Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 116 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#13643 - 01/01/06 05:41 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"Even if you are not making any admissions about a creator, are you really saying you cannot even conceive on a purely conjectural level that there could be anything that exists outside of physical constraints?"

EVERYTHING and I MEAN EVERYTHING has SOME KIND of explanation. there may be different versions of logic ( computer programs and sims) but that doesn't matter.

"This creator would be outside of your universe and all of its rules. To assert that the laws of this universe would have to apply to Him is like saying that the programmers of a Simulation Program would have to be bound by the laws operating within that program."

I am SO glad you said this. I have said this in some other topic but it is so important that I will say it again. Imagine THIS is the real world (I'm not saying it is, I'm just making things easy). Now imagine that I make a program with slightly different rules of logic (that SOMEHOW work) and create another universe in the computer. Now say that the people in the computer do the same. Now the people in the 3rd world have a creator. So do the people in the 2nd world. But the people in this world DO NOT. All they have is the laws of physics that were always there. You, being a tiny bit foolish at times, if you want my personal opinion, will probably say that this could also be a simulation. Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators. Before I continue discussions with you: I also argue with a muslim friend in real life about religion, we have both agreed that when you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out 'god'. Do you comply?

Top
.
#13644 - 01/05/06 03:57 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob,

You start by taking my analogy of programming a sim, a little too far.

Rob - "Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators."

- You have not demonstrated that in order to have one creator you necessarily need an infinite number. You conclude nothing.

Rob - "EVERYTHING and I MEAN EVERYTHING has SOME KIND of explanation."

- This is a kind of reverse use of the flawed 'first cause' proof for God's existence.
I would say that we just do not have sufficient capability or capacity to understand either eternity or infinity. If a creator was the first cause, then we can know nothing about what exists on the other side of the Big Bang, except by a creator (if there is one), revealing it. To force eternity and creator into our logical straight-jacket and assert that a creator must have been created is flawed thinking - and is simply a false application of our understanding of the laws of this universe, (being the only laws that we can conceive of).

You simply cannot state that a creator just can't exist, without a start and end. As I have written before, the Biblical God says of himself, 'I AM'. This is communicating the atemporal status of 'simply existing' and in this instance is to be contrasted against the idea of 'I WAS' or 'I WILL BE'.
Linear progression as we understand it does not come into the equation.

Now I am not a savage, who believes that thunder is the gods shouting. Of course my emotions rail against the concept of something that 'just exists' and follows no arrow of time, (although there are quantum particles that appear to do just that). It is an utter nonsense to me, and an affront to everything I perceive. And on the basis of this alone, I would completely dispense with any idea of God. But I accept the historical evidence for Christ's divinity, I find his character and teachings to be completely compelling, and his understanding of the human condition without parallel - and I answer his question 'Who do you say I am?' with 'I say you are the 'I AM'.
This is coupled with my incredible experience of life as a Christian.

So my emotional struggle to accept ideas of eternity, omniscience, omnipresence and a created universe must be made subject to my solid (though subjective) experience, fused with good historical evidence that Christ was more than a carpenter

So I don't want to appear arrogant, and I will not say that there is not the smallest possibility that I am mistaken and self deceived - I just strongly believe that is not the case.

So I do not comply. But neither do I expect you to comply with what I say. I would however, like you to admit that I am not an unthinking fool, as DA Morgan claims, and you have also implied of anyone who holds a view other than a strictly empirical one. I won't expect it though and I won't press you smile

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13645 - 01/05/06 07:03 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"I would however, like you to admit that I am not an unthinking fool, as DA Morgan claims, and you have also implied of anyone who holds a view other than a strictly empirical one. I won't expect it though and I won't press you"

Well you certainly proved me wrong! (This is not sarcasm) (neither was that) Am I being sarcastic? If you can tell me the correct answer you really will be proving me wrong.

In response to the points you were making in your reply, 1 question; do you agree that EVERYTHING and I must stress that I mean EVERYTHING literally, can be explained by mathematics?
*I don't mean can be explained now, I mean explained -ever (when we have a broader knowlege of maths).

Top
#13646 - 01/07/06 10:10 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Utter non-science. Pull yourself together and get on topic. This is not "mysticism-a-go-go". More Science less spiritualism, please, or I will edit your non-relevant essays.
REP: AS most of want a creator ... I am calling myself the creator. And since there is no proof against me not being the creator I think this should settle the dispute in every scientific sense.My answer was available for those Spiritual people who want to know who is their ultimate Father or Mother.
As per your requirement I will give you a physical Answer on Graviton.And it will not be Spiritual one.
But still I need a solid proof of my accuracy in explaing things till now.If and only if I make sense I think I should be made the moderator of this group just to save Galileo.
Otherwise you will know it anyway.. someday and then probably who will say what a waste of time.

Top
#13647 - 01/07/06 04:47 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
DKV,

If you were the creator you would have access to all knowledge. Now we know that is not the case.

Of course you could be the creator and have access to all knowledge but are not displaying this for some reason.

But at the least you would demonstrate a perfect grasp of the English language(as there should be no such thing as a second language for you, as you created everything). Now we know this is certainly not the case.

Ergo, you are not the creator - no more proof needed.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13648 - 01/07/06 09:26 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Afraid to answer my question are you?

Top
#13649 - 01/07/06 10:29 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Blacknad afraid? More likely he can't.

Like a small child he repeatedly deals with unpleasant facts by trying to change the subject or ignoring them and hoping they will go away.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13650 - 01/09/06 10:45 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


But at the least you would demonstrate a perfect grasp of the English language(as there should be no such thing as a second language for you, as you created everything). Now we know this is certainly not the case.
REP: Ok .. so my English is not perfect.
What is the measure of perfectness?
Do we know Dude was once not part of English?
Do we know that English doesnt even shape 80% of our daily communication staple?
What perfection you are asking for is found in your self made dictionary which was never supposed to remain closed.
It never took an English for a Hebrew Scientist to interact with Muslim World.
The love of language is good by the extent of its utility.
Anyways since you have asked this question let me give an analogy from Maths.
If you ask me to tell you 10000th value of PI then I will not be able to give you the answer immediately.
My answer will be delayed by time x but it will be available if this is the only requirement to fulfill.
In principle I say I know but pls give me sometime to give you the answer.
Now since we are using Finite Velocity to communicate .. we say the Universe itself can not give you all your answers immediately.
But Myself and my creation can give you the correct answer after some time.
Same applies to English .. I can learn it and in principle I can be better than the best.(assuming I am not good at it.. though I feel I am too good and actually the reader reads more than the given)
Thus
Knowing exactly correct English is no Knowledge at all.
Communicated part constitues the Universe and not the Language ..
And I guess I have communicated very well.

Top
#13651 - 01/09/06 04:27 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


IMHO you haven't communicated at all well. NOt even mediocre. Your English is lousy.

Top
#13652 - 01/10/06 12:50 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Rob offers:
?Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators. Before I continue discussions with you: I also argue with a muslim friend in real life about religion, we have both agreed that when you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out 'god'. Do you comply??

jjw:
Recall DA advises you not to consider my comments.
The item relates to infinity. ?When you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out ?god?. Do you comply??

No.
Do you argue that if ?infinity? exists then ?god? can not? What do you find inconsistent in the concepts? If there is a ?god? he must exist in all of existence so the prospect of infinity would have no bearing on the prospect, of yes or no, of there being a god. My view.
This may have some connection to your offered conclusion that there are infinite creators.
I do not find the quantity of your gods as relative to infinity in any way. Tell me.

jjw

Top
#13653 - 01/10/06 01:22 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
I can't without sounding stupid. I'll try and find a way to do it using maths. -This may take a while.

Top
#13654 - 01/11/06 08:17 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Just to repeat again :
Infinity exists in the Maths and not the real world.
Its the harsh reality of the "Observed and Actionable" World.

Top
#13655 - 01/11/06 10:00 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
It does exist in the real world.

Top
#13656 - 01/14/06 04:56 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


It does exist in the real world.
REP: Show me.You are a kid sweetheart.

Top
#13657 - 01/14/06 06:32 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
If you ask me to tell you 10000th value of PI then I will not be able to give you the answer immediately.
My answer will be delayed by time x but it will be available if this is the only requirement to fulfill.

REP: It is simple - if you were the Creator of this universe, the mind you must have (that would enable you to deal with all of the variables involved) must surely be able to deal with a small issue like PI to the 10,000th.

In fact the 9.1 million digit prime should be child's play.

There is a prize for the discovery of a 10 million digit prime - do yourself a quick favour and claim it - while you are at it, make sure it's a Mersenne Prime as well just to put the icing on the cake.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13658 - 01/15/06 06:16 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13659 - 01/15/06 11:31 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob asked - "In response to the points you were making in your reply, 1 question; do you agree that EVERYTHING and I must stress that I mean EVERYTHING literally, can be explained by mathematics?"

Rob, I am happy to discuss this but I have a question first. Do YOU believe that everything can be explained by mathematics?

I may be wrong, but the answer to this question seems to indicate the type of universe you believe in...

Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?

Can you act, or just react?

I would be interested in discussing this in a non-adversarial fashion and for you and others with a greater knowledge of physics to inform me.

Am I right in thinking that the universe is a series of reactions all stemming from the first action? If you made an exact copy of this universe, would its outcomes diverge from this one or would they both continue along identical paths, subject to the same interplay of forces?

Amaranth elsewhere has said, "I think identical universes would be like identical twins. At the first moment, they share everything alike, all DNA is the same. Then as development proceeds, cell differentiation takes place, maybe one twin was blessed with a bigger share of blood from the placenta, various genes on various chromosomes switched on and off, change begins to creep in. Then at birth one is first the other second, differences in the time taken to birth make changes in stresses, oxygen supply, etc. Even though seemingly identical at birth, they diverge behaviorally. I think identical "multiverses" would soon diverge into distinctive and unique existences".

I am not sure that I defined the question too loosely at the time, but the difference here seems to be that with identical twins there are differing environmental factors affecting them. I am talking about the two identical universes being immune from any outside factors.

If those universes depart from one another - how so? This would mean that not everything is explainable because they are subject to random or unpredictable actions.

If they remain identical then they are utterly deterministic and therefore everything can be explained and predicted. I guess the second is your position.

Please excuse my relative ignorance of physics.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13660 - 01/16/06 02:18 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
I started this post and now find it floundering.

The question is very simple to evaluate. Knowing what we do about the Universe, life, the elements and science why would it be a surprise that the ultimate superior being would have included all we know and more in the grand design, if there was such a creator? Everything thing man has learned so far was there for the finding. So how does that learning, of itself, serve to prove anything?

DA was being on the light side I guess with:
"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples."

Pi is a ratio that is part of creation, or possibly the Big Bang, and can not be other than what it is. I replied to the silly idea of male primates having nipples before as ?silly? and as have been shown to nurse infants in emergencies per Ripley.

The answer, as I see it, is that those dead set against a creator, can not enlarge their vision to see the obvious. If we allow for an ultimate superior creator, just for discussion, we will be compelled to accept that the discovery of scientific principles does not disprove the possibility of such creator.

All color rhinoceros, singular or plural, not withstanding.
jjw

Top
#13661 - 01/16/06 04:43 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


It is simple - if you were the Creator of this universe, the mind you must have (that would enable you to deal with all of the variables involved) must surely be able to deal with a small issue like PI to the 10,000th.
In fact the 9.1 million digit prime should be child's play.
There is a prize for the discovery of a 10 million digit prime - do yourself a quick favour and claim it - while you are at it, make sure it's a Mersenne Prime as well just to put the icing on the cake.
REP:Dear Rob , Without claiming to be superior in any sense .. I would like to reiterate my last statement. Perfect Knowledge is no knowledge at all.PI is an invention of Mathematics.
It does not exist in nature.The nature itself creates it in an attempt to linearize its understanding..
Thus dont be surprised if I take time to solve such problems.
Now tell me what can you share with me instantaneously?
Nothing except the Self. If you are really a good observer then in my case My Self.
===========================================================
Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?
REP: Interesting question but again the answer is dual depending upon your understanding
of the Obeserver as "living" or "non-living".Free Will is not needed if you know that whatever is
happening couldnt have happened any other way.Free Will is needed if you have an illusion of choice.

Top
#13662 - 01/16/06 11:57 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3"

- DA, my ignorance, but what would the benefits of making Pi = 3 be, as opposed to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679.... that was from memory - honest smile

Would it just make things easier for mathematicians?

Blacknad.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.