Night Ripper v. HeroicOvenmitt: Religion

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I covered that. Firstly, because of the Law of Causality. Also, if it just 'exists' then it must be infinite. This is impossible because of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the evidence that it exploded into everything from nothing.

The law of causality isn't established. It's just an assertion.

Why does the universe need to be infinite if it "just" exists?

It could just poof out of nowhere at a finite time in the past.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

I feel that I have adequately backed up the Law of Causality. Belief in it is just as rational as belief in human mortality.

I've already completely addressed your second point.

And your third point again, ignores the Law of Causality.

I cannot REALLY be the only person on this forum that believes the Law of Causality is obvious in nature... am I?

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Quote:

It could just poof out of nowhere at a finite time in the past.

I admire your faith in the plausibility of your statement.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Faith.
Aye, there's the rub.
Wink

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I feel that I have adequately backed up the Law of Causality. Belief in it is just as rational as belief in human mortality.

I've already completely addressed your second point.

And your third point again, ignores the Law of Causality.

I cannot REALLY be the only person on this forum that believes the Law of Causality is obvious in nature... am I?

I'm sure you're not alone. However, I'm not alone either.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

I know you're not alone. There's a lot of minds that I would have otherwise considered rational that are questioning the Law of Causality.
If I had not pointed out the implication that it would necessitate a God, I don't think ANYONE on here would have questioned it.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I know you're not alone. There's a lot of minds that I would have otherwise considered rational that are questioning the Law of Causality.
If I had not pointed out the implication that it would necessitate a God, I don't think ANYONE on here would have questioned it.

I still would have. I've been a regularist for a long time.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

You realize what you also must declare invalid if you declare the law of causality invalid, don't you?

1 Reply

Quote:

The General Theory of Relativity says that the universe began with 'the Big Bang'.

Cosmology for a long time like philosophy full of theories and very little data.

The big bang theory has two exceptions (violations) in Science.

Exception 1: It violates the Law Of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Neither mass nor energy is created.

Exception 2: The expansion of the universe from a singularity violated Einstein's own states that nothing can exceed the speed of light. This Big Bang abrogates this by assuming all the forces of nature were one thus the universe could expand faster than the speed of light.

This is just a theory. Wait 50 years years and things may change. Don't forget since gravity also acts on light so light from distant galaxies could be pulled from the galaxy and the earth thus stretching it into the red shift. The red shift does not necessarily come only from speeding.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

You realize what you also must declare invalid if you declare the law of causality invalid, don't you?

Science doesn't rely on causality. Science relies on correlations.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Hey! Your name isn't in this thread! =P jk.

So, do you believe the big bang happened?

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

semantics.
The correlations that science studies are cause/effect. That's how you run an experiment.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

semantics.
The correlations that science studies are cause/effect. That's how you run an experiment.

It's not semantics because correlation is not causation. Science deals with the former, not the latter. This is getting stale so I'm going to end this discussion.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

It's your call if you want to end it. I merely responded to your request to join it.

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Who knows? It is best so far. Remember the phlogiston theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

1 Reply

@talk72000,

is your argument that just as the phlogiston theory is obsolete, the Law of Causality may become obsolete?
That would be simple speculation, without any evidence wouldn't it?

Also, are you prepared to declare all scientific experiments to be invalid?

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

I never mentioned the Law of Causality. I am just stating that Cosmology was once mostly theory and it is a very difficult line of work. The Big Bang theory was actually promoted by physicist-priest Georges Lemaitre

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg/250px-Lemaitre.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Oh, my apologies.
What I meant to ask was if your point was that the Big Bang Theory may one day be considered obsolete. Sorry, I got it all mixed up in my head since causality is being argued in a couple other threads right now too.

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

So, do you believe the big bang happened?

no, i believe some alchemist created the universe using unicorn dung, pixie stix, an erlynmeyer flask and a bunsen burner

0 Replies

I heard Allah and Buddha were singing at the Savior's feast
And up the sky and Arabian Rabbi
Fed Quaker Oats to a Priest
Pretty good, not bad, they can't complain
Cause actually all them gods is just about the same

0 Replies

Night Ripper v. HeroicOvenmitt: Religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know