Debating Theism

a reply to: Giovonni

Are we on the slope to a God of the gaps? It's going to take time to give you a decent reply. I'm getting off ATS in a few to do some work - and your question is simple, but will require a bit of research on my part. I apologize for the wait in advance.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni

Are we on the slope to a God of the gaps? It's going to take time to give you a decent reply. I'm getting off ATS in a few to do some work - and your question is simple, but will require a bit of research on my part. I apologize for the wait in advance.

This is not a God of the gaps argument such as "we don't know how lightning happens, so it was Zeus!". There are contemporary cosmological arguments which support the universe began to exist. This is a religiously neutral statement. Stephen Hawking has said " All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." Apparently you disagree.

a reply to: Giovonni

The Hawking quote applies to the universe. As far as I'm aware, the most prevalent theories now concern multiple universes and are not limited to just this universe. However, the question of how potential energy became kinetic remains - regardless of how many universes are in existence.

The answer - we don't start with potential energy. We start with kinetic energy, particularly light (photons). A relevant question was asked and answered here and if you want to see that light can become matter by itself, then read this article of how matter was created using a photon-photon collider.

a reply to: scorpio84

The multiverse theory has a number of problems and is no means accepted by all. Even so, talk about how quantum vacuums allow energy to pop into existence is not something answered by science. I'm off to sleep but if you have a chance you may want to give this a read regarding the scientific Kalam Cosomological Argument. [url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org...]

a reply to: Giovonni

Are we ignoring the obvious answer here? Forget multiple universes - that isn't even the important part. Maybe there is one cyclic universe that constantly and forever collapses on itself and starts over. What is relevant is the information I posed regarding photons. Considering light can produce matter on its own, then I find it reasonable to presume that light has always existed and that talk of a "void" is correct if and only if by "void" is meant "light."

First, if light is there, then we are talking of intense energy, and thus heat. As far as I understand it, a quantum vacuum would be possible only at absolute zero. However, even then we have the notion of zero-point energy.

The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

Scientists are not in agreement about how much energy is contained in the vacuum and for what purpose if any it could be used. Quantum mechanics requires the energy to be large as Paul Dirac claimed it is, like a sea of energy. Other scientists specializing in General Relativity require the energy to be small enough for curvature of space to agree with observed astronomy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows the energy to be as large as needed to promote quantum actions for a brief moment of time, even if the average energy is small enough to satisfy relativity and flat space. To cope with disagreements, the vacuum energy is described as a virtual energy potential of positive and negative energy.[5]

Source

As for how energy can exist at all and the origins thereof, I think vacuum energy does the best job explaining it. I hope this thread will be visited by a physicist who can explain these things better than I am doing - and maybe even put it all into layman's terms.

a reply to: Giovonni

By the way, I've seen several debates involved William Lane Craig - he's off his rocker. Looking to him for scientific information is like looking to a blind person for an accurate description of a mugger who just ran by.

Edited to add:

In the site you linked me to, Craig makes several errors.

1). "The first premise is that whatever begins to exist has a cause"

This incorrectly assumes there was a beginning or cause.

Furthermore, Craig goes on to criticize astrophysicists such as Krauss and Hawking. I am not so sure Craig even picked up a physics 101 book in his life, let alone has the understanding of quantum physics that would qualify him to disagree with them.

The whole "something from nothing" argument is incorrect, because it incorrectly assumes a point of absolute nothingness. Even if there was nothing physically there, as I showed you regarding photons, nothing physically need exist for matter to be created.

Right there, I've defeated Craig's entire argument. Hope your sleep was a good one.

a reply to: scorpio84

Maybe there is one cyclic universe that constantly and forever collapses on itself and starts over.

" However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it."

-wiki

Looking to him for scientific information is like looking to a blind person for an accurate description of a mugger who just ran by.

Genetic Fallacy.

1). "The first premise is that whatever begins to exist has a cause"

This incorrectly assumes there was a beginning or cause.

Wrong. What we call space-time came into existence at 1 time 10^-43 seconds this is called the first planck-time and it is the amount of time it takes a photon to travel a planck length, before that what we call space-time was not in existence, since that is the case we can say space-time began as its current state was not eternal, therefore space-time began which means space time had a cause.

The whole "something from nothing" argument is incorrect, because it incorrectly assumes a point of absolute nothingness. Even if there was nothing physically there, as I showed you regarding photons, nothing physically need exist for matter to be created.

Photons exist as an electromagnetic wave. Waves are essentially a way in which energy can be transferred from one place to another. Without space there is no transfer because no system we know of can exist without three dimensional space.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fact that Photons exist seems to indicate there is a form of space time that existed, but that doesn't provide evidence for an eternal universe. Saying that energy is neither created nor destroyed won't solve the riddle of why any energy was there to begin with. It seems that we are at an impasse here. To me it makes logical sense that matter/energy needs an intelligent uncaused cause, whereas you presume it existed forever. Neither of us are able to show this empirically. I will say that this at a minimum it leaves open the possibility of a creator.

Moving on, how do you feel about the historicity of Jesus? I'm guessing you believe Jesus to be the product of myth?

a reply to: Giovonni

You apparently either hit the wrong person, or completely misunderstood my post as it argued for a finite universe lol.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Giovonni

You apparently either hit the wrong person, or completely misunderstood my post as it argued for a finite universe lol.

I hit the wrong person.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Citing a wiki article, but not bothering to link it - claiming genetic fallacy over an analogy...honestly, just stop. You make no sense and I'm tired of wasting my time on you.

a reply to: Giovonni

I couldn't begin to give a proper explanation of things. Suffice it to say that the Planck scale isn't the smallest something can be - it's the smallest it can be without having to take infinity into consideration. As far as space-time being required for photons to exist, I found this article about photon travel and how they do not experience time-elapse or distance being covered.

I'll leave the rest of the science argument for anyone with actual knowledge of quantum mechanics/physics/etc.

As for Jesus - I'm inclined to think there was a Jesus (or whatever his name was) that more or less matches the depiction from the Gospels.

originally posted by: scorpio84

I'll leave the rest of the science argument for anyone with actual knowledge of quantum mechanics/physics/etc.

As for Jesus - I'm inclined to think there was a Jesus (or whatever his name was) that more or less matches the depiction from the Gospels.

Perhaps we can agree that the mathematics involved is so complex that less than.01% of the world's people can properly understand it. That said, there are differences of opinion such as this article published in the MIT technology review. [url=http://www.technologyreview.com...]

Regardless, I don't feel you've shown belief in a created Universe to be unreasonable, leaving open the possibility of a creator.

originally posted by: scorpio84

As for Jesus - I'm inclined to think there was a Jesus (or whatever his name was) that more or less matches the depiction from the Gospels.

We agree here. How do you account for the resurrection narrative?

a reply to: Giovonni

It's a story. There is nothing, other than hearsay, to suggest it is true. Considering the earliest extant NT manuscript in existence dates from the 3rd century, we are relying on words that - at best - were written down around three centuries after the events in Jesus' life. That is hardly a reliable source.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss

Allow me to just sum up what you just said:

Okey dokey...

God exists because we think He does

If you are implying a 'causal relationship' then, nope!
There is no 'because' after the statement; "God exists!"
I Am that I Am!
'Thoughts' are features of Reality, thus thoughts and imagination/ego are features of Reality, thus imaginary God is still 'God' and is the only way that some are capable of Perceiving God, in their imagination/ego!
That is what 'religion' is all about, 'imagination', rather than mystical experiential Knowledge.
There is not anything that exists, ever, whether a thought or the sun or the body in the mirror..., that is NOT God/Self!

and reality is in our minds,

Reality is ALL INCLUSIVE!
Within and without 'thought'.

thus our ideas/perceptions are reality,

As much as anything else that exists!
Everything exists!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

which means that God, as an idea, is reality.

True, but that does not exclude God from being Reality other than in the imagination!
Which means that anything that you can name, and anything that you can't, is Reality!
ALL inclusive!

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

More or less, right?

*__-

Suffice it to say that the Planck scale isn't the smallest something can be - it's the smallest it can be without having to take infinity into consideration.

Suffice it to say that since 'infinites' do not exist, other than as fanciful imagination, that the Planck scales are the 'smallest' units of being.

a reply to: Giovonni

Belief in God - especially when you accept science - is pretty much hedging one's bets. It's a guess. It is irrational, because there is zero reason to believe. Science has already explained what happens down to the planck instant - it's just the question of before that instant - a point at which infinity can not be renormalized - what happened? There is not one thing that should lead a person to belief in a deity other than a personal need to have all questions answered.

a reply to: namelesss

Yes, God exists in the imagination - that's what I said, in different words.

You are arguing that reality is all we know - in other words, it is impossible to perceive of that which isn't real - correct or am I missing something? It sounds very Cartesian to me.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss
Yes, God exists in the imagination - that's what I said, in different words.

I agree!
But that does not mean that God does not exist beyond the imagination, also.

You are arguing that reality is all we know - in other words, it is impossible to perceive of that which isn't real - correct or am I missing something? It sounds very Cartesian to me.

Yes! Reality is ALL inclusive! Omni-! One!
All we CAN know (experience/perceive) is Reality!
You cannot perceive anything that is not Real, because everything is Real!
Everything exists!

a reply to: namelesss

Well, as it is now, it seems that whatever is happening before what can be measured by the planck scale must necessarily include infinity. However, the question then becomes does "infinity" imply "God" or does it simply imply eternity?

By saying everything exists, it seems you are saying that our perception creates the reality. The unicorn in one's mind is as real as the horse grazing in the field. However - how do you explain that certain realities are made manifest while others stay in the mind but never become manifest?