Tired of the religious right putting down science

[tttppp]

I have yet to see any phenomena that mTheory fails to account for, but even if it did that clearly was not the point. Someone explained the generation of matter as originating from outside the dimensions of space-time (in their words 'from eternity,' and your response was that this was an example of 'we can't possibly know so why bother explaining.' Nothing could be further from the truth, and so I called upon the example of superstring theory to demonstrate that matter wave and energy and generation through transference from transcendent dimensions is already widely held as explanation from a purely naturalistic point of view. Instead of taking the point, you tangentially struck out against string theory, which nobody can argue against as at least an attempt to explain everything.

I never made the point "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." I have already clarified this. String theory from what I have seen is a collection of rules without a point. I've asked you to explain how string theory explains everything, you chose to ignore it and start having a bs argument about nothing.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Thats where your focus is wrong. The only way to understand everything, is to figure out a system that works for everything. The theory I have suggested, also works for the supernatural. It just doesn't work if you believe God created everything.

Maybe you can better explain God better. Is God nothing? Is God something but finite or infinite.?

You keep asking people to accept your arguments merely because you say so. You subject what you consider supernaturality to the rules of naturality, which by definition cannot be. The realm of eternity exists outside of space-time, so trying to apply the rules of space-time to the realm of eternity is futile at best, and subjects eternity as a component of temporality at worst, which is a clear logical impossibility.

I consider God as the ontological source of existence itself. "I am that I am" being poorly translated from the Hebrew, more properly "the origin of being" with the word "being" used in it's ontological sense rather than it's personal sense.

I consider God a kind of unified triumvirate personal being much like humans are "mind body and soul" where God is 1) the origin of being (the Father) ie 'mind' 2) the expression of creation/creativity (the Son) is 'body' and 3) the principle of existence/eternality (the Spirit) ie 'soul.'

Finitude is a characteristic of temporality by definition. The concept of "infinite" can only be expressed as a 'lack of finitude' and therefore also stems from the temporal paradigm. God inhabits the realm of eternity, and therefore neither finite nor infinite (both arising from temporality) can be an adequate description.

I am not speaking in 'unknowables' but rather in 'transcendency.' Untranscendent concepts simply may not apply to concepts in transcendent realms. Allow me to simplify...

The concept of "volume or the lack of volume" simply does not apply in a 1d or a 2d universe, but only in a 3d universe. Therefore trying to speak of a 2d concept as voluminous is automatically a disconnect. Ordinarily that restriction only works downward, 3d concepts applied to 2d worlds except when incorporating the concepts of string theory subdimensions where -1d concepts may not apply to 1d realities. Which is why I brought out the example of string theory in the first place.

Where mTheory would consider stringspace as a subdimension curling under space-time, I would consider space-time as a subdimension curling under eternity, therefore the temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the eternal realm.

On the other hand, we may say that certain aspects of God are infinite, and therefore can intersect with space-time in the same way that certain aspects of a sphere can intersect with the planar universe of a 2d world.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I never made the point "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." I have already clarified this. String theory from what I have seen is a collection of rules without a point. I've asked you to explain how string theory explains everything, you chose to ignore it and start having a bs argument about nothing.

No, you merely accused others of doing that, which was my whole point.

Someone explained that the universe and/or matter need not be 'eternal' within the realm of space-time because that may have been created out of nothingness by God from within the realm of eternity, to which you answered by accusing them of saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining," which I proceeded to demonstrate was a false accusation by demonstrating parallel explanations as generally accepted as being 'explanatory' in mTheory. Whether such explanations are accurate or not is not relevant to the point, what is relevant is the fact that they are indeed explanations, and not an example of "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining," which is what you were accusing them of.

 

[Origanalist]

LOL well that's not actually my intent here. I too think that mTheory is flawed, but it has a lot of good points and may well be closer to a description of fundamental reality than the Theory of Relativity. My primary point was that concepts that are nearly universally accepted in the naturalistic realm are rejected out-of-hand as foolishness (or contrary to 'common sense') by naturalists when those same concepts are applied to supernatural mechanics. That's a blatant double standard.

You know, you can go on and on and bring up all kinds of scientific "facts". The truth is none of us will know until we die if there is a God and if he has a plan for us.

It's been my experience that those who would deny God are infected with a certain arrogance that puts them in the same category as the spanish inquisition. If you don't believe there is a Creator, that is your right. I do.

I understand that some will attack you, I am not one of those.

 

[tttppp]

You keep asking people to accept your arguments merely because you say so. You subject what you consider supernaturality to the rules of naturality, which by definition cannot be. The realm of eternity exists outside of space-time, so trying to apply the rules of space-time to the realm of eternity is futile at best, and subjects eternity as a component of temporality at worst, which is a clear logical impossibility.

I consider God as the ontological source of existence itself. "I am that I am" being poorly translated from the Hebrew, more properly "the origin of being" with the word "being" used in it's ontological sense rather than it's personal sense.

I consider God a kind of unified triumvirate personal being much like humans are "mind body and soul" where God is 1) the origin of being (the Father) ie 'mind' 2) the expression of creation/creativity (the Son) is 'body' and 3) the principle of existence/eternality (the Spirit) ie 'soul.'

Finitude is a characteristic of temporality by definition. The concept of "infinite" can only be expressed as a 'lack of finitude' and therefore also stems from the temporal paradigm. God inhabits the realm of eternity, and therefore neither finite nor infinite (both arising from temporality) can be an adequate description.

I am not speaking in 'unknowables' but rather in 'transcendency.' Untranscendent concepts simply may not apply to concepts in transcendent realms. Allow me to simplify...

The concept of "volume or the lack of volume" simply does not apply in a 1d or a 2d universe, but only in a 3d universe. Therefore trying to speak of a 2d concept as voluminous is automatically a disconnect. Ordinarily that restriction only works downward, 3d concepts applied to 2d worlds except when incorporating the concepts of string theory subdimensions where -1d concepts may not apply to 1d realities. Which is why I brought out the example of string theory in the first place.

Where mTheory would consider stringspace as a subdimension curling under space-time, I would consider space-time as a subdimension curling under eternity, therefore the temporal rules of space-time do not necessarily apply to the eternal realm.

On the other hand, we may say that certain aspects of God are infinite, and therefore can intersect with space-time in the same way that certain aspects of a sphere can intersect with the planar universe of a 2d world.

I think you are missing my point. There is only one thing that I said cannot exist, and that is a God that created the entire universe. I allow for all the other supernatural to take place.

 

[tttppp]

No, you merely accused others of doing that, which was my whole point.

Someone explained that the universe and/or matter need not be 'eternal' within the realm of space-time because that may have been created out of nothingness by God from within the realm of eternity, to which you answered by accusing them of saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining," which I proceeded to demonstrate was a false accusation by demonstrating parallel explanations as generally accepted as being 'explanatory' in mTheory. Whether such explanations are accurate or not is not relevant to the point, what is relevant is the fact that they are indeed explanations, and not an example of "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining," which is what you were accusing them of.

I looked back at the original post. The poster made the argument that "something" would have existed before God made the universe and argued that was acceptable because it is eternal and does not have our laws of the universe.

So another words, our theories don't have to be logical because God is eternal. Thats pretty close to saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." Instead of providing an argument, he basically said that whatever was here before the universe is eternal, so we can abandon all logic.

Your explanation of the scenario is very inaccurate. Additionally, I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say in your attempt to explain this in mTheory. You have an extraordinary ability to make simple concepts as complex as possible.

 

[matt0611]

I looked back at the original post. The poster made the argument that "something" would have existed before God made the universe and argued that was acceptable because it is eternal and does not have our laws of the universe.

So another words, our theories don't have to be logical because God is eternal. Thats pretty close to saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." Instead of providing an argument, he basically said that whatever was here before the universe is eternal, so we can abandon all logic.

Your explanation of the scenario is very inaccurate. Additionally, I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say in your attempt to explain this in mTheory. You have an extraordinary ability to make simple concepts as complex as possible.

How is that saying "we can't possibly know" ?

Time and space exists inside the universe, the something that created the universe is NOT the universe and NOT inside the universe so that thing is not bound by time or space and therefore has no beginning or end.

Its really not that complicated.

 

[cstarace]

How is that saying "we can't possibly know" ?

Time and space exists inside the universe, the something that created the universe is NOT the universe and NOT inside the universe so that thing is not bound by time or space.

Its really not that complicated.

It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it's a cop-out.

 

[Revolution9]

OK, how about "subatomic particles are subdimensional strings that subsist below the four dimensions of space-time" and "eleven dimensions to account for every phenomena that exists." Seems like a pretty concise statement to me.

And FOS. Until they integrate torsion fields they are blubbering.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I looked back at the original post. The poster made the argument that "something" would have existed before God made the universe...

Consciousness is the correct answer. Why is that so hard for everyone on this thread to wrap their branes around?

Rev9

 

[matt0611]

It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it's a cop-out.

How is it a cop-out? Its a logical explanation of how the universe was created.
He says that its logically impossible yet hasn't showed it to be.

 

[Revolution9]

The truth is none of us will know until we die if there is a God and if he has a plan for us.

That is not true.

Rev9

 

[GunnyFreedom]

How is it a cop-out? Its a logical explanation of how the universe was created.
He says that its logically impossible yet hasn't showed it to be.

It's not. Hyper-naturalists feel that only those arguments capable of being falsified within space-time are valid. Bear in mind that the postulate that "there is a God who exists in the realm of eternity" is per the scientific method completely 'falsifiable,' you just have to die to do it.

Within the full extent of the given construct, it is completely rational and logical. However, there are points we will never see eye-to-eye on with the hyper-naturalist, because once we start talking about beyond (transcendent to) space-time we go to infinite set, they go to null set. It is a bridge, I fear, that simply cannot be crossed. Until one's soul has witnessed eternity personally, at best it can only ever be considered as a logical fiction.

That's why the naturalist views the spiritualist (and particularly those of the Christian order) with contempt. We have been granted that fore-taste of eternity in the moment of the first-fruits of our transformation. The naturalist will call that our 'conversion.' When a soul is claimed for Messiah, we are given a moment to peer into eternity itself, and that moment provides the transformative energy that fertilizes the seed which raises us to an eternal being. Those who have never experienced such will always view those of us who have as delusional.

That's just the sad reality we face, and that is also why the myriad Christian sects and denominations teach that people cannot convert other people to Christianity, we can only bear witness and it is not us but God Himself who converts the heart/soul. In the colloquial (original sense of 'vulgar'), this is called "born again." The moment happens not during any baptism or ceremony, but upon becoming connected to eternity via the gift of a personal witness to it.

People often describe a moment before/after they go through the process of salvation and/or baptism where "the heavens open up and I saw the Kingdom of Heaven." The nonbeliever thinks we are simply crazy. That switch is either on or off, and there is simply no meeting in the middle. Even if they were to accept that we genuinely believe this happened, they will (at least internally) chalk it up to pure delusion and move on. At best they will consider it an effect of an ecstatically religious induced serotonin cascade, at worst, a willful self-delusion.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That is not true.

Rev9

You are correct, and I believe Originalist would actually agree with you...I was (and I believe he was) speaking for the sake of argument from within the naturalistic paradigm in an effort to find or make common ground with the nonbeliever. Some things that we accept as given appear to the uninitiated as sheer lunacy. Sometimes during discussions with nonbelievers, it is not uncommon to just set aside those givens so that we can at least speak a common language.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I looked back at the original post. The poster made the argument that "something" would have existed before God made the universe and argued that was acceptable because it is eternal and does not have our laws of the universe.

So another words, our theories don't have to be logical because God is eternal. Thats pretty close to saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." Instead of providing an argument, he basically said that whatever was here before the universe is eternal, so we can abandon all logic.

Your explanation of the scenario is very inaccurate. Additionally, I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say in your attempt to explain this in mTheory. You have an extraordinary ability to make simple concepts as complex as possible.

Actually, I am discussing concepts that are absurdly simple, but when put to you simply you consider them an "abandonment of all logic," so I am painstakingly constructing the logical framework that (I hope) will allow you to see the logic behind it even from within the naturalistic paradigm.

I do not ordinarily describe these concepts in this manner.

Usually, I use the same basic description as the post you replied to which inspired me to wade into the argument, that God inhabits the realm of eternity which is beyond (transcendent to) the dimensions of space-time, where the rules of space-time do not necessarily apply.

That is not to say that no rules apply or that they are unknowable. To say that entropy does not affect eternity is not the same as saying "we can't know," which you seem to presume.

You continue to insist that if God is eternal then space-time must be eternal, but if we consider space-time temporal then logically God must also be temporal. You state that space-time being temporal while God is eternal is a logical impossibility but never provide any sort of argument to that effect, you just expect us to accept it because you say so, or you just call it "common sense" and leave it there.

Stating that God exists prior to the temporal universe and willfully brought it into existence is neither illogical nor is it in any way close to saying "we can't possibly know, so why bother explaining." No matter how deeply you insist that it must be so. My only issue with the statement is that I do not believe temporal measurements (ie before and after) are appropriate in the realm of eternity. There may be (and almost certainly is) some form of 'progression,' but it is not temporal in nature.

The only person talking about anybody abandoning all logic here, sir, is you.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think you are missing my point. There is only one thing that I said cannot exist, and that is a God that created the entire universe. I allow for all the other supernatural to take place.

That's some pretty sure knowledge you have there.

Fundamentally, any god that can not have created the universe, is therefore a part of and subordinate to space-time itself. Therefore despite any vocabulary to the contrary, the construct is wholly naturalistic and not supernaturalistic.

 

[cstarace]

How is it a cop-out? Its a logical explanation of how the universe was created.
He says that its logically impossible yet hasn't showed it to be.

Proving the Christian God to be false is simple. His properties are known to us. The Bible says that God created the universe 6-12k years ago. This is false. We know from radiometric dating, from the distance of stars and the amount of distance their light has to travel to reach the Earth, and the rate of expansion of the universe that the Earth is billions of years old. The Bible says the Christian God created men from mere dust and women from man's rib, and created all the animals in one day, and we know this is not true, either. Animals and humans emerged from a gradual process of genetic mutations and adaptations, mate selection, etc., commonly known as evolution. A lot of Christians don't believe this, but it's a scientific fact. Some choose not to accept this, but that has no bearing on whatsoever on it being true. The Bible also says disease is caused by demonic possession. Now we know and accept the existence of viruses and bacteria. The Bible also says that the Christian God is personally responsible for rain and earthquakes, but we now know about evaporation and have discovered plate tectonics. The Christian God says the Earth is flat, and now we know it is round. Apparently, the Christian God didn't know any of this, despite creating the universe and supposedly being "all-knowing". His knowledge was limited to the humans of his day. Coincidence?

No atheist can disprove a God whose properties are unknown to man, however. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No matter how much evidence you find that contradicts the existence of said God, believers can always come up with an excuse. If we searched every square inch of the entire universe and found no God, believers could say, "Maybe he's invisible, or maybe he exists in an alternate dimension."

I own an invisible tyrannosaurus-rex. And it cannot be touched. It's invisible, and it's ethereal, but I own it. Do you believe me? Probably not. Can you prove that I don't own it? No, you can't. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I can make any number of unfalsifiable hypotheses, and you can't disprove any of them. Nobody can. That's the beauty of your argument. Nobody can disprove your theory, and then you turn around and say, "See! It can't be disproven, therefore, it must be true!" Just because your theory cannot be disproven, that doesn't mean it's true.

 

[matt0611]

Proving the Christian God to be false is simple. His properties are known to us. The Bible says that God created the universe 6-12k years ago. This is false. We know from radiometric dating, from the distance of stars and the amount of distance their light has to travel to reach the Earth, and the rate of expansion of the universe that the Earth is billions of years old. The Bible says the Christian God created men from mere dust and women from man's rib, and created all the animals in one day, and we know this is not true, either. Animals and humans emerged from a gradual process of genetic mutations and adaptations, mate selection, etc., commonly known as evolution. A lot of Christians don't believe this, but it's a scientific fact. Some choose not to accept this, but that has no bearing on whatsoever on it being true. The Bible also says disease is caused by demonic possession. Now we know and accept the existence of viruses and bacteria. The Bible also says that the Christian God is personally responsible for rain and earthquakes, but we now know about evaporation and have discovered plate tectonics. The Christian God says the Earth is flat, and now we know it is round. Apparently, the Christian God didn't know any of this, despite creating the universe and supposedly being "all-knowing". His knowledge was limited to the humans of his day. Coincidence?

No atheist can disprove a God whose properties are unknown to man, however. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No matter how much evidence you find that contradicts the existence of said God, believers can always come up with an excuse. If we searched every square inch of the entire universe and found no God, believers could say, "Maybe he's invisible, or maybe he exists in an alternate dimension."

I own an invisible tyrannosaurus-rex. And it cannot be touched. It's invisible, and it's ethereal, but I own it. Do you believe me? Probably not. Can you prove that I don't own it? No, you can't. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I can make any number of unfalsifiable hypotheses, and you can't disprove any of them. Nobody can. That's the beauty of your argument. Nobody can disprove your theory, and then you turn around and say, "See! It can't be disproven, therefore, it must be true!" Just because your theory cannot be disproven, that doesn't mean it's true.

Now you change the subject to other things, (many of which are strawman arguments by the way) but if there is a God and he created the universe then logically he would therefore have to exist outside of the universe and outside of time and space. The Bible states this as well. It may not be falsifiable but it doesn't make it untrue or logically unsound (impossible).

 

[tttppp]

How is that saying "we can't possibly know" ?

Time and space exists inside the universe, the something that created the universe is NOT the universe and NOT inside the universe so that thing is not bound by time or space and therefore has no beginning or end.

Its really not that complicated.

No I get that. But if its infinite and has no beginining or end, then our universe is also infinite and therefor doesn't need someone to create it. You are explaining how something can come into existence on its own, but then saying God created the universe for the hell of it, even though the universe was already created.

 

[tttppp]

Consciousness is the correct answer. Why is that so hard for everyone on this thread to wrap their branes around?

Rev9

Consciousness requires some form of energy to exist. Otherwise its just nothing.