A God That Makes Sense?

@Setanta,

For a better example of snotty bullshit from a rude son of a bitch, scroll up to the point where you wrote this:

Quote:

it was in response to this rather tortured and silly question:

@Banana Breath,

What a fragile and delicate flower you must be to have been so deeply wounded in your self love by that. Why don't you just kiss my rosy red ass and we'll call it even.

0 Replies

@Banana Breath,

You seem to make a few assumptions that may be incorrect:
>The universe unfolded according to a set pattern.
>There was/is no independent entity, causing agent, God

1 Reply

@neologist,

Every instance of "unfolding" that I'm aware of happens in defined space of two+ dimensions, and involve conservation of dimensionality. That is, if you fold a 6" line in half in two dimensions, you get two 3" lines.
However that is not the case in the big bang scenario. Among the many incompatibilities between what you're saying and current assumptions of the big bang are the concepts of dimensions from no dimensions, mass from no mass, and time from no time. There is a fundamental paradox that the energetic singularity MUST have existed prior to the big bang, or there couldn't have been a big bang, YET time only begins AT the instant of the big bang. It points to a unique, all-powerful existence BEYOND everything, absolutely everything (time, space, mass, life, etc.), and there is no satisfying scientific explanation for it. No mathematics can satisfactorily describe a universe folded into a singularity. And the notion that a "god" exists outside of the singularity contradicts the very notion of a singularity; it would be more reasonable to take god and singularity as rough synonyms.

2 Replies

@Banana Breath,

Banana Breath wrote:

. . . YET time only begins AT the instant of the big bang. . .

I am not convinced there were no events before the big bang. Though, I admit I cannot conceive of how anything like that could have happened.

0 Replies

@Banana Breath,

Quote:

the notion that a "god" exists outside of the singularity contradicts the very notion of a singularity; it would be more reasonable to take god and singularity as rough synonyms.

Logic would say that to make any sense, God would have to exist outside of space and time. As you point out, the best evidence we have says that the same is true of the singularity. This does not imply that they are the same thing though.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You know that saying "if it quacks like a duck?"

1 Reply

@Banana Breath,

"It might be a hunter with a duck call".

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Personally if I were faced with a choice between the singularity and some old guy with a beard sitting on a chair in the clouds, asked to pick which one was the all-powerful creator of the universe, with an essence beyond our notions of time, space and matter, I'd go with the singularity. If there's a hunter blowing duck calls, that's probably him up there in the clouds.

1 Reply

@Banana Breath,

Here I ask for your best concept for a God that makes sense and the best you come up with is the bearded old man in the clouds who doesn't get you at all?

That is either a colossal failure of imagineation or those religious bastards have brainwashed everyone.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Have you even read a single word I've written? All variations of a bearded man in the clouds are the anthropocentric "god" images that totally lack imagination and can't get beyond an extension of "daddy is big and tall, daddy must be god."
The real power to create a universe did apparently exist, evidence from modern science converges at the big bang; but the answer you're looking for is BEFORE the big bang, NOT in the clouds.

2 Replies

@Banana Breath,

The "Big Bang" has of course been attractive to Creationists, but accumulating scientific evidence is eroding the status of the concept even as we speak. Theists might counter by evoking the "eternal" property of their "God" in order to transcend any "time dimensionality" problems, but since "time" is considered to be a psychological construct anyway, I suggest the seekers of "sense" still remain in an anthropocentric cul-de-sac. All they would have left is the catch-all clause that "all knowledge is in the gift of God".

BTW. Leadfoot likes to push another transcendent line. On another thread he cites " God's realm is not of this world". I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that any "sense" from that it cannot be divorced from the giving of succour
to suicide bombers.

1 Reply

@Banana Breath,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Have you even read a single word I've written? All variations of a bearded man in the clouds are the anthropocentric "god" images that totally lack imagination and can't get beyond an extension of "daddy is big and tall, daddy must be god."
The real power to create a universe did apparently exist, evidence from modern science converges at the big bang; but the answer you're looking for is BEFORE the big bang, NOT in the clouds.

Yep, every one of them in this thread. And I mistakenly took you for someone who would not grossly distort others' words and make false claims about them.

Please quote me in any thread you like where I implied that God was anything other than before the Big Bang. In fact, In the very next post after yours I am criticized for claiming that God is beyond space and time and 'not of this world'. I think it is you that have not read my words.

But putting aside these petty personal squabbles, I'm interested in your comments about being anthropocentric (ascribing our own characteristics to God). This criticism is often repeated by atheists and I am assuming they are not being childish and accusing theists of saying that he has a body like ours or some similar nonsense.

On every occasion when I hear this I always ask them this question. Assuming for the moment that there is a God who created us, why is it unreasonable to assume that he would create us with a similar consciousness to his own? In other words, with the same basic ability and freedom to chose our own values. What in your view makes that an irrational assumption?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

The "Big Bang" has of course been attractive to Creationists, but accumulating scientific evidence is eroding the status of the concept even as we speak. Theists might counter by evoking the "eternal" property of their "God" in order to transcend any "time dimensionality" problems, but since "time" is considered to be a psychological construct anyway

I want to hear of this evidence eroding the Big Bang theory. I think the last physicist who seriously questioned it died recently.

Pretty funny comment about 'time' BTW. If time was only a psychological construct, there are so many things that wouldn't work. GPS, or this computer I'm typing on for instance. You aren't one of those nut cases like my ex wife who believe that reality is dependent on our consciousness are you? Talk about anthropocentric!!

It is not you or I (in your conceptual view) that are beyond space and time...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

A recent BBC programme (U K) interviewed several leading physicists about the cumulative evidence against Big Bang being the full story. Alternatives including colliding universes and Big Bounce were discussed.
Time is a psychological construct (albeit a useful one in everyday terms) as far as the reversible equations of physics are concerned. Getting our heads around 'space-time' is difficult enough with Einstein's 'twins paradox' without even attempting to grapple with 'the cessation of time' at singularities.
Your ex may not be as daft as you think. We tend to use that nebulous concept 'reality' as though it were a state independent of the humans who use the word. But facts like 'the non-existence of dead flies for starving frogs' should give pause to the view of an observer independent reality, irrespective even of the complexity of any quantum involvement of the observer in particle physics.
Of course Bishop Berkeley tried to solve this one by evoking 'God' as the ultimate observer, but that would of course be begging the question. Pragmatist philosophers like Rorty (following Wittgenstein) might merely argue that like any word 'reality' takes its meaning from its contextual social usage, and on examination ( outside ontological speculation) its daily usage is simply a reference to social consensus about minor states of affairs.

But I have talked enough. Its all in the literature if you are motivated to look.
Before dismissing it, it might just be worth considering that Wittgenstein was a religious believer, as was Heisenberg (re observer involvement in physics).

2 Replies

@fresco,

I've seen plenty of similar programs.
I never said there are no logical conundrums in physics, I have pointed them out often so I'm not sure what your point is. Physics is not what this thread is about but I like physics.

But why the hell do people do this "read the literature" Stuff. It's fine to cite something in it but just saying things like "if you had read Sartre you would know what I'm talking about" is just pure name dropping bullshit. If you have a point to make, make it.

If "read the literature" is your answer to everything, why the **** participate on forums like this?

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I've seen plenty of similar programs.
I never said there are no logical conundrums in physics, I have pointed them out often so I'm not sure what your point is. Physics is not what this thread is about but I like physics.

But why the hell do people do this "read the literature" Stuff. It's fine to cite something in it but just saying things like "if you had read Sartre you would know what I'm talking about" is just pure name dropping bullshit. If you have a point to make, make it.

If "read the literature" is your answer to everything, why the **** participate on forums like this?

Oh, it is not always "read the literature."

Sometimes he advises people to go to university and "learn" what he has "learned."

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

A recent BBC programme (U K) interviewed several leading physicists about the cumulative evidence against Big Bang being the full story. Alternatives including colliding universes and Big Bounce were discussed.

Neither colliding universes nor big bounce theories contradict a big bang moment of creation, rather, they expand upon it. Colliding universes are envisioned as direct consequences of a big bang. Since the big bang involves expansion of space and time, universes might be envisioned as relatively stable bubbles of space time within that expansion, which occasionally might collide. And the Big Bounce depends on the big bang, it merely expands the big bang theory to place it in a possibly repeating cycle.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

why the hell do people do this "read the literature" Stuff. It's fine to cite something in it but just saying things like "if you had read Sartre you would know what I'm talking about" is just pure name dropping bullshit. If you have a point to make, make it.

Agreed. That type of comment is the sign of a lazy mind, one who falls back upon his freshman "philosophy for poets" class rather than actually thinking.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Assuming for the moment that there is a God who created us, why is it unreasonable to assume that he would create us with a similar consciousness to his own? In other words, with the same basic ability and freedom to chose our own values. What in your view makes that an irrational assumption?

It's ironic to use terms like "his" or "her" when referring to an all-powerful force beyond time and space; indeed what use would such a force have for gender in its own substance?
From a scientific point of view, that moment (or eternity) of singularity expands to everything we know in the universe, including life forms, thought, free will (if it exists), contemplation. These then are direct outcomes and were effectively encoded in the original substance of the singularity, or they couldn't have happened. Given the extremely long life span of a universe and the existence of matter and energy after the expansion, it became inevitable that all of these things would come to exist. If you study biology, you learn that life forms don't exist with arbitrary features; they are shaped by the ecology, the opportunities, perils, food sources, and sheltering spaces found in a niche. If you study a creature such as a Crayfish, even if you examine it only in a laboratory, you can learn much about its environment as its very substance is a reflection of its ecological niche and environment. This is true as well for our intelligence and ability to contemplate. Ultimately they must be a direct outcome of the singularity, the big bang, expansion, formation of matter, and existence of biological niches. Our thoughts, our minds, our spirituality, are in effect a reflection of creation, and exist not by magic, not by arbitrary artistic dalliance, but because thinking, contemplating and the like are a force of nature as much as gravity and light and in full compliance with the laws of physics, and furthermore these things must be an inevitable consequence of the formation of the universe, unless you believe in magic. Human intelligence is then OF the universe they exist in. If indeed there are multiple and possibly colliding universes, each might have their own laws of physics, their own elements, and in turn their own biologies and consequently entirely different ways of thinking and contemplating.

1 Reply

A God That Makes Sense?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know