Tired of the religious right putting down science

[tttppp]

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.

I have already explained how the concept of zero=infinity explains how the universe can exist. I have not seen a better explaination for how the universe exists. I certainly haven't seen a clear explaintation from you on how the universe exists. You can certainly disagree with my ideas, but they certainly are not illogical considering its the closest thing to explaining why we exist.

 

[matt0611]

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.

If we are defining the universe by all physical things, physical matter, time, and space then its not logically incoherent to say that all those things are finite and have a beginning and the thing that created them is infinite and non-physical.

Once again, God's existence does not depend on the existence of the physical universe which we see and touch.

 

[tttppp]

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.

My concept explains everything except a God that created everything.

Your writing skills could be improved. You are obviously educated, but I doubt many people can understand what you are writing. You try to make the simplest things as complex as possible. You should really be doing the opposite.

 

[tttppp]

If we are defining the universe by all physical things, physical matter, time, and space then its not logically incoherent to say that all those things are finite and have a beginning and the thing that created them is infinite and non-physical.

Once again, God's existence does not depend on the existence of the physical universe which we see and touch.

My definition of infinity is everything. In that case infinity would also include our world. So its not correct to state that God can be infinite and we are finite.

You are really making this issue more complicated by bringing in God. If this universe could be in existence on its own, why would there be a need for God to create it?

 

[matt0611]

My definition of infinity is everything. In that case infinity would also include our world. So its not correct to state that God can be infinite and we are finite.

You are really making this issue more complicated by bringing in God. If this universe could be in existence on its own, why would there be a need for God to create it?

I'm not making it complicated, I explained the entire thing in one sentence. It's logically coherent, you still have failed to point out the logical impossibility of this hypothesis. The key point you keep missing is that God is non-physical.

Again, we are arguing in circles, I don't think there's much to gain by continuing this conversation so we'll just have to stop.

 

[tttppp]

I'm not making it complicated, I explained the entire thing in one sentence. It's logically coherent, you still have failed to point out the logically impossibility with this hypothesis. Again, we are arguing in circles, I don't think there's much to gain by continuing this conversation so we'll just have to stop.

The impossibility is that you can't create something that is already created. Your post was consice, but you are adding the extra element of God which isn't needed given inifnity exists.

 

[matt0611]

The impossibility is that you can't create something that is already created. Your post was consice, but you are adding the extra element of God which isn't needed given inifnity exists.

You presume and infinitely old physical universe. Presume a physical universe with a finite age and my explanation works fine.

 

[tttppp]

You presume and infinitely old physical universe. Presume a physical universe with a finite age and my explanation works fine.

How so? That scenario doesn't even work either.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

The universe is not infinite in 3-dimensional space.
It is however infinite in mulli-dimensional space.

Think of it like this.
If you were inside the event horizon of a spinning super massive black hole..
You are in an enclosed system spherical system, but to you it would seem infinite, you could travel forever in one direction, yet never leave the finite boundary.

I really do think that this universe is a black hole, a black hole with the mass of the universe.
It would explain a lot of things.. like all that "missing matter" they keep looking for.. And that dark energy... and dark flow... and why gravity is so weak..

I mean seriously.. everything is expanding, ripping itself a part, in super slow motion ..
Where has we seen this predicted? Inside a black hole, as the space between the atoms is stretched apart..

 

[matt0611]

How so? That scenario doesn't even work either.

"The impossibility is that you can't create something that is already created." -tttppp

Right there, you start with assuming a physical universe that could not have been created.
Once you stop assuming that, my explanation works fine.

 

[tttppp]

"The impossibility is that you can't create something that is already created." -tttppp

Right there, you start with assuming a physical universe that could not have been created.
Once you stop assuming that, my explanation works fine.

The assumption before was that everything is infinite, or at least in your case, God is infinite. That has its own problems as I explained before. If you are going to say that everything is finite, then you have to ask yourself how does anything exist in the first place? You can't make something out of absolutely nothing. It just doesn't work. Its impossible. The finite scenario has a zero percent chance of being accurate.

 

[tttppp]

The universe is not infinite in 3-dimensional space.
It is however infinite in mulli-dimensional space.

I agree.

 

[matt0611]

The assumption before was that everything is infinite, or at least in your case, God is infinite. That has its own problems as I explained before. If you are going to say that everything is finite, then you have to ask yourself how does anything exist in the first place? You can't make something out of absolutely nothing. It just doesn't work. Its impossible. The finite scenario has a zero percent chance of being accurate.

The physical universe is finite. It has a finite amount of matter, a finite time of existence etc. God is not limited in this sense because he exists apart from the physical universe.

Again, I'm not saying something is made out of absolutely nothing. That's what (most) atheists do.

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand but you don't seem to grasp how I'm explaining it or I'm not understanding your arguments.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself so I'm going to end this debate (for real this time).

 

[tttppp]

The physical universe is finite. It has a finite amount of matter, a finite time of existence etc. God is not limited in this sense because he exists apart from the physical universe.

Again, I'm not saying something is made out of absolutely nothing. That's what (most) atheists do.

I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand but you don't seem to grasp how I'm explaining it or I'm not understanding your arguments.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself so I'm going to end this debate (for real this time).

I've already explained that my definition of infinity is everything. That means if infinity exists, it wouldn't be limited to just God, we'd be infinite too. You're scenario is a condradiction. You can't have an infinite God and a finite universe.

 

[Toxic]

So when you communicate with people, things like the differences between Catholic and Protestant theology are veiled messages for how to build tree forts? This is how you communicate with people and expect them to understand you? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard...and not honest either by the way. You know that you don't communicate like that at all, but you still are trying to win an argument based on an inconsistent standard you use with yourself and in regards to others.

I think people reading will understand my point (precisely because I can convey my meaning to them and they can understand things in a logical way). Your entire position here is really an attack on logic and reason, which is typical in atheist worldviews.

Wow, that flew right over your head. We're talking about words that were used well over 2000 years ago. Is it possible that what may have been crystal clear to them may be more difficult for us to interpret?

 

[libertariantexas]

Religion has long been against science (not just Christianity, but most, if not all, of them).

I suspect it's because religious leaders see science, reason, and enlightenment as a threat to their power.

Historically, religious leaders have tortured, imprisoned, or killed scientists who dared promote their "heresy" (any science or reason that showed that religious hocus pocus for what it is).

They can't do that anymore (in this country anyway- though they probably wish they could), but they can still use their power to try and keep people as ignorant as possible.

 

[jmdrake]

Religion has long been against science (not just Christianity, but most, if not all, of them).

I suspect it's because religious leaders see science, reason, and enlightenment as a threat to their power.

Historically, religious leaders have tortured, imprisoned, or killed scientists who dared promote their "heresy" (any science or reason that showed that religious hocus pocus for what it is).

They can't do that anymore (in this country anyway- though they probably wish they could), but they can still use their power to try and keep people as ignorant as possible.

Conclusory statement combined with a gross over-generalization.

 

[nayjevin]

Conclusory statement combined with a gross over-generalization.

The "Too often..." was silent.

 

[Toxic]

When my sister-in-law (serious Christian) brought her kids to the Museum of Natural History, she made sure to walk right past the hall of evolution. And that is another example of what I'm talking about. People have such a fear of their faith being lost that they shut their eyes and their children's eyes to science. Knowledge is not a disease we need to fear.

 

[jmdrake]

When my sister-in-law (serious Christian) brought her kids to the Museum of Natural History, she made sure to walk right past the hall of evolution. And that is another example of what I'm talking about. People have such a fear of their faith being lost that they shut their eyes and their children's eyes to science. Knowledge is not a disease we need to fear.

I'm planning on taking my kids to the dinosaur exhibit at the local zoo. One of their favorite shows is "Dinosaur Train" on PBS kids. I approach evolution the same way I do other science subjects I have issues with such as global warming. (BTW, I've noticed a lot of libertarian atheists and agnostics reject climate "science". Where do you fall on that?) Anyway I let them take in the information, then when they have questions I explain what the "science" teaches and where I disagree and the scientific and/or religious reasons for my disagreement. Just because some people of faith have a hard time striking that balance doesn't mean it's not there.