Science 'versus' God?

[Profpat]

I think if the universe is created than it's created by a creator. I find God to be the most logical Person to fill that position.

I still not following this " Potential " in your theory. So IT was always there and " decided " to create a universe even though it's mindless 15 billion years ago?

[Graybeard]

Most Scientists accept that it was 14 billion years ago that the BB inflation occurred, the universe may be much older, even eternal.

greg

Maybe, but the best evidence is that for the BB. That there was a Beginning.

It may be eternal, for something has to be eternal. So what evidence do you have that the universe is eternal? No fair grave robbing Hoyle for his brain thoughts on this matter.

Best,

Pat

Austin ... please note, as agreed, I'm on the road to sainthood, move over Mother Theresa

greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

So IT was always there and " decided " to create a universe even though it's mindless 15 billion years ago?

Probably lots of universes.


I find God to be the most logical Person to fill that position.

Can’t just have a Mind being the first and just sitting around uncaused. That is the same reason that we don’t accept the universe to be just here uncaused. Otherwise, we would just close up ToeQuest. Minds, even Great Ultimate Minds, are systems and systems have components and parts complex and composite that have to be made out of even simpler and more fundamental parts. Figuring that out would be some really big TOEQUEST. So, it can’t just end (begin) with an already formed mind.


(Hi Saint Graybeard.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

I still not following this " Potential " in your theory

The constraints that lead to the notion of Possibility/Potential are:

1) If all was once Nothing, then nothing would ever exist, since nothing could become of Nothing. It’s not like we can take a patch of nothing and have its waves and crests uncancel and produce stuff or have it divide into plus and minus stuff. There can’t be a patch of Nothing. There can’t even be Nothing, for the real definition of Nothing that we usually forget is that it’s not even there. Here it is; see it? No, for it is not there. It has no being in any way. If it did, then it wouldn’t be Nothing. Nothing can’t do any darn thing.

2) Therefore, not only is there something, but something had to be, since Nothing can’t be, obviously since something is indeed here that maybe got created from another kind of halfway ‘something’ that produces stuff, like the quantum realm. Perhaps the precise reason there has to be something is that Nothing couldn’t maintain itself, thus some necessary jitterbugging random beats having to happen.

3) Real stuff, like our universe, is chained to time, and therefore it couldn’t have been around forever since A) There is no definition without something having been defined. B) “forever’s” and “infinities” never complete and couldn’t have already happened for actual stuff.

4) Thus, Potential/Possibility, needing nothing before it, ending any regress. So, this way, we avoid the impossibility of something from nothing as well as the problem of actual defined stuff having been around forever with no initial definition, as there was no initial time.

Now, I really hope a new universe doesn’t just pop up in the middle of my house. What a mess that would be. So, maybe new universes can’t really pop up in what is already a universe.

[austintorn@aol.com]

These sidelines are so great to keep on going. So hope all keep on keeping on.

In between I'll post some more prep work for the disproof of the God Theity, like this:

9) God performs miracles.


I was also thinking of including the afterlife notion as an attribute, but it seems the Jewish don't really believe in this, although I could be wrong, and so I can't yet make that a part of the common core of the Theity. No matter, though, for when the Theity is proved not to exist, then this part won't matter.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Beliefs In the Unknown

Ungrounded Beliefs Upheld

(more prep work)

As Fredrick would say, a belief is that construct that states we consider something as true. But considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true.

Indeed, that is the ‘hold up’, for a belief hangs in the air, because it is upheld by the owner of the belief.

OK, let’s back up a bit.

1) A person has a belief—a consideration.

A) If it’s of the known, fine—it has facts and evidence behind it, but here we are examining another type of belief.

B) Maybe it’s a hope or a wish for normal Earth happenings that might be possible. This belief may or may not be true or come true.

C) For paranormal or supernatural beliefs, it gets worse, for this kind of belief is of the invisible.


2) Can this kind of belief, as in (C), be used as its own proof? Can a definite pronouncement be made?

No, it gets even worse, for the belief is not even garenteed to be a truth, much less a proof of a truth.

How is it, then, that this kind of supernatural hypothesis, theory, idea, wish, hope, etc., can be proclaimed and firmly pronounced to be a truth insead of being stated as merely a consideration or a superstition, even ones that were/are taught by/to many by rote?

3) Well, these shouldn’t really be taught as a truth, but as a theory; however, the believer indeed presents it as a truth. This is a clear error. We see it all the time (of course, anyone’s else’s mere and contrary pronouncements must obviously be totally false). The believer should really say that the belief is just a hypothesis that s/he hopes and wishes might be true.

Now, does this analysis really apply to those who have a belief that is simply comforting and consoling to have? No. for they already only regard it as a theory.

To be continued another time—there are many steps to go that will necessarily come forth from utilizing these unknowing ‘considerations’ called beliefs.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Neither Nor

Neither “nothing” nor “infinity” can be,
As “nothing” is not there and so “it” cannot be,
And “infinity” can never be reached,
Being a hopeless sequence never completed.

Something real had to be, but not forever so;
Thus, there was was creation of things that grow,
Via the “something” of no laws, form, time or fee—
That which needs nothing before it: Possibility.

[Profpat]

Austin ... please note, as agreed, I'm on the road to sainthood, move over Mother Theresa

greg

Hi Greg:

So is this the best evidence you want to share with me regarding that the universe is eternal?

I rest my case gentlemen.

Best to you both on your journey towards Truth.

Pat

[racecar]

Just for a bit of fun guys because it's fun to be fun, and besides us girls just wanna have fun ya know...
BTW, this must be our 21st Century EVE ... hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRsoKMdF9QY

No pat, i haven't been taking anything, i don't do weird stuff.
Except post on forums...
I'm quite a nice girl actually.

Every morning my daughter and I sit together drinking our coffee and watching videos. Appreciated one today, by Depeche Mode (Sounds of the Universe), Wrong.

Loving our girly, fun moments...may they live well and prosper.

[Profpat]

[quote=Profpat;88572]

I forget if it was you or Fredrick that I discussed Potential with

Both of us, Prof. Movement is of physical laws; Potential necessarily came before laws and form. It made them. Fully defined laws of strength, size, mass, inherent properties, forces, where, and how much can't just be sitting around eternally with no definition in the first place, there being no first place when somethings is/was eternal. There was creation! ( Austin )

So Eternal " Potential" made the Fully Defined Laws of size, mass, inherent properties, forces...and....There was creation! ( Pat's response )

Hi Greg and Austin;

I forgot to reiterate my case for a God created universe. I believe the above represents your case for: a " mindless, senseless ( your words Austin ) eternal " Potential " created the universe and defined the laws.

Of course there is no evidence that this is how creation occured. A true scientist wouldn't touch that question with a 10 foot pole. They would have stopped at, there was a created universe. Anything before that creation is metaphysics and faith. Thank you for sharing your metaphysics, or is it faith, with us on the creation of the universe.

MY CASE:


<< Genesis 1 >>
King James Bible 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

My Evidence;

1) It is the most logical answer as to where we came from. The following passages is an Evolutionary story taking us from light to man, in six major steps.

2) Expert witness testimony, which is accepted in every court of the land. Who are witnesses who either believe through faith or logic in GOD. To name a few:

Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, DARWIN, Einstein.

3) LOVE. The one thing Austin, Greg and myself agree on is that " You gotta have Love "
I found my source of love in God. End of search beginning of Joy. Love also explains why we have a conscience that gives us a moral code to do right and avoid wrong. Nice thing to have, but, with our free will, we don't have to follow it.

4) Everything else you see, feel, hear, smell, touch, have emotions and have doubts about, the whole 10 yards, is evidence of God. The universes sheer beauty, and awesomeness.
And of course life is what it's all about, an aware loving life, with a free will, in the " Image and likeness of God "

It comes down to faith.

Best

Pat