Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Where and when...

B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in? Also what caused it to happen in the first place? Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 12:45:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?

God did not happen. One thing you fail to realize is that science doesn't have an explanation for how or why the universe exists. I believe that the scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. They still can't explain the existence of energy. Some of them believe that it always existed. How is this possible? They'll believe that, yet they balk at believing in an eternal being. Why is that?
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 1:10:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

The Big Bang didn't cause the universe. The universe was in a high-density state, and then expanded -- that's all the Big Bang says. I agree -- causality is incoherent without time -- but that doesn't affect the Big Bang model in any way; it only affects the God hypothesis.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 1:16:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 1:10:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

The Big Bang didn't cause the universe. The universe was in a high-density state, and then expanded -- that's all the Big Bang says. I agree -- causality is incoherent without time -- but that doesn't affect the Big Bang model in any way; it only affects the God hypothesis.

Haven't you heard? There is no big bang model. At least not one that conforms to our current understanding of physics. When you work your way backwards, to the beginning, the math breaks down. The simple fact is that science doesn't have a clue about how the universe came into being. "God did it" is just as valid a hypothesis as any other.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 1:21:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 1:16:46 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 1:10:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

The Big Bang didn't cause the universe. The universe was in a high-density state, and then expanded -- that's all the Big Bang says. I agree -- causality is incoherent without time -- but that doesn't affect the Big Bang model in any way; it only affects the God hypothesis.

Haven't you heard? There is no big bang model. At least not one that conforms to our current understanding of physics. When you work your way backwards, to the beginning, the math breaks down. The simple fact is that science doesn't have a clue about how the universe came into being. "God did it" is just as valid a hypothesis as any other.

The Big Bang model doesn't talk about how the universe came into being. It doesn't even show the causality of the universe -- all physicists concede that. The Big Bang and "God did it" aren't mutually exclusive hypotheses.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 1:29:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The Big Bang and "God did it" aren't mutually exclusive hypotheses."

I agree with that, but I disagree with how long it took. It's interesting to note that the Bible mentions how God "Stretched out" the Heavens. And if God did use a big bang, there is no reason why He couldn't have accelerated the process. After all, He is all powerful.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 3:07:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

I want to offer two complementary answers, Bohica, which I'll entitle Incomplete account and Wrong Paradigm.

Incomplete Account
The Big Bang account begins with energy, no mass, a small amount of time and a small volume of space -- it's not an account of everything; just the history of all matter in our universe -- i.e. all of the stuff we're made of, use, live in and depend on. That's still a jaw-droppingly remarkable result to offer in only six thousand years of literate civilisation, but it still leaves unanswered key questions about space, time, energy, thermodynamics, relativity and some fascinating quantum dualities. That's not a flaw in the theory so much as work under way, and scientists aren't ignoring it -- in fact, many physicists and cosmologists are fascinated by it.

Wrong Paradigm
For most of the history of physics and natural philosophy, it has been convenient to treat time and space as invariant and independent metrics against which events happen. So human cultures have developed to think of space like a stage, and time like a cursor on a script, and at certain points on the script, matter and energy exhibit change -- the moving finger having writ, and so on.

But we don't know without checking that time and space are invariant, or even independent. We cannot be sure without experiment that space is not expanding, say -- not just at the edges, but that the metric of space itself is not growing; or that time does not depend on other properties like relative momentum (as it seems to be in relativity.)

In fact, for about a century now, it has become increasingly apparent that the way our universe actually works physically is not the way our species has developed to think of it. Certain properties of matter -- like position and momentum, or axial spins, or wave and particle behaviour -- are never independent; and the more we observe, the more we can begin to understand that the paradigms under which we first conceived things to work are wrong.

So if space were a stage, and time a cursor on a script, it can make sense to ask how the stage came to be erected, what's moving the cursor, and what's writing the script. But if it turns out that (say) our metaphysical context is more like a bubbling soup, with our expanding universe just one of an unthinkably vast number of bubbles, each different, then that question becomes much less significant, or even meaningful.

Is it one, or the other, or something different?

It's almost certainly not a stage/cursor/script paradigm, Bohica, so we need to know what else it is before we can ask a meaningful question. And working out what things were like early on, and how they've been changing subsequently may help answer that -- as may studies into what happens with very hot and very cold things, very big, heavy things, very tiny things, and very dark things.

But for now, we know that the time/space question is asked from incorrect assumptions. What to replace those assumptions with isn't yet clear, so we don't yet know what question to ask instead. But as I mentioned, there's a lot of fascination about the question, and a bit of quiet excitement among cosmologists, quantum theoreticians and the like at the moment. I'm looking forward to seeing how they try and join the metaphysics up, what that will mean for time, space, energy and thermodynamics, and what else it might imply for other metaphysical possibilities.

I realise you typically ask these as leading questions, but I hope these answers may interest you, Bohica -- or if not you, then other members who may be more interested in real answers than confected ones.
slo1
Posts: 4,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 5:20:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

What you talking about? The pre visible universe had no beginning. I though everyone knew about that. The bigger question is whether there can be a cause to something without time? Does cause and effect require time?

You can't avoid that question by defining God as being timless. If no time exists in God's state how could he possible cause something?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 5:36:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 12:45:28 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?

God did not happen.

You have no evidence, testable theory, logical argument or relevant data to extrapolate this. You are simply asserting it as true. In this case you recognize the logical paradox of infinite regression and simply asserting that the universe has this problem but you assert that God does not. This is simply not any form of credible position because you have no reason (as you have no evidence, testable theory or logical argument) to assert why this is true, only that it is.

One thing you fail to realize is that science doesn't have an explanation for how or why the universe exists.

Oh I realize this.

I believe that the scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. They still can't explain the existence of energy. Some of them believe that it always existed. How is this possible? They'll believe that, yet they balk at believing in an eternal being. Why is that?

Knowledge is demonstrable. To say something is true, you need to be able to show it is true. Without such demonstration it is not possibly to differentiate your claims from any arbitrary made up fiction.

In this way science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know ANYTHING.

In the case of the beginning of the universe we don't know, and it's the only honest claim one can make in any way.

Asserting God, is wild speculation with no basis in evidence or knowledge. Wild speculation that must be followed up by a successive series of even more wild speculation and assertions not based on evidence or knowledge to try and explain the discrepancy between reality and the original God assertion, as you do here.

As science is about knowledge, which is demonstrable, you have to reject such assertions of believe and speculation for what it is; assertions and speculation that do not provide any knowledge but simply a comforting or curious excuse for people to rationalize a preexisting belief in God in the face of actual demonstrable knowledge.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 6:26:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 3:07:49 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

I want to offer two complementary answers, Bohica, which I'll entitle Incomplete account and Wrong Paradigm.

Incomplete Account
The Big Bang account begins with energy, no mass, a small amount of time and a small volume of space -- it's not an account of everything; just the history of all matter in our universe -- i.e. all of the stuff we're made of, use, live in and depend on. That's still a jaw-droppingly remarkable result to offer in only six thousand years of literate civilisation, but it still leaves unanswered key questions about space, time, energy, thermodynamics, relativity and some fascinating quantum dualities. That's not a flaw in the theory so much as work under way, and scientists aren't ignoring it -- in fact, many physicists and cosmologists are fascinated by it.

Wrong Paradigm
For most of the history of physics and natural philosophy, it has been convenient to treat time and space as invariant and independent metrics against which events happen. So human cultures have developed to think of space like a stage, and time like a cursor on a script, and at certain points on the script, matter and energy exhibit change -- the moving finger having writ, and so on.

But we don't know without checking that time and space are invariant, or even independent. We cannot be sure without experiment that space is not expanding, say -- not just at the edges, but that the metric of space itself is not growing; or that time does not depend on other properties like relative momentum (as it seems to be in relativity.)

In fact, for about a century now, it has become increasingly apparent that the way our universe actually works physically is not the way our species has developed to think of it. Certain properties of matter -- like position and momentum, or axial spins, or wave and particle behaviour -- are never independent; and the more we observe, the more we can begin to understand that the paradigms under which we first conceived things to work are wrong.

So if space were a stage, and time a cursor on a script, it can make sense to ask how the stage came to be erected, what's moving the cursor, and what's writing the script. But if it turns out that (say) our metaphysical context is more like a bubbling soup, with our expanding universe just one of an unthinkably vast number of bubbles, each different, then that question becomes much less significant, or even meaningful.

Is it one, or the other, or something different?

It's almost certainly not a stage/cursor/script paradigm, Bohica, so we need to know what else it is before we can ask a meaningful question. And working out what things were like early on, and how they've been changing subsequently may help answer that -- as may studies into what happens with very hot and very cold things, very big, heavy things, very tiny things, and very dark things.

But for now, we know that the time/space question is asked from incorrect assumptions. What to replace those assumptions with isn't yet clear, so we don't yet know what question to ask instead. But as I mentioned, there's a lot of fascination about the question, and a bit of quiet excitement among cosmologists, quantum theoreticians and the like at the moment. I'm looking forward to seeing how they try and join the metaphysics up, what that will mean for time, space, energy and thermodynamics, and what else it might imply for other metaphysical possibilities.

I realise you typically ask these as leading questions, but I hope these answers may interest you, Bohica -- or if not you, then other members who may be more interested in real answers than confected ones.

Thank you for that considerate and thoughtful answer. I am simply fascinated by science. I know some people call me an ignorant Bible thumper, but this simply isn't true. I like what one person said about Quantum mechanics. He said that any scientist who claims to understand it is lying. And it's the truth. The universe is complex and mysterious, and just plain freakin' HUGE. I'm not anti science, as some claim. I simply disagree with some of it's conclusions, as do some scientists. With all of the complexity and wonder of the cosmos, I have no choice but to believe that there is a Designer behind it all. I believe that Designer is the God of the Bible. I hope that you find him, some day. If not you, then others might consider my feeble arguments and come to know God. But know this. You won't find Him if you don't look.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 6:35:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 5:36:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:45:28 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?

God did not happen.

You have no evidence, testable theory, logical argument or relevant data to extrapolate this. You are simply asserting it as true. In this case you recognize the logical paradox of infinite regression and simply asserting that the universe has this problem but you assert that God does not. This is simply not any form of credible position because you have no reason (as you have no evidence, testable theory or logical argument) to assert why this is true, only that it is.

One thing you fail to realize is that science doesn't have an explanation for how or why the universe exists.

Oh I realize this.

I believe that the scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. They still can't explain the existence of energy. Some of them believe that it always existed. How is this possible? They'll believe that, yet they balk at believing in an eternal being. Why is that?

Knowledge is demonstrable. To say something is true, you need to be able to show it is true. Without such demonstration it is not possibly to differentiate your claims from any arbitrary made up fiction.

In this way science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know ANYTHING.

In the case of the beginning of the universe we don't know, and it's the only honest claim one can make in any way.

Asserting God, is wild speculation with no basis in evidence or knowledge. Wild speculation that must be followed up by a successive series of even more wild speculation and assertions not based on evidence or knowledge to try and explain the discrepancy between reality and the original God assertion, as you do here.

As science is about knowledge, which is demonstrable, you have to reject such assertions of believe and speculation for what it is; assertions and speculation that do not provide any knowledge but simply a comforting or curious excuse for people to rationalize a preexisting belief in God in the face of actual demonstrable knowledge.

You are completely wrong. There is plenty of evidence for God. But you are just willfully ignorant. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was an atheist. A christian acquaintance of his got tired of him bashing Christianity all the time, so they asked him to prove that God doesn't exist. Now, this guy is no dummy. He's highly educated. A Rhodes Scholar. So he did his research. And he came to the conclusion that God does exist and that the Bible is the word of God. How could he, an educated and skeptical person, be convinced of this without evidence? You are free believe that this evidence is not believable, and you will answer to God for that decision, but you cannot claim that there is no evidence.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 6:54:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 6:35:39 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 5:36:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:45:28 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?

God did not happen.

You have no evidence, testable theory, logical argument or relevant data to extrapolate this. You are simply asserting it as true. In this case you recognize the logical paradox of infinite regression and simply asserting that the universe has this problem but you assert that God does not. This is simply not any form of credible position because you have no reason (as you have no evidence, testable theory or logical argument) to assert why this is true, only that it is.

One thing you fail to realize is that science doesn't have an explanation for how or why the universe exists.

Oh I realize this.

I believe that the scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. They still can't explain the existence of energy. Some of them believe that it always existed. How is this possible? They'll believe that, yet they balk at believing in an eternal being. Why is that?

Knowledge is demonstrable. To say something is true, you need to be able to show it is true. Without such demonstration it is not possibly to differentiate your claims from any arbitrary made up fiction.

In this way science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know ANYTHING.

In the case of the beginning of the universe we don't know, and it's the only honest claim one can make in any way.

Asserting God, is wild speculation with no basis in evidence or knowledge. Wild speculation that must be followed up by a successive series of even more wild speculation and assertions not based on evidence or knowledge to try and explain the discrepancy between reality and the original God assertion, as you do here.

As science is about knowledge, which is demonstrable, you have to reject such assertions of believe and speculation for what it is; assertions and speculation that do not provide any knowledge but simply a comforting or curious excuse for people to rationalize a preexisting belief in God in the face of actual demonstrable knowledge.

You are completely wrong. There is plenty of evidence for God. But you are just willfully ignorant. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was an atheist. A christian acquaintance of his got tired of him bashing Christianity all the time, so they asked him to prove that God doesn't exist. Now, this guy is no dummy. He's highly educated. A Rhodes Scholar. So he did his research. And he came to the conclusion that God does exist and that the Bible is the word of God. How could he, an educated and skeptical person, be convinced of this without evidence? You are free believe that this evidence is not believable, and you will answer to God for that decision, but you cannot claim that there is no evidence.

Yes I can claim there is no evidence for God. You cannot measure God, you cannot determine where and when he has affected the world, you cannot predict things about the world based on his existence vs his lack of existance. He explains nothing and nothing about God can be demonstrated.

You rely on Appears to authority, arguments from ignorance, and a handful of claims in which the existence of a God explains something after-the-fact cherry picked out of the vast mountain of things where he doesn't.

None of this constitutes either knowledge or evidence.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 7:03:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 6:35:39 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 5:36:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:45:28 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 12:37:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:23:48 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in?

If you assume it was when the universe was created, you have a point. If it wasn't created, the Big Bang is merely a cosmic 4 dimensional equivalent of the North Pole. It is one end point at which time starts, but doesn't have anything "further north"

Also what caused it to happen in the first place?

Dunno. That's the only honest answer it is possible for anyone to give about the existence of the universe

Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

What caused God?

You were actually making sense, even though I don't agree with you, right up to your last comment. God has no beginning. I thought everyone knew this. :)

So because things don't just happen on its own, you have to invent something that happens on its own?

God did not happen.

You have no evidence, testable theory, logical argument or relevant data to extrapolate this. You are simply asserting it as true. In this case you recognize the logical paradox of infinite regression and simply asserting that the universe has this problem but you assert that God does not. This is simply not any form of credible position because you have no reason (as you have no evidence, testable theory or logical argument) to assert why this is true, only that it is.

One thing you fail to realize is that science doesn't have an explanation for how or why the universe exists.

Oh I realize this.

I believe that the scientific consensus is that the universe had a beginning. They still can't explain the existence of energy. Some of them believe that it always existed. How is this possible? They'll believe that, yet they balk at believing in an eternal being. Why is that?

Knowledge is demonstrable. To say something is true, you need to be able to show it is true. Without such demonstration it is not possibly to differentiate your claims from any arbitrary made up fiction.

In this way science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know ANYTHING.

In the case of the beginning of the universe we don't know, and it's the only honest claim one can make in any way.

Asserting God, is wild speculation with no basis in evidence or knowledge. Wild speculation that must be followed up by a successive series of even more wild speculation and assertions not based on evidence or knowledge to try and explain the discrepancy between reality and the original God assertion, as you do here.

As science is about knowledge, which is demonstrable, you have to reject such assertions of believe and speculation for what it is; assertions and speculation that do not provide any knowledge but simply a comforting or curious excuse for people to rationalize a preexisting belief in God in the face of actual demonstrable knowledge.

You are completely wrong. There is plenty of evidence for God. But you are just willfully ignorant. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was an atheist. A christian acquaintance of his got tired of him bashing Christianity all the time, so they asked him to prove that God doesn't exist. Now, this guy is no dummy. He's highly educated. A Rhodes Scholar. So he did his research. And he came to the conclusion that God does exist and that the Bible is the word of God. How could he, an educated and skeptical person, be convinced of this without evidence? You are free believe that this evidence is not believable, and you will answer to God for that decision, but you cannot claim that there is no evidence.

That's an argument from authority, and a fallacy. It doesn't matter how smart or skeptical Josh was. It doesn't matter what Josh believes. Its what he can prove, demonstrate, or at the very least provide some objective evidence for.

Isaac Newton was one of the greatest minds to have ever lived. But he was also totally cracked, and after revolutionizing the worlds of mathematics and physics he spent much of his older years in the pursuit of alchemy and obsessively scouring the Bible for hidden codes. Even Christians can see the crazy in that. We don't believe the things he said because he was really smart. We believe them because he proved them to be true. And that goes for Josh too.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 9:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 10:58:17 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/27/2015 7:37:27 PM, Floid wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

In 4 dimensions we would say at point (0, 0, 0, 0).

But there were no dimensions. Time and space didn't exist before the big bang. So how can something happen when it doesn't have a time or place to happen in? Also what caused it to happen in the first place? Things don't just happen on their own. Something, or someone, has to CAUSE it to happen.

Right, that point and time came into being at the instant of the big bang.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:09:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 6:26:28 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 3:07:49 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

I want to offer two complementary answers, Bohica, which I'll entitle Incomplete account and Wrong Paradigm.

Incomplete Account
The Big Bang account begins with energy, no mass, a small amount of time and a small volume of space -- it's not an account of everything; just the history of all matter in our universe -- i.e. all of the stuff we're made of, use, live in and depend on.

Wrong Paradigm
For most of the history of physics and natural philosophy, it has been convenient to treat time and space as invariant and independent metrics against which events happen. So human cultures have developed to think of space like a stage, and time like a cursor on a script, and at certain points on the script, matter and energy exhibit change -- the moving finger having writ, and so on.

But for about a century now, it has become increasingly apparent that the way our universe actually works physically is not the way our species has developed to think of it.

Thank you for that considerate and thoughtful answer. I am simply fascinated by science. I know some people call me an ignorant Bible thumper, but this simply isn't true.

Thank you for that, Bohica. I don't think you're an ignorant Bible thumper, and I'm always happy to discuss science with anyone in good faith, no matter their beliefs. I'm sorry if I have under-estimated you, and for any implication of bad faith.

I'm not anti science, as some claim. I simply disagree with some of it's conclusions, as do some scientists.
I think it's very valuable to question and scrutinise science, and while we can reference scientific conclusions we don't fully understand (because there are papers and courses that explain them further), I don't think we should ever claim authority for scientific conclusions we can't explain.

In other words, if we can't explain (say) the evidence for wave-particle duality and why it is that no other hypothesis but duality fits, we shouldn't be telling others that wave-particle duality is true and that therefore any contesting view is false. And so on with Big Bang, evolution and so on.

But I also believe that this applies equally to non-scientific views. One can express them as a conjecture, but unless one can show evidence that they and only they can be true, one has no authority to say that all other views are false. I feel religious explanations fall massively short in this regard, Bohica, because they begin by declaring themselves true, cherry-pick supporting correlations, and then defy anyone other theory to prove them false.

It seems to me then that the same ethics of transparency and accountability that science embraces ought to be upheld by anything claiming to know more than science does. I do not mind in principle augmenting empiricism with revelation (should revelation ever be shown to work), but I object strenuously to replacing precise and accountable thought with sloppy, unaccountable thought.

Atheist though I am, I do not oppose religion nearly so much as I oppose theology; and I object to theology more for its moral and ethical deficiencies than I do for its philosophical problems. So I find myself opposed to all theologies equally, regardless of what they claim, but not to all religions, or even all sects of the faiths I like least.

With all of the complexity and wonder of the cosmos, I have no choice but to believe that there is a Designer behind it all.
I can't discount that, B, but if we explore how the universe and terrestrial life have actually shown themselves to operate, and what that might mean for design intentions and design competence, there are features that might make a designer either uninteresting or quite unpleasant to meet.

How might we know that?

If there is a single designer rather than many (your assumption), then the universe is a project with a purpose. To discuss design accountably, we must either accept reasonable assumptions about design intent, or else replace reasonable assumptions with explicit postulates. And the moment we do that, we can begin to gather evidence and make inferences on how the project is being run.

In my day job I review design projects for their processes and designs, and we can infer a great deal of how a project was run from how it consumes its time and resources and from the products it produces along the way. As part of that review process, I have to make findings on the competence of project participants -- including participants solving problems I have not solved myself. Because problem-solving has strategies one can use on any problem, there are ways of doing that.

And under reasonable assumptions of project intent, and by studying what we know of project intermediates, the consumption of resources, and problem-solving strategies, it's my view that if there were a single designer, it doesn't interest me unless it's an active participant in this universe, and that if it were participating actively, the best thing humanity could do is avoid drawing its attention.

That may sound cynical and a bit frivolous, but I'm actually serious.

I believe that Designer is the God of the Bible.
My chief problem with using the Bible as advice (rather than as literature, say), B, is that on the whole, I think the people who authored that advice weren't very nice people, and didn't know very much.

I don't mean that disrespectfully, as I realise that wasn't entirely their fault. I've no doubt that if they lived today, they'd be much nicer people and know a lot more, simply because we've built a lot better tools for growing, nourishing and caring for people than their societies had.

But it's hard to argue that they were wise about the world when we now know more than they did; or that they have good advice for people when they lived in appalling times, and didn't fully realise how appalling they were.

And I think this applies to their metaphysics as well as their morality and natural philosophy. So, while their ideas are fascinating historically and culturally, I'd never consider them to be authoritative advice.

I hope that you find him, some day.
I can't see anything religion offering anything I need or want, Bohica, that I couldn't get some other way. And religion charges a steep toll on autonomy, accountability, imagination and critical thought that I greatly value. So although I know you didn't mean it as a curse, like 'may you live in interesting times', that's how it felt to hear it. :)

For myself, I often wish others were less theological, but I've never wished anyone unreligious. I just wish the religious would stop wishing religion upon me. :)

You won't find Him if you don't look.
What a relief. That's the kindest thing you could have said. Thank you! :)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 11:44:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

The typical Big Bang contention that time and space "emerged" from the singularity logically implies that time and space themselves are rendered secondary, derivative features, which must have resulted from intrinsic components of a prior state that necessarily transcends our four dimensional frame of reference. Consequently, objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form, and therefore, questions of "when" and "where" would be inapplicable.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:29:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

There was no "before" the big bang.
The universe is a finite block of spacetime that has existed forever.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:41:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 6:35:39 PM, B0HICA wrote: (Emphsis mine)

You are completely wrong. There is plenty of evidence for God. But you are just willfully ignorant. Have you ever heard of a guy named Josh McDowell? He was an atheist. A christian acquaintance of his got tired of him bashing Christianity all the time, so they asked him to prove that God doesn't exist. Now, this guy is no dummy. He's highly educated. A Rhodes Scholar. So he did his research. And he came to the conclusion that God does exist and that the Bible is the word of God. How could he, an educated and skeptical person, be convinced of this without evidence? You are free believe that this evidence is not believable, and you will answer to God for that decision, but you cannot claim that there is no evidence.

Maybe you are referring to a different Josh McDowell. This from his own website bio:

As a young man, Josh McDowell considered himself an agnostic.

After his conversion, his plans for law school turned instead to plans to tell a doubting world about the truth of Jesus Christ. After studying at Kellogg College, Josh completed his college degree at Wheaton College and then attended Talbot Theological Seminary, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Master of Divinity degree.


An agnostic is not an atheist and a Wheaton College grad is not a Rhodes Scholar.

Still skeptical? Check
http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk...
No Josh McDowell.

B0HICA, how could you, an educated and skeptical person, be convinced of this without evidence?

Or without even bothering to check the evidence before posting.
Think
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 11:06:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 1:16:46 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 7/28/2015 1:10:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

The Big Bang didn't cause the universe. The universe was in a high-density state, and then expanded -- that's all the Big Bang says. I agree -- causality is incoherent without time -- but that doesn't affect the Big Bang model in any way; it only affects the God hypothesis.

Haven't you heard? There is no big bang model. At least not one that conforms to our current understanding of physics. When you work your way backwards, to the beginning, the math breaks down. The simple fact is that science doesn't have a clue about how the universe came into being. "God did it" is just as valid a hypothesis as any other.

BOHICA is back preaching in the Science Forum again. He really feels that we need to hear his "Goddidit" on a regular basis. Hey BOHICA, we know you believe in a sky fairy. We don't care what you believe, only what you can provide evidence for.

His modus operandi is always the same. Post a question on science where there is a slight gap in our knowledge which he thinks he can exploit to shoehorn in his God. He doesn't really care about any responses he receives. He ignores them, dismisses them out of hand or just waves them away. All he wants is an opportunity to slip in his "Goddidit" as soon as possible. It is all so predictable.

When cornered about providing some evidence for his God he will usually point to the universe and say "looky, design". Unfortunately he has no way to differentiate between a designed and an undesigned universe. As another poster here has said:

The Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature does and say "nah, nature can't possibly do that".
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 11:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/27/2015 5:54:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
Here's a question. Time and space are part of the structure of the universe. This raises a question. If there was no time or space before the Big Bang, then where and when did it happen?

Why is God allowed to be timeless/eternal/have no creator, but the universe isn't?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...