WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Larniavc]

Read Andrew Strominger's research.

I bet you can't put it into your own words.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

GIT has nothing to do with physical systems.

It isn't a theory of physics and proves nothing at all about physics. It is about axioms, theorems (expressed in algorithms), and natural numbers. Even if one were to try to apply formal systems to a study of natural numbers as they apply to physics, at best all it would show is that there are unprovable claims regarding the math.

Unprovable claims also don't mean that something exists outside of the natural universe. It is not the case that if "some things cannot be proven" that there must be information coming from "outside of the system" that will prove those unprovable statements. If you can't prove everything that might be true about the universe, that's too bad. There is no reason why everything must be provable. It is just an argument from ignorance to say that if one can't prove everything, there must be proof somewhere. (The idea that there must be proof somewhere certainly isn't a conclusion of GIT.)

I realize that you might just be trying to argue by analogy, but there is no reason to think that the analogy holds. There is no reason to think that if one can't prove everything that might be true about the universe using information from within the universe, then there "must" be something outside of the universe. It can just as easily be that not everything can be proven.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hawkins]

At times people ponder a reason for believing in the one and only God (consider Isa. 45:5-6). Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are; and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit. Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say ---though they will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.

A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.
B. If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.
C. One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.
D. God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).
E. Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.

The big picture is that it's an advocate that God specified a standard through the Bible such that humans will be judged in accordance to the said standard on the Judgment Day.

So what concerns humans is that if this standard (covering an individual at a specific time span) is accurately conveyed to the extent for humans to make a correct choice (or not), then this standard will be applied legitimately when the judgment comes.

To put it in the simplest way, if the standard (i.e., a covenant applicable to an individual) says that "humans should be saved faith", then your faith will be measured on the Judgment Day.

It's more or less like a court case. When laws are defined with the legislation council giving it a pass (it is thus a bible for citizens), then the laws will be used to judge. If someone breaks the law, he will be put to jail disregarding whether he has comprehended the law correctly or not.

 

[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

See above.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The evidence points to two possibilities, He either created it from nothing or He created it from nothing detectable by humans, ie neither matter or energy.

eud: What evidence? But thank you for saying that you don't actually know which of those alternatives is correct.

See my previous post.

eud: The problem, though, is that this clouds your argument regarding causality.

How?

ed: The law of Causality is a metaphysical law, so it is not tied to just physical entities. Non-physical entities like ideas can cause things.

eud: Ideas have to do with the functioning of the brain. The reason that "ideas" can cause anything is because material brains can cause things.

Material brains can only cause things if they contain non-physical minds with non-physical ideas.

eud: Regardless, the law of causality could not fail to apply to a physical universe. It is not something imposed on physical reality, but something that must be true of any physical reality.

No, it is metaphysical law. It applies to everything that exists including all of physical reality. Unless you are denying that the universe is a physical reality.

ed: Well the same thing occurred with atoms. At one time we didn't know that atoms existed or how they behaved. So when we discovered that they existed we assumed that they behaved according to the laws of physics, and it turned out to be correct. So it is more rational to assume something that is metaphysical will operate according to metaphysical laws, ie laws of logic.

eud: Atoms are part of the natural universe. That is why one assumes that they may be understood in the same way as anything natural. That says nothing about anything "metaphysical" (or outside of nature), about which one can't say really say anything. One might surmise that something like that would conform to logic, but it is difficult to say. I'll agree that ideas conform to logic, but ideas are produced by a physical brain, and are (generally) about a physical reality, regarding which logic makes good sense.

No, at the time that we didn't know atoms existed so we didn't know that they were part of the natural universe. We just made a rational assumption that they were. So it is when science has ever encountered the unknown. Through out the history of science we have always assumed that the laws of logic are valid when trying to understand the unknown. So my point is that when dealing with "outside" the physical universe it is rational to assume that logic will work there also.

ed: Besides the evidence from causality for such a place

eud: Of which there is none. That is just a philosophical or theological speculation.

Speculation based on logical reasoning just like many theories in science of unknowns.

ed: Godels Incompleteness Theorem also points in that direction.

eud: How? I'd really like to hear how GIT allegedly "points in that direction".

See my previous post.

ed: In order to resolve the tension between gravity and quantum mechanics, according to many physicists a second time dimension must exist.

eud: Okay, so how does that relate to this issue, when it is simply about mathematically modelling gravity and quantum mechanics in our universe? IOWs, about a form of time similar to the one that we are familiar with in the macro-world?

Yes, a form of time similar to ours that intersects ours.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The evidence points to? What specific evidence are you referring to?

See my previous posts to Mark.

 

[bhsmte]

See my previous posts to Mark.

Post numbers where you showed evidence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Material brains can only cause things if they contain non-physical minds with non-physical ideas.

Material things are known by physics to be a source of causes. How do you reach the conclusion above?

No, it is metaphysical law. It applies to everything that exists including all of physical reality.

I agree, and I said so. However, I wrote that metaphysical laws are not imposed upon reality. That doesn't contradict the idea that the universe is physical. I'm simply saying that "metaphysical laws" simply must be true of any physical reality, and there is no such thing as a physical reality in which they don't apply.

No, at the time that we didn't know atoms existed so we didn't know that they were part of the natural universe.

That is so illogical I don't know how to continue the discussion on that specific issue.

Yes, a form of time similar to ours that intersects ours.

Intersects how?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

tm: Citation required.

Read "Statistical Entropy of Four Dimensional Extremal Black Holes" by Maldacena and Strominger in Physical Review Letter July 15, 1996. pp 428-429.

tm: What you say is simply not true.

See above.

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

tm: no space-time = no time.

True, but no time does not = no causality. There is nothing in causality that requires having certain objects in certain relative positions in space.

ed: But see above about there being another dimension of time

tm: Bare assertion with no evidence.

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

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

I guess that means no. If something is contingent and all the evidence points to the universe being contingent, then it requires something upon which its existence is based.

ed: Causality is a law of logic

tm: 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.

Not according to Aristotle, it IS a law of logic and metaphysics and that has never been disproven. Quantum uncertainty only applies at the microlevel, the existence of he universe is plainly at the macrolevel. But even quantum physics only appears to not need causes, we don't really know for certain. It could still be causal but we only understand it at probability levels.

ed: therefore it is also a metaphysical law

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

See above about Aristotle. Non-physical entities can cause non-physical effects and physical effects. Such as your mind can produce ideas as well as physical events such as moving your arm. Both of which are non-physical.

ed: and does not need anything physical to be valid

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

No, see above.

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

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

Fraid so, ever hear of the laws of physics? They are non-physical but they control the behavior of the material universe.

ed: 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: The big bang isn't actually a theory of origins. More a theory of development.

Not according to the majority of cosmologists. The majority agree that space time and matter came into existence at the BB.

tm: But anyway... you know what has a beginning within that model? Space and time.

Yes, OUR space and time had a beginning at that point.

ed: But God's existence is demonstrable.

tm: Then demonstrate it.

That is what I am doing in this thread.

 

[bhsmte]

Read "Statistical Entropy of Four Dimensional Extremal Black Holes" by Maldacena and Strominger in Physical Review Letter July 15, 1996. pp 428-429.



See above.



True, but no time does not = no causality. There is nothing in causality that requires having certain objects in certain relative positions in space.



I guess that means no. If something is contingent and all the evidence points to the universe being contingent, then it requires something upon which its existence is based.



Not according to Aristotle, it IS a law of logic and metaphysics and that has never been disproven. Quantum uncertainty only applies at the microlevel, the existence of he universe is plainly at the macrolevel. But even quantum physics only appears to not need causes, we don't really know for certain. It could still be causal but we only understand it at probability levels.




See above about Aristotle. Non-physical entities can cause non-physical effects and physical effects. Such as your mind can produce ideas as well as physical events such as moving your arm. Both of which are non-physical.


No, see above.




Fraid so, ever hear of the laws of physics? They are non-physical but they control the behavior of the material universe.



Not according to the majority of cosmologists. The majority agree that space time and matter came into existence at the BB.



Yes, OUR space and time had a beginning at that point.


That is what I am doing in this thread.

The only thing you have demonstrated is; you have opinions you can not substantiate and you can tell people to go read stuff.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

No, Christianity itself is based on evidence and logical reasoning. The bible is just one big piece of the evidence. There is also scientific evidence and philosophical evidence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Christianity is based on theophanies.

Yes, but even more as I have shown above.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

As a non-physicist, I can't explain all the math and physics, but I do understand the conclusion, ie that there is evidence for a second time dimension.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As a non-physicist, I can't explain all the math and physics, but I do understand the conclusion, ie that there is evidence for a second time dimension.

I'm not asking you to explain the math or to be a PhD physicist. I am a layman as well. I just want to know that you understand what the research is actually saying, so that you can develop your arguments based on that.

You don't seem to have any idea what that "second time dimension" is other than that it contains the words "second", "time", and "dimension". And yet you are trying to use this scientific speculation as a premise in some arguments of yours. It doesn't work that way.

No, Christianity itself is based on evidence and logical reasoning. The bible is just one big piece of the evidence. There is also scientific evidence and philosophical evidence.

I don't think that you understand the history of Christianity.

It all starts with stories about a man who, through words and miracles, reveals the will of God to humanity. The first letters, coming from Paul, aren't even about Paul's experience with a physical Jesus, but about a Jesus of visions. The beginnings and core of Christianity is divine revelation.

In time, apologetics and theology were used to defend Christian faith. At first, this was a philosophical defense, though recently with science ascendant, there have been efforts lately to make arguments that at least sound "scientific" (such as ID).

Christianity is not based on those apologetics. The apologetics are add-ons used to defend long-established Christian doctrine. The Bible isn't "just one big piece of the evidence". It contains the doctrine that all apologetics must serve.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

No, Christianity itself is based on evidence and logical reasoning. The bible is just one big piece of the evidence. There is also scientific evidence and philosophical evidence.

Fraid not?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If you run the BB backwards you come to a point of no dimensions, ie nothing.

eud: 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.

No, at time=0 there were no dimensions and no mass or space-time. And it is not outdated, it is being confirmed more and more every year.

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

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

Because the cause cannot be part of the effect. This is logic 101.

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

eud: 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 the most rational conclusion.

ed: 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.

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

Well you claimed that the cause of the universe is internal to the universe.

ed: 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".

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

Many times things ARE what they seem. I didn't say it was an argument, my point in quoting him is that even some non-Christian scientists believe that a Designer is a rational possibility.

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

eud: *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.

No, you are not paying attention. I was referring to when scientists did not know that atoms existed, it was just a hypothesis, that was confirmed when they used logic to confirm an unknown, just as we can do with the unknown territory of "outside" this universe. It is rational to assume logic is valid outside the universe which is how we have always discovered things about the unknown.

ed: 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.

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

Not according to many scientists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, at time=0 there were no dimensions and no mass or space-time.

I've already given you one source saying otherwise. What source do you have?

Because the cause cannot be part of the effect. This is logic 101.

A cause can be part of an effect. If I break my own arm, I am part of the effect.

What I think that you mean to say is that an entity cannot cause (be the explanation for) its own existence. But that's not what I am talking about here.

It is the most rational conclusion.

You haven't shown this. You just keep insisting that it is. I have shown how logic doesn't necessarily lead in that direction.

Well you claimed that the cause of the universe is internal to the universe.

Post number?

I'm pretty sure that you've misread something, because that is not something I would ever say. What I had probably said is something like that the universe is the cause of its own change and explains what we see today. I don't think that the universe is the cause of its own existence.

No, you are not paying attention. I was referring to when scientists did not know that atoms existed, it was just a hypothesis, that was confirmed when they used logic to confirm an unknown, just as we can do with the unknown territory of "outside" this universe. It is rational to assume logic is valid outside the universe which is how we have always discovered things about the unknown.

I understood what you were saying. An unknown inside the universe that refers to an entity that we know exists is vastly different than an unknown "outside of" the universe that we don't know exists. Not all unknowns are equivalent.

Not according to many scientists.

Which ones?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.

That's a wild goose chase.

All you told me was "Read Andrew Strominger's work." If you can't give page numbers and quotes so that I can narrow down my reading, I am just being told to read something that doesn't necessarily advance your case. It's like being told "Of course Nietzsche was a Nazi. Go read his work." I'm not going to take you on faith.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.

Explain the study to us, in some detail.