Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Biblical Miracles

Options
12357…12

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Are you defining the singularity as part of the universe? I'm not, I describe the space/time that expanded from the singularity as the universe.

    I accept the universe obviously emerged and I agree with you that it did not come from "nothing".

    My grasp of the mathematics involved is limited. If we define the BB singularity from extrapolating backwards it is a point of infinite density and infinite temperature. Infinity is a mathematical concept and I am afraid there I have to accept the paradox of a singularity as something that cannot be measured physically.

    I don't spend much time dwelling on a mathematical paradox like a singularity. Nature does not allow us observe it (and did a good job hiding it from us) so I see no point in thinking about it.


  • Options
    #123
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Infinity is a mathematical concept and I am afraid there I have to accept the paradox of a singularity as something that cannot be measured physically.

    Yet you have no issue with God having "infinite thoughts"....
    Another inconsistency for you to ignore...


  • Options
    #124
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I don't spend much time dwelling on a mathematical paradox like a singularity. Nature does not allow us observe it (and did a good job hiding it from us) so I see no point in thinking about it.

    But that does not mean you can ignore it and insert a god instead. You can't say your explanation is simpler than any others if you have created it by purposely ignoring one of the constants.


  • Options
    #125
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yet you have no issue with God having "infinite thoughts"....
    Another inconsistency for you to ignore...

    No, I have no problem accepting that an entity could exist that has a much greater mind than I have. I am quite humble in that regard :)


  • Options
    #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    No, I have no problem accepting that an entity could exist that has a much greater mind than I have. I am quite humble in that regard :)
    But you reject the idea of a singularity because infinity is an impossiblity.

    But you still believe your theory even though you claim it relies on something infinite.

    So here we have another example of you ignoring stuff about your preferred theory.

    If an aspect of God can be infinite, why can't an aspect of the singularity?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But that does not mean you can ignore it and insert a god instead. You can't say your explanation is simpler than any others if you have created it by purposely ignoring one of the constants.

    I accept the contradiction and can live with it. What is the point dwelling on something we cannot understand? Life is too short.
    Frankly I am not that interested in abstract math. My main scientific interests these day are nature, consciousness and an expanding interest in molecular biology.


  • Options
    #128
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you reject the idea of a singularity because infinity is an impossiblity.

    But you still believe your theory even though you claim it relies on something infinite.

    So here we have another example of you ignoring stuff about your preferred theory.

    If an aspect of God can be infinite, why can't an aspect of the singularity?

    Where did I reject the idea of a singularity or say infinity is an impossibility? I clearly said we cannot observe or physically measure a singularity and clearly said we cannot solve certain mathematical paradoxes.

    Perhaps the singularity which we cannot observe is an aspect of God and the event horizon is God's way of ensuring we can never destroy his universe?


  • Options
    #129
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Gbear wrote: »
    Isn't all the energy and matter in the Universe balanced by the relevant anti-matter?
    Strangely, no it isn't.


  • Options
    #130
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Where did I reject the idea of a singularity or say infinity is an impossibility? I clearly said we cannot observe or physically measure a singularity and clearly said we cannot solve certain mathematical paradoxes.

    Perhaps the singularity which we cannot observe is an aspect of God and the event horizon is God's way of ensuring we can never destroy his universe?
    So then if you don't reject the possibility of the singularity, why do you think god is a more likely explanation? Why can't the singularity just have been extant, existing outside of time like you claim god is?

    Why add an unknowable intelligence to the singularity when there's no evidence for it and it doesn't explain anything?
    Again you are adding a redundant part to the theory for no reason: the complete opposite of occam's razor.

    And again, cause you're still ignoring the point, how can something unknowable be an explanation?


  • Options
    #131
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I accept the contradiction and can live with it. What is the point dwelling on something we cannot understand? Life is too short.

    But then there is no point in having a discussion with you. You have been actively arguing a position which you know is based on a contradiction and therefore is inherently false. You are now saying that you don't care, that you won't even try to correct yourself. How is this not a waste of everyone's time, yours included?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if you don't reject the possibility of the singularity, why do you think god is a more likely explanation? Why can't the singularity just have been extant, existing outside of time like you claim god is?
    And again, cause you're still ignoring the point, how can something unknowable be an explanation?

    For the last time for this discussion at least my bias toward a belief in a creator entity is based first and foremost on the intelligence in our universe (the natural laws, DNA and the human mind) and to a much lesser extent how the universe emerged. I find discussions of what happened at the singularity and between the singularity and the Planck time, whether it is from atheists or theists, extremely mindnumbing given we cannot observe or measure a singularity and given our physics cannot extend below the Planck time.

    You and I going round in circles is clearly now a waste of time as I will not change your position and you will not change mine.


  • Options
    #133
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    For the last time for this discussion at least my bias toward a belief in a creator entity is based first and foremost on the intelligence in our universe (the natural laws, DNA and the human mind) and to a much lesser extent how the universe emerged.


    You and I going round in circles is clearly now a waste of time as I will not change your position and you will not change mine.
    But the idea of an intelligence you have is based on a terrible, illogical argument that you are unable to defend.

    You say that god explains why the natural laws exist. So then how did he create them? And for what reason?
    You say he explains the mind and Dna, again how and why?

    But so you have said (after a lot of dodging and weaselling) you can't answer those those questions. You have also claimed they are unanswerable.

    So how can "intellgence" or god be an explanation when you cannot provide any sort of suggestion as to how he did it or why?
    I've been repeatedly asking you this question, but you are ignoring it because you can't answer it without admitting that your argument is utter crap.

    It's going in circles because you are refusing to address the points I and others are making.
    No one is going to change their positions for you if you cannot answer direct questions.


  • Options
    #134
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' puddle waking up to find that the hole he was in was too perfect a fit for him to have happened by chance.


  • Options
    #135
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    No one is going to change their positions for you if you cannot answer direct questions.

    I am not asking you to change your position.

    The creator created the universe because he liked creating universes. Don't you enjoy creating things?


  • Options
    #136
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But then there is no point in having a discussion with you. You have been actively arguing a position which you know is based on a contradiction and therefore is inherently false. You are now saying that you don't care, that you won't even try to correct yourself. How is this not a waste of everyone's time, yours included?

    I get to decide how to use my time, its called free will.
    Is there someone forcing you to respond to me?


  • Options
    #137
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I am not asking you to change your position.
    Unfortunatly, that's kinda not what you said.
    You and I going round in circles is clearly now a waste of time as I will not change your position and you will not change mine.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The creator created the universe because he liked creating universes. Don't you enjoy creating things?
    Lol, getting silly now.
    You said that God was unknowable and non-comprehendable. You are now trying to assign him human like desires. So we run into another contradiction in your increasingly nonsensical position.

    And you are still avoiding the point you've been dodging for the last two pages.

    Why are you refusing to even acknowledge it?


  • Options
    #138
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    You said that God was unknowable and non-comprehendable. You are now trying to assign him human like desires. So we run into another contradiction in your increasingly nonsensical position.

    Unknowable and non-comprehenable in how vast his mind is and how he creates. The programming language of God must be very complex.

    You have it backwards (as usual), rather than assigning God human like desires, humans are slowly assuming God like desires and abilities. The purpose of life is to create and appreciate ever-greater intelligence and knowledge. Given the exponential rate of our development there is no reason why in the next 1,000 years we will not control our solar system using self-replicating non-biological intelligence. We will leave our biological bodies within the next few hundred years and live in virtual bodies. Our bodies are temporary anyway, only the pattern of the body and brain have continuity, our particles are completely turned over every month. Within 10,000 years we will control our galaxy.. and then we will become Gods, just like he intended and as is already programmed in the quantum soup we live in.


  • Options
    #139
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I accept the universe obviously emerged and I agree with you that it did not come from "nothing".

    My grasp of the mathematics involved is limited. If we define the BB singularity from extrapolating backwards it is a point of infinite density and infinite temperature. Infinity is a mathematical concept and I am afraid there I have to accept the paradox of a singularity as something that cannot be measured physically.

    I don't spend much time dwelling on a mathematical paradox like a singularity. Nature does not allow us observe it (and did a good job hiding it from us) so I see no point in thinking about it.

    Very interesting talk. Go to 13:00

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwhLP6iOfz4


    I love this clip. Even Weinberg must rub his head when dealing with such ridiculously large numbers. 10^120 Universes*. Let that sink in.

    Why do people seem content to believe that there's only one universe?

    *1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 <-That many.

    Check out 'Hawking Radiation' to see how something can come from nothing.


  • Options
    #140
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Unknowable and non-comprehenable in how vast his mind is and how he creates. The programming language of God must be very complex.

    You have it backwards (as usual), rather than assigning God human like desires, humans are slowly assuming God like desires and abilities. The purpose of life is to create and appreciate ever-greater intelligence and knowledge.
    Again, more self contradictory waffle to avoid the point.

    You are claiming he is both unknowable and uncomprehendable and yet you are making claims about his nature.
    How can you know what is god-like?

    Yet you still cannot describe how he did any of the things you claim he did or provide any good reasons for why he did, thus robbing your theory of any of it's explanatory power.
    You can avoid and ignore this point as much as you like, but the fact you are editing it out of the posts you are quoting shows just how dishonest you are being.


  • Options
    #141
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    nagirrac wrote: »
    For the last time for this discussion at least my bias toward a belief in a creator entity is based first and foremost on the intelligence in our universe (the natural laws, DNA and the human mind) and to a much lesser extent how the universe emerged. I find discussions of what happened at the singularity and between the singularity and the Planck time, whether it is from atheists or theists, extremely mindnumbing given we cannot observe or measure a singularity and given our physics cannot extend below the Planck time.

    You and I going round in circles is clearly now a waste of time as I will not change your position and you will not change mine.

    Leaving aside DNA and our minds, (which are useless against time), we have the laws of the universe which seem to point to a 'creator'.

    Why is gravity 9.81m/s/s and not 10, like 'The Commandments'? One is nature, the other is man made. George Carlin joked about the commandments not being 9 or 11. He reckoned 10 sounded better, more believable.

    Here's my analogy, from reading about the multiverse and our universe.

    I have a birch tree out the back garden. It drops thousands of seeds (conservative figure) each Autumn. In the 4 years I've had it, I've found only 2 saplings. From the point-of-view of one of those young trees, which I have in pots, the conditions were perfect. Some 'creator' planned their landing spot and nurtured them to fruition.
    Either that or it's just chance. (they got lucky)

    There's nothing as mindnumbing as superstitious dribble about how great the 'next' life is. Funny how old christians cling onto this life so dearly, when 'heaven' awaits. Plus, why do they care so much about gays???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    joseph brand wrote: »

    There's nothing as mindnumbing as superstitious dribble about how great the 'next' life is. Funny how old christians cling onto this life so dearly, when 'heaven' awaits. Plus, why do they care so much about gays???

    Didn't Brendan Behan say much the same thing: for all their talk about the wonders of the afterlike, none of them seem to be in any great hurry to get there. :D


  • Options
    #143
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I love this clip. Even Weinberg must rub his head when dealing with such ridiculously large numbers. 10^120 Universes*. Let that sink in.

    Why do people seem content to believe that there's only one universe?

    Check out 'Hawking Radiation' to see how something can come from nothing.

    Ah yes, Dawkins and Weinberg, what a lovely pair. Leaving aside science for a moment let's examine Weinberg's famous ethical statement "for good people to do bad things, that takes religion". The irony coming from someone who is a lifelong supporter of the Israeli state and boycotted British Universities for daring to protest Israeli evil towards Palestinians. So here we have an atheist supporting a theocracy, interesting eh. The further irony that it is atheism that has been shown to cause good people to do bad things over and over during the last century. This same point has been shoved up Dawkins countless times in every debate he has held with theologians and we still hear it being sprouted.

    As for the science, Weinberg is a poster child for String Theory which is unfalsifiable and in crisis. Take your pick, we are supposed to either believe in 7 extra dimensions that are so small we cannot detect them (in other words no evidence for them) or we have to believe in 10^120 universes which we cannot detect or experience (in other words no evidence for them). God is such a simple concept in comparison. Its amazing the horse manure people will believe to try and prove a pointless universe. I would recommend reading Lee Smolin who is unflinching in his demolition of string theory.

    Let me repeat one more time.. anything before the Planck time is unknown to us, our physics does not describe it. Anything purporting to be a theory before then let alone before T=0 is speculation. I can write a series of equations to prove my dog farted out 10^360 universes while he was asleep before the big bang and it is just as credible. The money supply needs to be shut off to these lunatic egomaniacs.

    Hawking Radiation.. proposed in the 1970s and never observed (unless you believe a research team in Italy made a black hole in their lab). Lovely math but also likely going the way of the dodo. As an aside there are more and more researchers questioning whether black holes exist or are actually dark energy stars. There has never been any direct evidence of black holes and Einstein did not believe they exist. If they do not exist a lot of what we have been led to believe is wrong.


  • Options
    #144
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    I don't just believe in miracles, I rely on them :-)


  • Options
    #145
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Leaving aside DNA and our minds, (which are useless against time), we have the laws of the universe which seem to point to a 'creator'.


    There's nothing as mindnumbing as superstitious dribble about how great the 'next' life is. Funny how old christians cling onto this life so dearly, when 'heaven' awaits. Plus, why do they care so much about gays???


    ..and for the 10^120 time, I am an agnostic deist, not a theist. Do you understand what a deist is?

    String theory is horse manure, read Lee Smolin. Mathematics can be used to model any speculation. There is no direct evidence for a lot of cosmology that is generally accepted by the public as fact, in contrast to quantum mechanics which has been proven experimentally. The problem with cosmology is we observe something in the distant universe, speculate as to what it is and then come up with a fancy mathematical proof. Black holes have been accepted for decades to the extent that Joe the plumber can explain what they are, but increasingly there are more and more scientists who believe they do not exist. If they do not exist we have a bit of rework to do in cosmology.


  • Options
    #146
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Ah yes, Dawkins and Weinberg, what a lovely pair. Leaving aside science for a moment let's examine Weinberg's famous ethical statement "for good people to do bad things, that takes religion". The irony coming from someone who is a lifelong supporter of the Israeli state and boycotted British Universities for daring to protest Israeli evil towards Palestinians. So here we have an atheist supporting a theocracy, interesting eh. The further irony that it is atheism that has been shown to cause good people to do bad things over and over during the last century. This same point has been shoved up Dawkins countless times in every debate he has held with theologians and we still hear it being sprouted.

    Nagirrac, could I ask you to expand upon that, please, as I'm not sure what you mean by it. Can you give some examples of how atheism has caused good people to do bad things?


  • Options
    #147
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    How can you know what is god-like?

    Yet you still cannot describe how he did any of the things you claim he did or provide any good reasons for why he did, thus robbing your theory of any of it's explanatory power.

    I know what is God-like by observing nature and seeing the beauty of his creation.

    I have explained it before but you must have missed it. The universe is digital, based on "on" or "off" choices at the quantum level. Everything that we know of as the physical universe emerges from a quantum field called consciousness (the Mind of God). You can think of it as a virtual reality but a very sophisticated one where the participants get to be highly interactive within their world.

    He did it for the same reasons we build wondrous buildings or went to the moon, because of creative intelligence.


  • Options
    #148
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I know what is God-like by observing nature and seeing the beauty of his creation.
    So then he is knowable? I wish you'd make up your mind...
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I have explained it before but you must have missed it. The universe is digital, based on "on" or "off" choices at the quantum level. Everything that we know of as the physical universe emerges from a quantum field called consciousness (the Mind of God). You can think of it as a virtual reality but a very sophisticated one where the participants get to be highly interactive within their world.
    So two pages of asking and this is what you provide? A complete nonsensical technobabbly non-answer?

    How exactly do god's thoughts become physical effects? How does he make these effects?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    He did it for the same reasons we build wondrous buildings or went to the moon, because of creative intelligence.
    Again, you are now claiming he is knowable, in contradiction to your other claims. And further you have zero basis for making this claim.

    So again, you can't use God as an explanation. Bumper sticker philosophy and technobabble do not compensate for that.


  • Options
    #149
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    pauldla wrote: »
    Nagirrac, could I ask you to expand upon that, please, as I'm not sure what you mean by it. Can you give some examples of how atheism has caused good people to do bad things?

    Absolutely, although you will of course argue that it is not athesim that caused them to do bad things, it was coincidence that they were atheists. While of course also arguing that it is religion that caused all wars and evil doing in history.

    Deists and theists believe in a creator that is greater than they are. They are humbled by this and it informs their worldview. Murder of your fellow man is the worst abomination humans undertake. There have been religious wars but these are actually rare enough in a history that is packed with war.
    Imperialist conquests of the Americas do not count as religious wars in my mind as they were undertaken by states, Spain, Portugal, etc. in a quest to gain economic power.

    Contrast the political systems that emerged after the enlightenment in the mid 18th century. The funding fathers in America were mainly deists and wrote a constitution that had no mention of God, separated church and state and allowed the population practice their beliefs freely. The country they essentially designed went on to become the most successful democracy in human history and after the civil war never spilt the blood of its own people. Contrast that with the systems inspied by Kark Marx, where God was outlawed. When God is outlawed there is appears to be no restraining power over evil. In the 20th century the death toll within their own borders in communist atheist regimes led by atheists is staggering, well over 100 million (and yes they all had some version of a red flag before you ask). You see nothing like this in countries led by deists or theists.

    I am not saying atheists individually have no moral compass. I am saying when you outlaw God from society the result has been staggering in its barbarity. Perhaps we have evolved as a species and it would never happen again, but I am not yet convinced.


  • Options
    #150
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then he is knowable? I wish you'd make up your mind...

    We can see what he has created so he is knowable in that sense. However, we do not know the nature of his expanded universe which lies outside our space time nor the exact mechanism he uses. A bit like an early MS-DOS programmer trying to figure out web programming.

    Why are you so interested in God? I thought you were an atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    nagirrac wrote: »
    We can see what he has created so he is knowable in that sense. However, we do not know the nature of his expanded universe which lies outside our space time nor the exact mechanism he uses. A bit like an early MS-DOS programmer trying to figure out web programming.
    So again he's unknowable and knowable.
    That's what we call a contradiction.

    And again, if you cannot describe the exact mechanism he uses, then he does not actually explain anything.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Why are you so interested in God? I thought you were an atheist.
    I can be both.
    Though more specific I am interested in why people like yourself believe in when you are knowingly presenting bad and dishonest arguments.


Advertisement