Tue January 13, 2015 6:16 pm
pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?
Could you elaborate on your logic for this?
Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.
Tue January 13, 2015 6:59 pm
Tue January 13, 2015 7:01 pm
LoathedVermin72 wrote:pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?
Could you elaborate on your logic for this?
Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.
This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.
Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.
Tue January 13, 2015 7:44 pm
pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?
Could you elaborate on your logic for this?
Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.
This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.
Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.
I'm not abandoning anything. Logic and common sense are bound by science, which has limits itself. If you want to equate 'God' to an invisible rabbit, i don't have a problem with it. Waiting for the evidence to come in and not asking why questions doesn't seem that progressive to me. Atheists must hate theoretical physicists.
Tue January 13, 2015 8:52 pm
Tue January 13, 2015 9:07 pm
BurtReynolds wrote:random question: Could an "all-knowing" God be capable of learning? What is there to learn? And could that entity be said to be intelligent if it can't learn?
Also I have a non God question: Is there an edge of galaxies? Like if I travelled from one galaxy to the next, would I eventually loop around, or what? I get that space is expanding between galaxies, and I get that the universe isn't this convenient 3D bubble and there is no edge, i... i dunno.
Fri January 16, 2015 10:18 pm
Fri January 16, 2015 10:26 pm
Fri January 16, 2015 10:30 pm
tommymtcom wrote:What a shocker.
Sun January 18, 2015 8:48 pm
Sun January 18, 2015 9:05 pm
cutuphalfdead wrote:I received communion today for the first time in 15 years.
Sun January 18, 2015 10:07 pm
tommymtcom wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:I received communion today for the first time in 15 years.
How do you feel?
Mon January 19, 2015 7:55 pm
LoathedVermin72 wrote:pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:pnjguy wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:And if existence is infinite, wouldn't a god of some sort almost have to exist?
Could you elaborate on your logic for this?
Let's take the inflationary theory which has become a hot theory for scientists. Basically we are in a cosmic bubble bath of big bangs, and each pop of a bubble creates another bubble, and so on and so forth. This leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the laws of physics vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we can observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Looking over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes, Hence. the paradigm of inflation is untestable, unfalsifiable, and scientifically meaningless. Much like the theory of "God." At some point there is a singularity, a point where all the laws of physics fail. And that's when people then sub in the words like "infinity." Because there is a breakdown. That breakdown will always exist, and Science we'll likely never figure it out. Infinity and God are then interchangeable words at that point.
This is some rather specious reasoning. You’re basically returning to the “we can’t really know” argument. Essentially, you’re saying that because there’s a starting point which the laws of physics cannot (yet) explain, anything is equally plausible because it’s (currently) unprovable. Could be infinity. Could be God. Could be an invisible rabbit. Could be Santa Claus.
Again, this is basic Russell’s Teapot logic. The fact that “we can’t really know” doesn’t mean that we should abandon logic and common sense and treat all assertions as equally plausible.
I'm not abandoning anything. Logic and common sense are bound by science, which has limits itself. If you want to equate 'God' to an invisible rabbit, i don't have a problem with it. Waiting for the evidence to come in and not asking why questions doesn't seem that progressive to me. Atheists must hate theoretical physicists.
Oh boy, here come the blanket atheist statements.
Theoretical physics are based in scientific thought and theory. They are also attempting to answer the how, not the why. “Why” is a vain, egotistical, desperate question that, again (as t2b and Orpheus have already put nicely), comes from human fears, insecurities, and an inability to emotionally accept what we know intellectually. We’ve already been over this.
Mon January 19, 2015 8:13 pm
LoathedVermin72 wrote: I think this whole line of metaphysical thinking is similar to the “We can’t really know” thing that came up earlier in this thread. The whole endeavor strikes me as quasi-deep and, ultimately, pointless. The fact that “we can’t really know” shouldn’t prevent us from accepting the fundamental nature of our existence (that being that we are physical organisms that exist on a physical planet in an almost incomprehensibly vast universe). That’s not really a worldview; it’s scientifically provable information. As humans, we might want to delude ourselves into believing otherwise for the sake of our own comfort, vanity, fear, and desire to mean something more, but that would be a denial of reality. That’s where the difference in what you call “worldviews” comes in: one is predicated upon an acceptance of reality, the other a denial of it.
Mon January 19, 2015 8:15 pm
LoathedVermin72 wrote:pnjguy wrote:turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."
Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?
No, because all the evidence points to there not being a "why."
Mon January 19, 2015 8:22 pm
turned2black wrote:pnjguy wrote:turned2black wrote:This “why?” argument is the same thing as people who say there has to be a god because it makes them feel good. You need a why. It comes from your fears and insecurities. We are all just here. There’s no need for a "why."
Couldn't it be people's fears and insecurities and comfort that makes them feel that there is no need for a "why"?
Again. This is not a valid argument. You are trying to add something to the equation that's unknowable. It's your job to provide the evidence.
See the Russell's Teapot link that Jorge posted earlier in this thread.
Mon January 19, 2015 8:28 pm
pnjguy wrote:Yet, you try to prove God doesn't exists based on no evidence.
Mon January 19, 2015 8:30 pm
Mon January 19, 2015 8:45 pm
Mon January 19, 2015 8:48 pm
Self wrote:Hey, Pete. Tell me all of your thoughts on god.