, your quote in no way supports your claim that there probably was a singularity. Your quote doesn't even mention a singularity. It says the question of what was before the Big Bang is unresolved.

Actually my main point is not necessarily a singularity but rather there was a definite beginning to the universe which is a characteristic of an effect. And of course, he will say it is unresolved, he must appear to be a methodogical naturalist or will be accused of being a fundie.

dm: Not true. Many scientists have proposed that God started the Big Bang.

I know I have quoted several in this thread but you just dismiss them.

dm: That is a long way from fundamentalism, which teaches a young earth. Most scientists see a big difference between believing in a God as the ultimate cause of the universe, and believing in young earth creationism.

Not the scientists I have met and talked to. Any mention of God as a serious proposal and they think you are fundie. I am not a fundamentalist. I believe in an old earth. So I am one of the ones you consider much different from a fundie then.

dm: Of course. But I know of no leading scientist who supports your claim that quantum effects do nothing if there is no observer.

From Wikipedia: During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered. The result of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an actuality.

So according to the writers of Wikipedia, there is only potentiality until it observed and measured then it becomes an actuality. That certainly sounds like nothing until something actually occurs.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually my main point is not necessarily a singularity but rather there was a definite beginning to the universe which is a characteristic of an effect.

How many thousands of times do you want to repeat the same thing? We have been over this many times. Yes, we all agree that the universe that began with a Big Bang had a definite beginning.

And how will you respond? You will pretend it was never discussed and say, "Hey, here is something new, the universe had a beginning." Sigh.

As I have proposed many times, why cannot we just stipulate that the universe that began with the Big Bang had a beginning and move on to more fruitful discussion?

But again, the point that you ignore is that there may have been other physical entities that were/are not part of the Big Bang universe.

"Universe" can have different meanings. It can refer to that which is a) within our Hubble Sphere, b) part of the total result of the Big Bang, or c) everything. You regularly take a statement that applies to definition a and assume it applies to definition c.

And of course, he will say it is unresolved, he must appear to be a methodogical naturalist or will be accused of being a fundie.

It is more than just appearing to be a methodological naturalist. Methodological naturalism is the only way we know to make progress in science. So if a scientist wants to make progress in science, he must not only appear to be a methodological naturalist, he must be one.

I know I have quoted several in this thread but you just dismiss them.

False. I have never dismissed a scientist just because he believes in God.

Not the scientists I have met and talked to. Any mention of God as a serious proposal and they think you are fundie.

Then you ought to get out more. Scientists that are Christians regularly cooperate with scientists that are not Christians in the Physical and Life Sciences section of this forum. There are many Theists there that argue for evolution and methodological naturalism. And I never heard an atheist dismiss those Theists as fundies.

From Wikipedia: During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered. The result of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an actuality.

So according to the writers of Wikipedia, there is only potentiality until it observed and measured then it becomes an actuality. That certainly sounds like nothing until something actually occurs.

You misunderstand.

Quantum events happen in far off galaxies all the time and there is nobody there to observe them.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Actually my main point is not necessarily a singularity but rather there was a definite beginning to the universe which is a characteristic of an effect.

dm: How many thousands of times do you want to repeat the same thing? We have been over this many times. Yes, we all agree that the universe that began with a Big Bang had a definite beginning.

And how will you respond? You will pretend it was never discussed and say, "Hey, here is something new, the universe had a beginning." Sigh.

As I have proposed many times, why cannot we just stipulate that the universe that began with the Big Bang had a beginning and move on to more fruitful discussion?

But again, the point that you ignore is that there may have been other physical entities that were/are not part of the Big Bang universe.

"Universe" can have different meanings. It can refer to that which is a) within our Hubble Sphere, b) part of the total result of the Big Bang, or c) everything. You regularly take a statement that applies to definition a and assume it applies to definition c.

There is no evidence for any other physical entities that are not part of the BB universe.

ed: observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered. The result of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an actuality.

So according to the writers of Wikipedia, there is only potentiality until it observed and measured then it becomes an actuality. That certainly sounds like nothing until something actually occurs.
You misunderstand.

Quantum events happen in far off galaxies all the time and there is nobody there to observe them.

How do you know if the events have not been observed?

 

[Bradskii]

How do you know if the events have not been observed?

OK, that was it. Another thread 'unwatched'.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is no evidence for any other physical entities that are not part of the BB universe.

Hence, no evidence for God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

OK, that was it. Another thread 'unwatched'.

I dont understand. You are starting another thread?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hence, no evidence for God.

He is not a physical entity.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He is not a physical entity.

How do you know that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

He is not a physical entity.

There is no evidence of non-physical entities.

 

[doubtingmerle]

According to many physicists a quantum event can not occur without an observer. There were no human observers 13.8 bya

Physicists have long struggled with reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity at the Big Bang. The two are not compatible at that scale. Your solution? Don't worry about it because quantum mechanics wasn't even a thing before humans started observing? Do you really think physicists will slap their forehead at the simplicity of the solution that they have missed all this time? Oh, please do write a paper proving you are right.

So not only did a Homo Erectus build an ocean liner, according to you, but they also initiated quantum mechanics? Quite impressive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Physicists have long struggled with reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity at the Big Bang. The two are not compatible at that scale. Your solution? Don't worry about it because quantum mechanics wasn't even a thing before humans started observing? Do you really think physicists will slap their forehead at the simplicity of the solution that they have missed all this time? Oh, please do write a paper proving you are right.

So not only did a Homo Erectus build an ocean liner, according to you, but they also initiated quantum mechanics? Quite impressive.

Agreed. For that matter, if quantum events don't happen unless observed, who is to say a HUMAN observer is necessary? How about, maybe, God?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Agreed. For that matter, if quantum events don't happen unless observed, who is to say a HUMAN observer is necessary? How about, maybe, God?

A quantum observation is not about whether or not a living creature with eyeballs and a mind has made an observation. We can't even discern quantum particles. That's quite a silly notion. In quantum physics, an observation is simply the interaction of a photon with a particle.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A quantum observation is not about whether or not a living creature with eyeballs and a mind has made an observation. We can't even discern quantum particles. That's quite a silly notion. In quantum physics, an observation is simply the interaction of a photon with a particle.

Thank you. You'd never guess that from all the noise.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: He is not a physical entity.

dm: How do you know that?

Logic and His word. He has said He is non physical and according to causality the cause cannot be part of the effect. Since He is the cause of everything physical He cannot be part of the physical, therefore He is nonphysical.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: He is not a physical entity.

tg: There is no evidence of non-physical entities.

So you deny that your mind exists?