What caused the Universe?

[Radrook]

No, they're not. The 'holographic principle' or 'holographic universe' means that it's been discovered that the informational content of any n-dimensional volume can be mapped onto its n-1 dimensional surface as a hologram. This means the 3D content of our universe is mathematically equivalent to the same information on a 2D surface sufficient to encompass that volume. So the universe can be considered either as stuff in a 3D volume, or holographic information on a 2D surface.

There is no suggestion of 'projection from an outside source'. It is simply a general equivalence principle that can be applied to any volume of any dimensionality.

That is what you choose to limit it to.
But that isn't what they limit it to.
That you choose to ignore their declarations doesn't nullify them.

 

[victorinus]

I don't know, but on the other hand I don't know that it is impossible.

you don't know anything -
you don't know the sun will come up tomorrow
-but-
it is reasonable to expect the sun to come up tomorrow -
it is reasonable to plan on the sun coming up tomorrow -
it is reasonable to believe that God made it that way -
-because-
you don't know what did

 

[Subduction Zone]

you don't know anything -
you don't know the sun will come up tomorrow
-but-
it is reasonable to expect the sun to come up tomorrow -
it is reasonable to plan on the sun coming up tomorrow -
it is reasonable to believe that God made it that way -
-because-
you don't know what did

The obvious fallacy and failure of your "God" claim can be shown by substituting any other magical being for the word "God".

 

[AV1611VET]

The obvious fallacy and failure of your "God" claim can be shown by substituting any other magical being for the word "God".

That doesn't work.

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

You pick the wrong object of your faith, and this principle applies:

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
Luke 11:24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
Luke 11:25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
Luke 11:26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

 

[Radrook]

The obvious fallacy and failure of your "God" claim can be shown by substituting any other magical being for the word "God".

Strawman! I am not making any inflexible God or suoernatural claim within the parameters of this discussion of an ID. I keep retelling you this and you keep ignoring it. You might as well stand in front of a mirror and argue against yourself. Why do you do that? I mean. I personally only need to be told one time what a person's position is and I accept it. I don't try to impose a position on someone that the person tells me he doesn't hold? That is unless I am striving to annoy. Then it might make sense. But as it stands, it makes no sense at all.

 

[victorinus]

The obvious fallacy and failure of your "God" claim can be shown by substituting any other magical being for the word "God".

-and-
you prefer not to have any reasonable explanation

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is what you choose to limit it to.
But that isn't what they limit it to.
That you choose to ignore their declarations doesn't nullify them.

What I'm saying is that suggestions of the kind you mentioned are not serious 'suspicions', but simply fanciful speculation, or thought experiment, with no scientific basis beyond the holographic principle itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An eternally existing universe (even if punctuated by repeated "big bangs") shaped by an eternal God requires the fewest leaps of logic to understand.

No; a simple application of Occam's Razor leads us to a more parsimonious situation of an eternally existing universe unshaped by inexplicable entities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

-and-
you prefer not to have any reasonable explanation

There are many things for which we don't yet have a reasonable explanation and for which we don't invoke inexplicable mythical entities.

'God-did-it' is not an explanation, rational or otherwise, because it has no explanatory power - it doesn't help us understand the nature of the phenomenon, it doesn't tie in to any established body of knowledge, and it doesn't generate any useful or potentially testable predictions, and it raises more unanswerable questions than it answers. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. In short, it is no better than applying any other arbitrary imaginative label for causative agency (e.g. the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster').

 

[victorinus]

There are many things for which we don't yet have a reasonable explanation and for which we don't invoke inexplicable mythical entities.

do you have a reasonable explanation?
-if not-
how can you object to our?

 

[HitchSlap]

do you have a reasonable explanation?
-if not-
how can you object to our?

Because your explanation explains nothing, and violates the law of parsimony.

 

[Inkfingers]

No; a simple application of Occam's Razor leads us to a more parsimonious situation of an eternally existing universe unshaped by inexplicable entities.

Actually it doesn't, but I am not going into it again on here.

 

[victorinus]

Because your explanation explains nothing, and violates the law of parsimony.

-so-
we should spend money because you don't like our explanation?

 

[Speedwell]

There are many things for which we don't yet have a reasonable explanation and for which we don't invoke inexplicable mythical entities.

'God-did-it' is not an explanation, rational or otherwise, because it has no explanatory power - it doesn't help us understand the nature of the phenomenon, it doesn't tie in to any established body of knowledge, and it doesn't generate any useful or potentially testable predictions, and it raises more unanswerable questions than it answers. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. In short, it is no better than applying any other arbitrary imaginative label for causative agency (e.g. the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster').

Of course. Like all good theological propositions, it is unfalsifiable. "God did it" is perfect in that respect because nothing discovered by science can ever disprove it. It's the falsifiable propositions which get theologians into trouble, like "God did it on October 23rd, 4004 BC."

 

[HitchSlap]

-so-
we should spend money because you don't like our explanation?

Huh?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

do you have a reasonable explanation?
-if not-
how can you object to our?

A number of reasonable potential explanations have been suggested, but as yet we have no evidence for them, so my answer is still, "We don't know".

I explained above why 'God-did-it' is not a reasonable explanation. I don't object to you believing otherwise.

 

[victorinus]

Huh?

you used the word parsimony
-
look it up

 

[victorinus]

A number of reasonable potential explanations have been suggested,

name two

 

[HitchSlap]

you used the word parsimony
-
look it up

I know what the word means... that's why I used it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/law-of-parsimony

 

[HitchSlap]

name two

And so it goes...