[Merged] Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? - Page 27

punshhh · 16th May 2012, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

So you think the fact that there's a 0 at all means there is something...quantum physics disagrees.

A multidimensional nothing?
It is a something which ever way you look at it, hence we're back at endless/eternal.

Quote:

Absolutist nothing is fiction.

Yes along with infinity. My point is for there to be a beginning of existence at some point something came from absolutely nothing. There's no alternative within logic (correct me if I'm wrong).

If this is not the case then we have to turn our gaze to endless eternal.

Oh I like your video about the thing that made the things for which no known maker is known. A semantic argument.

If you perceive me using a semantic argument you will have to show it, as I am working from concepts and the language is merely used to convey the concept.

punshhh · 17th May 2012, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

I can conceive it. In fact, if it is inconceivable, how can we talk about it?

Try seeing/conceiving an endless eternal universe as a whole.

zooterkin · 17th May 2012, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Try seeing/conceiving an endless eternal universe as a whole.

Ok. Now what?

pakeha · 17th May 2012, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

...Whatever created the universe is not around in whatever form it was before there was a universe. ...

Why do you think something created the Universe?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Sure. Whatever atheists cand find to make their case up, no matter how desperate the attempt is, must be valid...otherwise, their beloved world view crumbles...and that cannot happen, isnt it ??!

You're so wrong.
It's not about atheism. It's about moving on from magical explanations.
For example, we've moved on from a magical explanation for eclipses and lightning, right?

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Also GIBHOR I took the liberty of emailing the guys at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html to see about updating their information but strangely enough as I tried to explore their site, it seems most all of their site except for their lecture notes and external links are down. Even the links to the two professors who I suppose run the course do not work.

I think you're not using an up-to-date site my friend.

Color me shocked...

Good work, Lowpro!

punshhh · 17th May 2012, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Ok. Now what?

Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me.

Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

Stomatopoda · 17th May 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

inconceivable

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

stokes234 · 17th May 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me.

Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

I can conceive it. It just goes forever in every direction. What's so hard about that?

zooterkin · 17th May 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me.

... is what?

Quote:

Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Got proof of this? Or is this nothing more than speculation?

It's my interpretation of Anankē, based on what I have been able to collect on the subject from ancient Greek mythology.

pakeha · 17th May 2012, 03:02 AM

^
The first hit in my google search for ananke was this :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread764455/pg1
then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananke_%28mythology%29

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Nope, it is just as likely similar to what it was before, you are assuming.

I don't see how it could be, really.
I think it would be something very primeval, and not at all differentiated as in being even so many individual spirits.
It wouldn't be something that could exist in a real universe, being completely unsubstantial, but having the desire to exist in reality.
What we have now is fully actualized individuals, something not similar in makeup but sharing the same intent, which is to be, and now that we are, to continue to.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Why do you think something created the Universe?

It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

^
The first hit in my google search for ananke was this :

There are bits here and there which is in need of being searched out, and I am not quite done yet. I see the Bible as agenda driven in its current form leaving only a small amount being in any way useful for figuring out where everything came from.

punshhh · 17th May 2012, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

Nice, just small fry though, just equate infinity with time and then space. Now tell me what it looks like?

punshhh · 17th May 2012, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

I can conceive it. It just goes forever in every direction. What's so hard about that?

And what does that look like? you know in your minds eye?

punshhh · 17th May 2012, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Try the dictionary definition.

Evolved Wookie · 17th May 2012, 04:01 AM

Is it too late to post this?

gentlehorse · 17th May 2012, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

... is what?

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. Then you get to the end, and a monkey starts throwing barrels at you."

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JNREDtUQM

devnull · 17th May 2012, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by Evolved Wookie

Is it too late to post this?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=6054

Awesome. T-shirt?

Evolved Wookie · 17th May 2012, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

Awesome. T-shirt?

It's not mine, I must admit, and I'm not sure where it came from. If it were up to me, sure, you could have a t-shirt.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

It may be in this article

But I cannot access it. It's also from 1973 and there's a good bit more research that's been done to refine the theory. But elshamah is out of date (probably on purpose as it'd be devastating to GIBHOR otherwise)

case in point, Tryon argues for a closed universe. Evidence shows it's flat, not closed -.-

However, the issue I have it that Frank Lee and "Why we can't see God" is the only source for the quote.

Now there were other issues regarding Tryon's statement, many of which were worked out by Guth his grad student. But this quote is pasted into six places and they all reference the Frank Lee essay.

But I think there is fine tuning hooey here.

My guess it is a distortion of something somebody said like Steven Weinberg said, most likely thirty or forty years ago.

stokes234 · 17th May 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

And what does that look like? you know in your minds eye?

It's black, with some stars in it. We only know of the stars out to a certain distance from the original centre of the big bang, but there could have been other big bangs outside of that, we just don't know. Honestly not seeing the problem.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

how are you so sure about it ?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html

And in the last twenty years it has been shown to be approaching flat.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

dark energy is one of the things science made up to make the big bang theory work. Probably there is no dark energy, and the big bang theory is a completely nonsense .......

And that just shows your ignorance, the 'dark energy' expression is used to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. The BBT is a descriptive theory, and it is very accurate going to 10^-36 seconds after the hypothesized BBE. It is a descriptive theory that is very accurate, but you are waving and saying it is 'completely nonsense', is just you making unsupported assertions.

So how accurate is your theory for describing the behavior of the observed universe?

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Sure. Whatever atheists cand find to make their case up, no matter how desperate the attempt is, must be valid...otherwise, their beloved world view crumbles...and that cannot happen, isnt it ??!

Their view of the world crumbles all the time, it changes all the time, you are just making a false analogy to religion.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I don't see how it could be, really.
I think it would be something very primeval, and not at all differentiated as in being even so many individual spirits.
It wouldn't be something that could exist in a real universe, being completely unsubstantial, but having the desire to exist in reality.
What we have now is fully actualized individuals, something not similar in makeup but sharing the same intent, which is to be, and now that we are, to continue to.

That has nothing to do with the speculative notions of expanding space time foam in recursive inflationary scenarios or colliding branes.

It seems you just have a preference for one spiritual story.

You also make a mistake in calling something 'fully actualized individuals', do you mean bacteria or ants?

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident.

That too is just guessing, the answer is "We don't know".

catsmate1 · 17th May 2012, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

If existence came from nothing, it is illogical. Therefore it is a supernatural origin.

That is utter rubbish.

catsmate1 · 17th May 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

However, the issue I have it that Frank Lee and "Why we can't see God" is the only source for the quote.

Now there were other issues regarding Tryon's statement, many of which were worked out by Guth his grad student. But this quote is pasted into six places and they all reference the Frank Lee essay.

But I think there is fine tuning hooey here.

My guess it is a distortion of something somebody said like Steven Weinberg said, most likely thirty or forty years ago.

Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote.

gentlehorse · 17th May 2012, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

My point is for there to be a beginning of existence at some point something came from absolutely nothing. There's no alternative within logic (correct me if I'm wrong).

It seems to me that something has to self-exist. That would be the universe, in one form or another, I guess. Mystical, metaphysical, spiritual explanations of existence seem to be nothing more than exercises in the use of language. Although some folks might find them emotionally satisfying, they don't really explain anything.

zooterkin · 17th May 2012, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident.

What is "it"? The universe? The universe is alive?

Seismosaurus · 17th May 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.

But again, how do you know that the absence of everything "has no potentialities"?

Quote:

Otherwise, we would experience all the time
things poping up from nothing. Our experience shows that is not the case.

But we don't have any experience of nothing. Things cannot pop up from nothing now, because there is no nothing for them to pop up from any more.

JoeBentley · 17th May 2012, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Try the dictionary definition.

And there in is your problem. You're using the language as a blunt instrument, trying to reshape reality based on linguistic nuance.

You are using words and phrases with zero understanding of what they mean. You're just throwing them around. And you're trying to create some sort of philosophy out of hairsplitting the language.

It's the "What's real versus what's the truth?" nonsense. You treating the fact that we have different words to describe the same things, sometimes with slight nuance or tone differences at most, as some universe defining criteria.

You're splitting the language to try to make a point that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by stokes234

Honestly not seeing the problem.

For the Navel Gazers the problem is "I haven't yet been able to reword a simple question into a ponderous, cliche ridden, obtuse form enough to confuse people so I can feel self important by how 'Deep' I am yet..

RoboTimbo · 17th May 2012, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.

And therefore no logic or rules. This is fun.

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

If existence came from nothing, it is illogical. Therefore it is a supernatural origin.

Yes, that's obviously true - because although the supernatural doesn't exist (because existence can't come from nothing), it can create a universe that does exist...

Oh wait, isn't non-existence the same as nothing? So the universe can't come from the supernatural if it doesn't exist, because that's the same as coming from nothing.

OK, let's start again. The supernatural can create a universe because it (the supernatural) exists, so it isn't nothing. That's logical. But if the supernatural exists, it must have come from something, and it couldn't come from nothing because that's illogical. Now we're getting somewhere... So where did the supernatural come from?

Oh wait, aren't we back with the same question we were asking about the universe, but a level removed?

Is there a super-supernatural?

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

Don't be silly. Show me the end of a rubber band, show me the the other side of a mobius strip. Show me where the edge of the world is.

Lowpro · 17th May 2012, 06:43 AM

You know dlorde it looks like your signature regarding punshhh makes this convo pretty hilarious

Hokulele · 17th May 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Nice, just small fry though, just equate infinity with time and then space. Now tell me what it looks like?

Simple, it looks like the Equator. Remember, time is just another dimension, so without something specific to measure, it doesn't exist. Talking about time outside of the universe (eg. What happened before the universe "began") is as nonsensical as asking someone where they would be if they took a step backwards from the beginning of the Equator.

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident.

Gosh, so many questions spring to mind... I'll assume this is not simply an argument from incredulity or ignorance, and you have good reasons for saying this.

What are the behaviours or properties or actions of the universe that seem to you to be those of a large and complex organism?

What, precisely, do you mean by 'happening by accident'?

Do you have any objections to the current development model that suggests the observable universe condensed out as a very hot and dense plasma expanded very rapidly and cooled? If so, can you explain why computer modelling of the development of such a very hot, dense plasma, using the basic laws of physics we have deduced from observations of the real universe, gives rise to a model universe broadly similar to the one we actually see?

Are you perhaps suggesting that the very hot dense plasma was itself not 'an accident'? If so, what makes you think so?

Or perhaps you have some reason to think that there wasn't a very hot dense plasma stage that gave rise to the universe we see?

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

You know dlorde it looks like your signature regarding punshhh makes this convo pretty hilarious

Thank punshhh - I wanted a reminder of his ineffable logic and understanding of infinity, and I thought others might find it instructive...

17th May 2012, 01:02 AM	#1043
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,622	Originally Posted by punshhh Try seeing/conceiving an endless eternal universe as a whole. Ok. Now what?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

17th May 2012, 01:17 AM	#1044
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,014	Originally Posted by Ethnikos ...Whatever created the universe is not around in whatever form it was before there was a universe. ... Why do you think something created the Universe? Originally Posted by GIBHOR Sure. Whatever atheists cand find to make their case up, no matter how desperate the attempt is, must be valid...otherwise, their beloved world view crumbles...and that cannot happen, isnt it ??! You're so wrong. It's not about atheism. It's about moving on from magical explanations. For example, we've moved on from a magical explanation for eclipses and lightning, right? Originally Posted by Lowpro Also GIBHOR I took the liberty of emailing the guys at http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html to see about updating their information but strangely enough as I tried to explore their site, it seems most all of their site except for their lecture notes and external links are down. Even the links to the two professors who I suppose run the course do not work. I think you're not using an up-to-date site my friend. Color me shocked... Good work, Lowpro!
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,014	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

17th May 2012, 02:06 AM	#1046
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 862	Originally Posted by punshhh inconceivable You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Stomatopoda Muse Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 862

17th May 2012, 02:06 AM	#1047
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by punshhh Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me. Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration. I can conceive it. It just goes forever in every direction. What's so hard about that?
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

17th May 2012, 02:41 AM	#1048
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,622	Originally Posted by punshhh Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me. ... is what? Quote: Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration. "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

16th May 2012, 11:53 PM	#1041
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Lowpro So you think the fact that there's a 0 at all means there is something...quantum physics disagrees. A multidimensional nothing? It is a something which ever way you look at it, hence we're back at endless/eternal. Quote: Absolutist nothing is fiction. Yes along with infinity. My point is for there to be a beginning of existence at some point something came from absolutely nothing. There's no alternative within logic (correct me if I'm wrong). If this is not the case then we have to turn our gaze to endless eternal. Oh I like your video about the thing that made the things for which no known maker is known. A semantic argument. If you perceive me using a semantic argument you will have to show it, as I am working from concepts and the language is merely used to convey the concept.

17th May 2012, 12:03 AM	#1042
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Twiler I can conceive it. In fact, if it is inconceivable, how can we talk about it? Try seeing/conceiving an endless eternal universe as a whole.

17th May 2012, 01:56 AM	#1045
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by zooterkin Ok. Now what? Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me. Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

17th May 2012, 02:57 AM	#1049
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by Dinwar Got proof of this? Or is this nothing more than speculation? It's my interpretation of Anankē, based on what I have been able to collect on the subject from ancient Greek mythology.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 03:02 AM	#1050
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,014	^ The first hit in my google search for ananke was this : http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread764455/pg1 then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananke_%28mythology%29
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,014	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos Last edited by pakeha; 17th May 2012 at 03:04 AM. Reason: links added

17th May 2012, 03:06 AM	#1051
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by Dancing David Nope, it is just as likely similar to what it was before, you are assuming. I don't see how it could be, really. I think it would be something very primeval, and not at all differentiated as in being even so many individual spirits. It wouldn't be something that could exist in a real universe, being completely unsubstantial, but having the desire to exist in reality. What we have now is fully actualized individuals, something not similar in makeup but sharing the same intent, which is to be, and now that we are, to continue to.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 03:10 AM	#1052
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by pakeha Why do you think something created the Universe? It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 03:14 AM	#1053
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,473	Originally Posted by pakeha ^ The first hit in my google search for ananke was this : There are bits here and there which is in need of being searched out, and I am not quite done yet. I see the Bible as agenda driven in its current form leaving only a small amount being in any way useful for figuring out where everything came from.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 03:39 AM	#1054
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by zooterkin "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..." Nice, just small fry though, just equate infinity with time and then space. Now tell me what it looks like?

17th May 2012, 03:42 AM	#1055
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by stokes234 I can conceive it. It just goes forever in every direction. What's so hard about that? And what does that look like? you know in your minds eye?

17th May 2012, 03:43 AM	#1056
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,165	Originally Posted by Stomatopoda You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try the dictionary definition.

17th May 2012, 04:01 AM	#1057
Evolved Wookie A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Two feet to the left, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy Posts: 566	Is it too late to post this?
	__________________ W_hat W_ould T_he D_octor D_o? Some creative lies. "No. Liars aren't creative." - Justinian2

17th May 2012, 04:07 AM	#1058
gentlehorse generally confused Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,131	Originally Posted by zooterkin ... is what? "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..." "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. Then you get to the end, and a monkey starts throwing barrels at you." Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JNREDtUQM
	__________________ "Oh Holy gravity, the mother of all powers, what you do to us, the children of the stars" pillory "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?" Win Last edited by gentlehorse; 17th May 2012 at 04:09 AM.

17th May 2012, 04:12 AM	#1059
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Evolved Wookie Is it too late to post this? http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=6054 Awesome. T-shirt?
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

17th May 2012, 04:14 AM	#1060
Evolved Wookie A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Two feet to the left, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy Posts: 566	Originally Posted by devnull Awesome. T-shirt? It's not mine, I must admit, and I'm not sure where it came from. If it were up to me, sure, you could have a t-shirt.
	__________________ W_hat W_ould T_he D_octor D_o? Some creative lies. "No. Liars aren't creative." - Justinian2

17th May 2012, 04:38 AM	#1061
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by Lowpro It may be in this article But I cannot access it. It's also from 1973 and there's a good bit more research that's been done to refine the theory. But elshamah is out of date (probably on purpose as it'd be devastating to GIBHOR otherwise) case in point, Tryon argues for a closed universe. Evidence shows it's flat, not closed -.- However, the issue I have it that Frank Lee and "Why we can't see God" is the only source for the quote. Now there were other issues regarding Tryon's statement, many of which were worked out by Guth his grad student. But this quote is pasted into six places and they all reference the Frank Lee essay. But I think there is fine tuning hooey here. My guess it is a distortion of something somebody said like Steven Weinberg said, most likely thirty or forty years ago.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 17th May 2012 at 04:46 AM.

17th May 2012, 04:43 AM	#1062
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by punshhh And what does that look like? you know in your minds eye? It's black, with some stars in it. We only know of the stars out to a certain distance from the original centre of the big bang, but there could have been other big bangs outside of that, we just don't know. Honestly not seeing the problem.
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune Last edited by stokes234; 17th May 2012 at 04:45 AM.

17th May 2012, 04:47 AM	#1063
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by GIBHOR how are you so sure about it ? http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html And in the last twenty years it has been shown to be approaching flat.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 04:51 AM	#1064
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by GIBHOR dark energy is one of the things science made up to make the big bang theory work. Probably there is no dark energy, and the big bang theory is a completely nonsense ....... And that just shows your ignorance, the 'dark energy' expression is used to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. The BBT is a descriptive theory, and it is very accurate going to 10^-36 seconds after the hypothesized BBE. It is a descriptive theory that is very accurate, but you are waving and saying it is 'completely nonsense', is just you making unsupported assertions. So how accurate is your theory for describing the behavior of the observed universe?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 04:53 AM	#1065
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Sure. Whatever atheists cand find to make their case up, no matter how desperate the attempt is, must be valid...otherwise, their beloved world view crumbles...and that cannot happen, isnt it ??! Their view of the world crumbles all the time, it changes all the time, you are just making a false analogy to religion.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 04:56 AM	#1066
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by Ethnikos I don't see how it could be, really. I think it would be something very primeval, and not at all differentiated as in being even so many individual spirits. It wouldn't be something that could exist in a real universe, being completely unsubstantial, but having the desire to exist in reality. What we have now is fully actualized individuals, something not similar in makeup but sharing the same intent, which is to be, and now that we are, to continue to. That has nothing to do with the speculative notions of expanding space time foam in recursive inflationary scenarios or colliding branes. It seems you just have a preference for one spiritual story. You also make a mistake in calling something 'fully actualized individuals', do you mean bacteria or ants?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 04:57 AM	#1067
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by Ethnikos It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident. That too is just guessing, the answer is "We don't know".
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 05:00 AM	#1068
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,140	Originally Posted by punshhh If existence came from nothing, it is illogical. Therefore it is a supernatural origin. That is utter rubbish.

17th May 2012, 05:23 AM	#1069
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,140	Originally Posted by Dancing David However, the issue I have it that Frank Lee and "Why we can't see God" is the only source for the quote. Now there were other issues regarding Tryon's statement, many of which were worked out by Guth his grad student. But this quote is pasted into six places and they all reference the Frank Lee essay. But I think there is fine tuning hooey here. My guess it is a distortion of something somebody said like Steven Weinberg said, most likely thirty or forty years ago. Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote.

17th May 2012, 05:26 AM	#1070
gentlehorse generally confused Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,131	Originally Posted by punshhh My point is for there to be a beginning of existence at some point something came from absolutely nothing. There's no alternative within logic (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me that something has to self-exist. That would be the universe, in one form or another, I guess. Mystical, metaphysical, spiritual explanations of existence seem to be nothing more than exercises in the use of language. Although some folks might find them emotionally satisfying, they don't really explain anything.
	__________________ "Oh Holy gravity, the mother of all powers, what you do to us, the children of the stars" pillory "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?" Win

17th May 2012, 05:55 AM	#1071
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,622	Originally Posted by Ethnikos It seems to be a physical entity acting as a very large and complex organism, something not happening by accident. What is "it"? The universe? The universe is alive?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

17th May 2012, 05:59 AM	#1072
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,551	Originally Posted by GIBHOR we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities. But again, how do you know that the absence of everything "has no potentialities"? Quote: Otherwise, we would experience all the time things poping up from nothing. Our experience shows that is not the case. But we don't have any experience of nothing. Things cannot pop up from nothing now, because there is no nothing for them to pop up from any more.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

17th May 2012, 05:59 AM	#1073
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,778	Originally Posted by punshhh Try the dictionary definition. And there in is your problem. You're using the language as a blunt instrument, trying to reshape reality based on linguistic nuance. You are using words and phrases with zero understanding of what they mean. You're just throwing them around. And you're trying to create some sort of philosophy out of hairsplitting the language. It's the "What's real versus what's the truth?" nonsense. You treating the fact that we have different words to describe the same things, sometimes with slight nuance or tone differences at most, as some universe defining criteria. You're splitting the language to try to make a point that doesn't exist. Originally Posted by stokes234 Honestly not seeing the problem. For the Navel Gazers the problem is "I haven't yet been able to reword a simple question into a ponderous, cliche ridden, obtuse form enough to confuse people so I can feel self important by how 'Deep' I am yet..
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

17th May 2012, 06:12 AM	#1074
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,888	Originally Posted by GIBHOR we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities. And therefore no logic or rules. This is fun.

17th May 2012, 06:23 AM	#1075
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,647	Originally Posted by punshhh If existence came from nothing, it is illogical. Therefore it is a supernatural origin. Yes, that's obviously true - because although the supernatural doesn't exist (because existence can't come from nothing), it can create a universe that does exist... Oh wait, isn't non-existence the same as nothing? So the universe can't come from the supernatural if it doesn't exist, because that's the same as coming from nothing. OK, let's start again. The supernatural can create a universe because it (the supernatural) exists, so it isn't nothing. That's logical. But if the supernatural exists, it must have come from something, and it couldn't come from nothing because that's illogical. Now we're getting somewhere... So where did the supernatural come from? Oh wait, aren't we back with the same question we were asking about the universe, but a level removed? Is there a super-supernatural?
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,647	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...