Christian Evidence

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

Why don't you try reading what I say twice there dude, because you're obviously not getting it with the first try. My reference was that there is either a creator or no singularity, not just that there was no singularity. I said it wasn't possible for a singularity to initiate action. Therefore either there was something besides the singularity (which would make it not a singularity) or something acted upon it to get the reaction we know as the Big Bang. This is where a creator is plausible to me, because we can figure events down to a singularity but there is no way one could initiate action. Something had to

 

 

No, you are making an unwarranted assertion based on highly limited and speculative data. The idea the universe had to have a cause is unwarranted and the idea that cause had to be some kind intelligence is even more speculative. I have been doing my best to explain this to you, your idea of a cause and a creator is just as wrong as the idea that volcanoes erupt do to some intelligent agent that can be appeased by throwing a virgin into the lava in the crater.

 

All you have is faith and belief but really really believing something does not make it true and having faith is no better, but hanging both on the premise that something unexplained must be due to some unknown intelligence is.... Well so far it has not worked out well for those who think this way and they have to keep shoving their idea of a creator into another gap in knowledge each time their belief or faith is shown to be wrong.... Zeus fell victim to this as did Thor and Krishna and so on.

 

Believe if you want but trying to hang belief on some apparent lack of data is simply dishonest...

[dimreepr]

It seems that people are under the assumption that I am a christian. Why? Have I said anything to indicate I have a religious preference? As I have stated previously, I consider myself an agnostic and have no clue as to what characteristics a creator may have.

 

 

You seem to be arguing quite strongly (vehemently even) in the defence of a creator (of sorts) which, for me, flies in the face of what an agnostic is.

 

Agnostic [ag-nos-tik]

 

noun

 

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

 

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

 

3.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

adjective

 

4.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

 

5.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

 

6.

holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2012 by dimreepr

[PeterJ]

Seems to me that Justin is entitled to be an agnostic. One cannot be agnostic and also dismiss the possibility of a creator (or a causeless beginning, or no beginning, etc).

 

Of course, a creator would not solve the causal problem, just push it back a step, but it doesn't make the problem any worse.

[dimreepr]

Seems to me that Justin is entitled to be an agnostic. One cannot be agnostic and also dismiss the possibility of a creator (or a causeless beginning, or no beginning, etc).

 

 

 

He is indeed entitled to be an agnostic, but the very definition means, holding neither of two opposing positions. He clearly argues for a creator, thus making his position that of a theist or deist.

 

 

[rigney]

He is indeed entitled to be an agnostic, but the very definition means, holding neither of two opposing positions. He clearly argues for a creator, thus making his position that of a theist or deist.

 

With something like this in the mix, it can easily be understood why many people want to believe in God, or Gods? Even I like the arrangement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=709R26i4Ik0

Edited March 7, 2012 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

the very definition means, holding neither of two opposing positions

 

No, it doesn't.

[JustinW]

dimreeper,

 

Okay I should have said agnostic DEIST then. I think definition 2 still fits the bill though. It's funny that you want to nitpick my choice in the word agnostic enough to go through definitions, but when it comes to what a singularity is you're not so picky. People can say that the BB came from a singularity and the obvious answer to me is NO, a singularity can not incite action. But we'll just overlook that little detail and get picky about a word chosen to discribe someone's expectation of gaining a certain knowledge. Because that applies to the fundamentals of the conversation doesn't it?

 

Moontanman,

 

The idea the universe had to have a cause is unwarranted and the idea that cause had to be some kind intelligence is even more speculative.

Can a singularity incite action? Plausable question here. That question alone opens up the idea and makes it valid.

Believe if you want but trying to hang belief on some apparent lack of data is simply dishonest...

Lack of data? I'm hanging it on the basic knowledge of what a singularity is and is capable of, not the lack of data conscerning it. The creator itself is where I would place the ultimate lack of knowledge.

Everything boils down to a singularity before the BB... well apparently not. I'll say it again, either there was no singularity or there was a creator. It can't be both ways. Either the singularity wasn't singular, or something outside of the physical realm acted on that singularity to cause it to become what it is today.

 

 

That's all I can really say on the subject though, unless someone can dispute my thinking about what a singularity is and how one works (it doesn't because it has nothing to work with "it's singular").

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

Can a singularity incite action? Plausable question here. That question alone opens up the idea and makes it valid.

 

As I said before there is not necessarily a singularity and no one knows what a singularity can or cannot do if one existed.

 

Lack of data? I'm hanging it on the basic knowledge of what a singularity is and is capable of,

 

Please provide some evidence that a singularity acts the way you say or that a singularity even exists.

 

not the lack of data conscerning it. The creator itself is where I would place the ultimate lack of knowledge.

Everything boils down to a singularity before the BB... well apparently not. I'll say it again, either there was no singularity or there was a creator. It can't be both ways. Either the singularity wasn't singular, or something outside of the physical realm acted on that singularity to cause it to become what it is today.

 

Again what evidence do you have to back up this assertion you keep making about singularities?

 

That's all I can really say on the subject though, unless someone can dispute my thinking about what a singularity is and how one works (it doesn't because it has nothing to work with "it's singular").

 

Again, how about some evidence that your definition of a singularity and what it can or cannot do has anything what so ever to do with reality.

 

It's even quite possible there was no big bang as currently defined as i explained in another thread.

 

JustinW, there are theories other than the big bang for the existence of our universe, one of them proposes a "multidimensional bulk space" with various objects existing there. Three dimensional membranes are part of that "multidimensional bulk space" collisions of these membranes are what we see as "The Big Bang" due to our limited view of the universe. From our stand point everything occurred as what we know as space time (yes there are theories that suppose that time exists separate from what we call space-time) sprang from an apparent point source.

 

But on a larger scale the big bang occurred everywhere all at once and the point like expansion we see was really just a wrinkle in the membranes as they touched and annihilated each other, this annihilation caused the membranes to spring apart but eventually their mutual gravitational attraction will bring them back together for another "big bang" This hypothesis not only allows for an eternal universe but allows it to cycle with out there being enough matter in either universe to cause a big crunch that would be required for the big bang to occur over and over again.

 

This hypothesis not only allows for the naturalistic existence of what we see as the universe it allows what we see as the universe to be just a tiny part of a greater whole that is no more an indication our universe is special any more than a single charged ice crystal has to do with a stroke of lightning.

 

The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

Edited March 7, 2012 by Moontanman

[Tres Juicy]

I'll say it again, either there was no singularity or there was a creator.

 

 

 

Do you not feel that you have missed out some possibilities here?

[JustinW]

As I said before there not necessarily a singularity and no one knows what a singularity can or cannot do if one existed.

What do you mean no one knows. If it can do anything then it is not a singularity. And they do say one existed and in fact was all that existed before the BB. It can never be proven scientifically (convenient, i know) because you can only get to a certain point before the physics break down. The reason they do that is because they don't apply to a singularity. There is nothing to apply to it. It is singularly all there is. It's the point where physical laws were created, because before that certain point nothing existed accept the singularity.

 

 

Please provide some evidence that a singularity acts the way you say or even than a singularity even exists.

We know singularities exist. Just look at the core of a black hole. But a beginning singularity that is all there is wouldn't act, or move, or do anything for that matter, because it would have nothing to act on.

 

Here is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Just to assure you that current popular theory states that the universe came from a singularity.

 

 

Again what evidence do you have to back up this assertion you keep making about singularities?

WTH do you think a blackhole is man? The only reason the singularity, that is the blackhole, reacts with stuff around it is because there IS stuff around it. If that singularity was all there is, there would be nothing to act upon. Does that "assertion" make sense now?

 

 

 

The idea that the universe had to be created by some intelligent creator is bogus and just as subject to being wrong as the idea that lightning is the wrath of the creator...

Not really. It is still the infinite question even in the theory you laid out. I think I stated before that my logic on this matter was cohesive with the BB theory. Which if I'm not mistaken is the most popular theory at present. And I'm not saying I'm 100% right on this thing either. I'm just stating that logically one has to assume that to have a singularity in the beginning would require something outside of the realm of existance to act upon it. So since the popular thought includes that singularity, then my assertion is rellevant and sensical.

[mooeypoo]

Do you not feel that you have missed out some possibilities here?

 

Perfect example of False Dichotomy.

 

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

[JustinW]

Juicy,

 

Do you not feel that you have missed out some possibilities here?

What possibilities can come from a singularity? If a singularity is all there is in existance then it has no potential at all, because there would be nothing for it to act upon and nothing to act upon it.Where is the grey area? Edited March 7, 2012 by JustinW

[mooeypoo]

Juicy,

 

What possibilities can come from a singularity? If a singularity is all there is in existance then it has no potential at all, because there would be nothing for it to act upon and nothing to act upon it.Where is the grey area?

 

The fact you can't think of possibilities does not mean they don't exist. No one could think about the possibility that mass twists space, either, 200+ years ago. That doesn't mean that the option itself didn't exist, and that it shouldn't have been searched for. (And discovered by Einstein)

 

Again, this is a good example of Argument from Incredulity, and it's a fallacy.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).^[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

 

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

 

 

(source: http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance)

 

Another good source to go over concerning all these logical fallacies and why they are not helping you deliver your points, is here: http://www.theskepti...lfallacies.aspx

 

Argument from Personal Incredulity

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

[JustinW]

mooey,

 

The fact you can't think of possibilities does not mean they don't exist. No one could think about the possibility that mass twists space, either, 200+ years ago. That doesn't mean that the option itself didn't exist, and that it shouldn't have been searched for.

I thought it was rather cut and dry. I didn't know we were going to start redefining the characteristics of a singularity or what may result from one being the only thing in existance.

You would think that people who have so many unknown possibilities would include a creator in there somewhere, you know, since "unknown" is so conveniently accepted.

 

You keep throwing these definitions about flase dichotomy, but where is the logical fallicy in assuming that a singularity is something that can't act upon itself if it is the only thing in exsistance? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that fits within the realm of science.

[Moontanman]

mooey,

 

I thought it was rather cut and dry. I didn't know we were going to start redefining the characteristics of a singularity or what may result from one being the only thing in existance.

You would think that people who have so many unknown possibilities would include a creator in there somewhere, you know, since "unknown" is so conveniently accepted.

 

You keep throwing these definitions about flase dichotomy, but where is the logical fallicy in assuming that a singularity is something that can't act upon itself if it is the only thing in exsistance? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that fits within the realm of science.

 

 

Of course there is the possibility of a creator in there someplace, there is the possibility of a hyper intelligent shade of the color purple too but there is no good reason to assume it it is true...

[iNow]

Singularities almost certainly do not exist, so this is all really rather moot. They are really nothing more than an output of an incomplete set of mathematical models and as we learn more and improve those models any singularities will almost certainly vanish.

[rigney]

Singularities almost certainly do not exist, so this is all really rather moot. They are really nothing more than an output of an incomplete set of mathematical models and as we learn more and improve those models any singularities will almost certainly vanish.

 

Jump on me with both feet if you like, but while many of you are out there contemplating the whether or nots of singularities, these folks are making "mucho! bucks". Sure wish I had their talent. Anyway, what's singularities have to do with religion?

Edited March 7, 2012 by rigney

[JustinW]

Of course there is the possibility of a creator in there someplace, there is the possibility of a hyper intelligent shade of the color purple too but there is no good reason to assume it it is true...

Alright fair enough, I guess. For Now(imagine Dr. Evil laugh following)

 

 

Anyway, what's singularities have to do with religion?

Read the posts. It's got to do with creation/creator, etc...

[rigney]

Alright fair enough, I guess. For Now(imagine Dr. Evil laugh following)

 

Read the posts. It's got to do with creation/creator, etc...

 

Gotcha! From either camp I see it nothing more than a joke. Who the hell has the knowledge to ascertain something so conclusively? If either science or religion can make it an affirmitive, I'll believe. Edited March 7, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

You keep throwing these definitions about flase dichotomy, but where is the logical fallicy in assuming that a singularity is something that can't act upon itself if it is the only thing in exsistance? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that fits within the realm of science.

 

 

JustinW, don't you understand that the things you are saying about "the" singularity are nothing but speculations? Hanging your belief on a theory that is almost certainly, if not flawed, is incomplete, makes no sense to me. The expansion of the universe from a singularity is subject to change at anytime with out notice. People are working on refining the hypothesis and there are ideas that avoid the singularity altogether but more importantly your assertions about the singularity are not exactly widely supported. I remember when i was young it was often stated that anything could come from a singularity, a sofa, a space ship, a rock, the laws of nature as we know them don't seem to apply, the idea that nothing can come from one with out a creator making it happen is bizarre.

 

If I was a theist i wouldn't try to convince others of my theism by using a science theory that is.... under construction at the very best. if you think there is a creator then fine. Pick a flavor of theism and have faith it is true, science doesn't seem to be in any position to say anything about the existence of creator one way or another.

 

Personal experiences with god abound, you can go to lots of churches and see everything from speaking in tongues to loosing conscience under the influence of a god. To me these things are meaningless, I've had one of those personal experiences, it is overwhelming, but it is also not something you can "show" someone else the value of. I guess i just don't understand the evident drive to demand scientific respect for something that is not scientifically testable.

[mooeypoo]

mooey,

 

I thought it was rather cut and dry. I didn't know we were going to start redefining the characteristics of a singularity or what may result from one being the only thing in existance.

You would think that people who have so many unknown possibilities would include a creator in there somewhere, you know, since "unknown" is so conveniently accepted.

 

You keep throwing these definitions about flase dichotomy, but where is the logical fallicy in assuming that a singularity is something that can't act upon itself if it is the only thing in exsistance? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that fits within the realm of science.

 

 

... And that's a strawman.

 

 

Alright, the reason I keep "throwing" these definitions out is to show you how your claims break apart. In this particular case, your claim is moot because the possibility you claim science holds is not quite the possibilty that science holds. Also, the possibilities you're talking about are included, they're just in a very very "unlikely" position. We keep an open mind, but not all options have equal weight. Sure, I keep an open mind as to the possibility that we were burped out of a humongous alien.

 

That's hardly in the same "level" of plausibility as other speculations, especially ones with supported evidence. See what I mean?

 

I think we've said this multiple times, but you really don't know what singularities mean. Before you go all out against a current theory, don't you think it makes sense that you know what the theory *REALLY* means rather than what you think it means?

 

It's very hard to debate and answer you when you misrepresent singularities and the theory (hence "strawman".)

[dimreepr]

dimreeper,

 

Okay I should have said agnostic DEIST then. I think definition 2 still fits the bill though. It's funny that you want to nitpick my choice in the word agnostic enough to go through definitions, but when it comes to what a singularity is you're not so picky. People can say that the BB came from a singularity and the obvious answer to me is NO, a singularity can not incite action. But we'll just overlook that little detail and get picky about a word chosen to discribe someone's expectation of gaining a certain knowledge. Because that applies to the fundamentals of the conversation doesn't it?

 

 

 

Ok you got me I was nitpicking but damn it I wanted to play... Since the fact, that at present nothing is known about singularities. As so well and eloquently pointed out by members with far more knowledge than me and so often ignored by you I had little choice as to my nitpicking target. The only logical argument of a God/creator that has even made me think twice is Descartes ontological argument (ok I’ll be honest it made me think lots and lots) but it only goes to show the futility of trying to use logic alone to prove a God/creator and since there is NO evidence it leaves me with just one question and I ask this more in hope than expectation, WHY try?

 

 

[JustinW]

WHY try?

Why not?

 

And you're wrong about knowing nothing of singularities. Actually a book was just reffered to me co-written by Hawking on the subject of the singularity before the present expansion. Although boreing in places, and being rather long, it lays out the math and subsequent observations that lead to the high probability of the existance of a singularity. The only thing that is stated in that book that can even come close to contradicting my thoughts on the subject is that they couldn't tell if the initial singularity was stable or not. To me it would seem that, if that singularity was "all there is", meaning no space-time, that it would have no choice but to be stable. This has been my point all along. The name of the book, if you're interested, is "The large scale structure of spacetime" and the explanation for the singularity at the beginning of the BB starts on ch.10 page 348. I won't go through the trouble of providing the links for the BB theory where it includes this singularity, since it is real easy to find and states it in every copy I've found thus far.

 

It's rather amussing that people just state "you're wrong" without doing even the slightest amount of background reading to make such a claim.

 

 

mooey,

 

How am I misrepresenting what a singularity is. Why do you keep saying these kinds of things without even mentioning how? It's almost like I read iNow always saying to people. That there reply equals an "uh uh" and that's the end of it. If I'm misrepresenting something why don't you lay out the basics of how instead of just saying it. If I am, then I will have learned something. Maybe the math says something the words do not. I'm willing to change my thoughts on any subject, but have to have a logical reason for doing so first, and you or anyone else has yet to give me one, other than "nuh uh, you're wrong". That's the type of behavior that makes me hard headed and doesn't go anywhere toward a possitive learning experience.

 

 

 

Just sayin'.

Edited March 8, 2012 by JustinW

[dimreepr]

Why not?

 

Fair enough, though this answer is the same as a mountaineer saying “because it’s there” when asked why s/he climbed the mountain, it’s more of an evasion than an answer.

 

And you're wrong about knowing nothing of singularities. Actually a book was just reffered to me co-written by Hawking on the subject of the singularity before the present expansion. Although boreing in places, and being rather long, it lays out the math and subsequent observations that lead to the high probability of the existance of a singularity. The only thing that is stated in that book that can even come close to contradicting my thoughts on the subject is that they couldn't tell if the initial singularity was stable or not. To me it would seem that, if that singularity was "all there is", meaning no space-time, that it would have no choice but to be stable. This has been my point all along. The name of the book, if you're interested, is "The large scale structure of spacetime" and the explanation for the singularity at the beginning of the BB starts on ch.10 page 348. I won't go through the trouble of providing the links for the BB theory where it includes this singularity, since it is real easy to find and states it in every copy I've found thus far.

 

As far as I’m aware at the present time maths breaks down at the point of a singularity. Speculation as to its nature isn’t the same as the fact of its nature.

 

 

It's rather amussing that people just state "you're wrong" without doing even the slightest amount of background reading to make such a claim.

 

 

 

When have I said you’re wrong? Assuming I have read nothing on the subject is a little arrogant though I’m quite happy to accept my ignorance especially when compared to many/most of the members on this site.

 

 

[JustinW]

Fair enough, though this answer is the same as a mountaineer saying “because it’s there” when asked why s/he climbed the mountain, it’s more of an evasion than an answer.

Guess it boils down to self satisfaction.

 

 

As far as I’m aware at the present time maths breaks down at the point of a singularity. Speculation as to its nature isn’t the same as the fact of its nature.

 

True to a point. We know that singularity is there BECAUSE the maths break down at that point. We can reasonably deduce the nature by examining other singularities (or the stuff around them). But even that tells us a lot about the nature of the beast. And as I stated before, this is not something I'm claiming to be 100% accurate. It is just what can reasonably be deduced from what is known and has been observed. People just tend to freak out when the word "creator" pops up. My comments weren't intended to be fully directed at a creator, but instead in the conditions that are necessary for one to exist. Something had to ocurr with that singularity that was outside the realm of its existance.