WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I just stated some in the post you are responding to.

tm: What you gave there were actually just a bunch of claims, which I have shown to be invalid as a result of our current understanding of physics....

No, our current understanding of physics confirms everything I have been saying including evidence for a second dimension of time from which God can create our universe.

ed: First how do you know this?

tm: Simply by what causality means....
Causes happen before effects.
Effects follow after causes.

Causality is a temporal phenomena which points to a sequential flow of events, one happening after the other.

When time does not exist, so in an atemporal context, the concept of "causality" is invalid.

Not necessarily, time is just the relative positions of objects in space, nothing in that prevents causal events. But see above about there being another dimension of time. It can also be understood atemporally, ever hear of the concept of contingency?

tm: Causality, you need to understand, is a phenomena of physics. Physics, as it applies in the universe.

You can't use properties OF the universe and pretend they also apply/exist without the universe.

Causality is a law of logic, therefore it is also a metaphysical law and does not need anything physical to be valid. Non-physical entities can cause things. Such as ideas.

ed: Second, there is evidence for another time dimension besides the one in our universe.

tm: Citation required.

See my earlier post on page 6.

ed: Not if He is not an effect.

tm: Special pleading.
Then we can just as easily say that the space-time continuum isn't an effect.

Yes, you can say that but it would go against the evidence, the BB theory has confirmed that the space time continuum has all the characteristics of an effect, a beginning and it is changing.

tm: Which, btw, doesn't require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities.

But God's existence is demonstrable.

ed: Things that are not effects do not need causes.

tm:And without time, there can be no sequence of events or causality.
And time is an inherent property of the universe.

See above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, our current understanding of physics confirms everything I have been saying including evidence for a second dimension of time from which God can create our universe.

Citation required.

What you say is simply not true.

Not necessarily, time is just the relative positions of objects in space, nothing in that prevents causal events.

no space-time = no time.

But see above about there being another dimension of time

Bare assertion with no evidence.

It can also be understood atemporally, ever hear of the concept of contingency?

Causality is a temporal phenomena. There is no way around that.

Causality is a law of logic

No. It's a phenomena of physics as it applies in space-time.
And even within space-time it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
Like in quantum physics, for example.

therefore it is also a metaphysical law

It's not. It's a physical phenomena where physical causes produce physical effects.
There's not "metaphysical" about that.

and does not need anything physical to be valid

Except that it does. Because physical causes produce physical effects.

Non-physical entities can cause things. Such as ideas.

No, they can't.
Concepts don't produce physical effects.

See my earlier post on page 6.

Give me link to a paper.

Yes, you can say that but it would go against the evidence, the BB theory has confirmed that the space time continuum has all the characteristics of an effect, a beginning and it is changing.

The big bang isn't actually a theory of origins. More a theory of development.
But anyway... you know what has a beginning within that model? Space and time.

But God's existence is demonstrable.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[bhsmte]

No, our current understanding of physics confirms everything I have been saying including evidence for a second dimension of time from which God can create our universe.



Not necessarily, time is just the relative positions of objects in space, nothing in that prevents causal events. But see above about there being another dimension of time. It can also be understood atemporally, ever hear of the concept of contingency?




Causality is a law of logic, therefore it is also a metaphysical law and does not need anything physical to be valid. Non-physical entities can cause things. Such as ideas.




See my earlier post on page 6.



Yes, you can say that but it would go against the evidence, the BB theory has confirmed that the space time continuum has all the characteristics of an effect, a beginning and it is changing.



But God's existence is demonstrable.


See above.

Fraid not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, our current understanding of physics confirms everything I have been saying including evidence for a second dimension of time from which God can create our universe.

Citation needed.

AFAIK, the second dimension of time is not external to physical reality and would not serve as a means for some non-physical entity to "create our universe".

I'm still waiting on an explanation of your claims regarding GIT.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Or it "may not be" and you're back to square one.
So it seems that you have your work cut out for you....

Well science has shown that such a time dimension does exist and science strongly points to the fact that God exists. So most of my work has been taken care of by science.

tm: Baseless claims, aren't evidence.

What baseless claims?

tm: And I would expect you to pretend that claims are evidence and that you'll end up using special pleading in an attempt to escape your burden of proof while closing your circular argument up neatly.

No, I have provided evidence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well science has shown that such a time dimension does exist

Tell us about this time dimension that scientists have been speculating about. How does it work?

and science strongly points to the fact that God exists.

You have not shown this. You've dropped some buzzwords, like a second time dimension and GIT, and have suggested that these "point to God's existence", but haven't shown any genuine comprehension about what they are or even if they actually do anything to support the existence of a God.

So most of my work has been taken care of by science.

If that were so, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would simply accept that this is what science had demonstrated. The problem is, science has done no such thing. What we have are flawed apologetics, not some consensus among cosmologists that "the Universe is proven to be an Effect".

If you don't understand what the second arrow of time is, or what GIT is, then you haven't brought anything to the table. You can't just mention such things and claim that they are "evidence" when you don't have any idea of how they are evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Well science has shown that such a time dimension does exist and science strongly points to the fact that God exists. So most of my work has been taken care of by science.




What baseless claims?





No, I have provided evidence.

What is this evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well science has shown that such a time dimension does exist and science strongly points to the fact that God exists. So most of my work has been taken care of by science

You keep saying this.... repeating it won't make it true.

What baseless claims?

For example, the claims in the previous quote.

No, I have provided evidence.

Link please.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why do those who see belief/faith as superior to evidence/logical based reasoning attempt to use evidence/logical based reasoning to support their claims to those who do not see belief/faith as superior to evidence/logical based reasoning? Doesn't that fundamentally undermine your position?

To answer the question... I am atheist because there is no reason to not be..

Also.. I tried the Christian way for years and could not lie.. I did not feel.. experience.. sense.. etc.. something outside my own mind guiding me... sincere prayer was never answered and I did not see a reason to be like Job or spend my entire life trying something that did not improve my life and while parts of scripture is fascinating to read.. and some very beautiful stories/poems none of it was compelling enough to be the sole unquestioned guide for my life ethically. In addition, it was a burden to be around so many illogical irrational "believers".. So no personal experience.. combined with no social bond and a faulty guide = no Christian specifically..

Regarding religion in general.. the premise is simply faulty so there was no reason to submit my life to a faulty premise with no evidence backing it.. :-/

Actually Christianity IS based on evidence and logical reasoning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actually Christianity IS based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Actually, no. You might say that there are apologetics and theology that are based on evidence and logical reasoning, or at least strive to be. But Christianity itself is based on claims of divine revelation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

Actually Christianity IS based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Fraid not.

 

[Khalliqa]

Actually Christianity IS based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Christianity is based on theophanies.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Christianity is based on theophanies.

Well, the earliest documents are from Paul, who reports encounters with a visions of Jesus, not a physical Jesus.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

That's a assertion. One (or both are probably wrong).

Please provide some evidence that I can review: a second time dimension would be fascinating.

Read Andrew Strominger's research.

 

[Ed1wolf]

But gravity exists, so do quantum effects.

So you could almost say they 'co' exist.

Yes but both theories contradict. There isn't enough room within the dimensions of height, width, length, and time for all the symmetries QM and gravity demand.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I have heard about scientific speculation regarding a second arrow of time, and to my knowledge it did not refer to what you write above. Do you have a source to back this up? Because otherwise, I'm going to have to assume that you are just making that up.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Read Andrew Strominger's work.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You've gone into endless repeat mode. I've already dealt with this at length, in particular that you are equivocating on the word "beginning" (and now even on "changing").


eudaimonia,

Mark

How?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The evidence points to Him creating it from something non-material.

eud: By "evidence", do you mean a reading of Genesis?

You didn't answer my question clearly. Where did this "non-material" resource come from? Was it something eternal and co-existing with God, but not God? Or was it part of God that God transformed into material existence?

I'll give you one thing: it is brave of you to reject the creation ex nihilo that is the usual apologetic for creation.

The evidence is both biblical and scientific: Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3, and the Big Bang Theory. If you run the BB backwards you come to a point of no dimensions, ie nothing. God created the universe from either nothing or something that cannot be detected by humans. It was not part of God, that would be a violation of logic. God cannot violate logic.

ed: But given that the universe has all the characteristics of an effect

eud: That is not a given in this discussion. I flat out reject that premise because it depends on equivocations and other fallacies.

You have failed to prove any of those and that the universe is NOT an effect.

ed: it plainly points to the strong possibility that causality CAN occur transcendent to the universe.

eud: One can always imagine such a thing, but possibilities don't close off other possibilities. It is also possible that the universe is uncaused, and that causes are only internal to the universe.

It is possible but not logically possible. If the cause of the universe is internal to the universe that is a violation of the law of non contradiction. That means it would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.

ed: Even many non-Christian astrophysicists agree that that is a possibility such as Paul Davies.

eud: What specifically did Paul Davies argue?

He said "It seems as though someone has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." This comes from his book "The Cosmic Blueprint".

ed: We knew very little about it such as we thought it was filled with an ether and not a vacuum. But another analogy is atoms, we did not know that they existed, but we assumed that they operated according to the laws of physics and logic if they did. And this was confirmed by science later when their existence was discovered.

eud: We knew that we were made of something that is part of the natural universe, even if we didn't know specifically that it was atoms as we understand them today. That's not a good example.

No, we did not know they even existed, so we could not have known that they were part of the physical universe. We assumed they did. And just like any good scientist we assumed that the laws of logic apply even to the unknown, like "outside' the universe.

ed: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem points to the existing of something "outside" nature, ie supernatural.

eud: Please justify this claim. How does GIT accomplish this task? Popcorn for everyone.

It has proven that a system cannot be proven from within that system, you must get information from outside that system to prove it. So it is with Nature. You cannot explain nature just from within nature, you must go outside it to the "super" nature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Read Andrew Strominger's work.

IOWs, you don't understand it yourself, you can't explain how it supports your case, and you're telling me to go off on a wild goose chase. No, thank you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you run the BB backwards you come to a point of no dimensions, ie nothing.

That's not correct.

Initial singularity - Wikipedia
The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe...

It wasn't thought to be nothing, and the view is somewhat outdated anyway.

It was not part of God, that would be a violation of logic. God cannot violate logic.

I don't see how that is a violation of logic.

You have failed to prove any of those and that the universe is NOT an effect.

The burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying that the universe can't be an effect of something else, but that there is no good reason to think that it must be.

It is possible but not logically possible. If the cause of the universe is internal to the universe that is a violation of the law of non contradiction. That means it would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.

I didn't argue that the universe caused its own existence. I agree that would be contradictory.

He said "It seems as though someone has fine tuned natures numbers to make the universe....The impression of design is overwhelming." This comes from his book "The Cosmic Blueprint".

Note the words in bold. It's not even an argument.

No, we did not know they even existed, so we could not have known that they were part of the physical universe.

*facepalm*

Are you suggesting that we couldn't know that: if we exist in the physical universe, and we are made of atoms, then we couldn't know that atoms are physical???

Is that seriously what you are arguing? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

It has proven that a system cannot be proven from within that system, you must get information from outside that system to prove it. So it is with Nature. You cannot explain nature just from within nature, you must go outside it to the "super" nature.

That is a HUGE misunderstanding and misapplication of GIT. I don't have time ATM so I will get to that later.


eudaimonia,

Mark