Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)

[Into the Night]

That's a well known skeptical argument that's been around for decades.

My observation is not required. The universe and it's physical constants were around for billions of years before humans. We can surmise a universe can physically exist without humans looking at it.

The argument that a universe can't be any other way than ir it is, is at least as speculative as saying a universe can be manifested in different ways.


Now, are you going to follow me around all day again?
You wrote you don't like me, and claim I am poorly educated, misinformed, and incapable of insight.
If so, what is your relentless interest in me? I don't follow people around I think are stupid, uneducated, boring.

Nope. Constants in physics are created by Man. Their purpose is to convert a relation to our units of measurement. They are not magick. They are not mysterious.

 

[Into the Night]

Ummm, yeah he did. 1869.

Go ahead and Google it if you don't believe me.

The term was coined by Huxley from Greek, applying the 'A-' prefix (meaning not) to 'gnostic' (relating to a description or character of spiritual things (or of a god or gods)). It's meaning has always been to refer to not knowing the character of god or gods (or other spiritual power or character). It DOES, however, assume such to exist, just the character for it is unknown and unknowable.

Atheism is similar. It is the 'A-' prefix (meaning not) to 'theism' (religion), but it is NOT the same. Atheism does not acknowledge or deny anything 'spiritual' or any god or gods.

The Church of No God is a religion. A fundamentalist style religion (it tries to prove itself True), usually by misusing 'sCiEnCe' and occasionally 'mAtHeMaTiCs'.

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not. Agnostics don't try to bother, since it cannot define the character of such, or even the number of such. Atheists don't try to bother either, since it simply takes the attitude of not caring whether any god or gods exist or not.

The Church of No God does bother, since it insists on attempting to prove that no god or gods exist (creating a circular argument fallacy, the very definition of fundamentalism).

 

[Cypress]

This particular argument was later reversed, by phenomenology, a branch of philosophy.

Observations must be interpreted. Our sensors (or any instrument that augments them) produces a stimuli, but that stimuli must be interpreted by us to give them meaning of any kind. That interpretation must necessarily be made according to our own version of how we figure the universe works. Thus, every observation is colored by our own previous experiences. That interpretation is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. To each of us, therefore, that is our own 'reality'.

The part that is wrong with this philosophy you have provided is that science itself, as well as mathematics, logic, and even philosophy itself, are creations of the mind. Even the concept of infinity is created in the mind.

None are 'absolute truth'. None is 'absolute reality'.

Can reality change? Certainly. What was once a real god carrying the Sun across the sky becomes a real effect of a spinning Earth in space as one simple example.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Cypress]

You are not 'we'.
Buzzword fallacies.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Cypress]

What Big Bang?
You are are just assuming it happened?

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[Cypress]

Nope. Constants in physics are created by Man. Their purpose is to convert a relation to our units of measurement. They are not magick. They are not mysterious.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[IBDaMann]

You have summarized my position nicely. You have also shown what agnosticism is very nicely.

This whole argument, of course came out of the confusion between an atheist, such as you, and a member of the Church of No God, a fundamentalist style religion. Atheism is not a religion at all. It isn't 'militant'. It simply doesn't address whether there is a god or gods at all. It doesn't care.

You are, of course, spot on. I noticed this when you posting and I figured you had that well under control.

There is no such thing as a militant lack of anything.

 

[IBDaMann]

No. A definition. Uni- means 'one'. Universe means everything. It is one universe.

Hence the unfortunate nature of the decision to use the prefix "uni."

There is no known boundary.

Light makes a very concrete boundary.

No. It is not 'expanding', because there is no boundary.

There is a solid boundary, i.e. the light that is expanding outward. There is no rational basis for belief that the first light emitted either just stopped at some point or simply vanished. There is no rational basis for belief that there was never any light emitted.

You are actually trying to argue for the so-called 'multiverse'.

Nope. I don't claim to know how many of these "expandiverses" there are. Ours might be the only one. Of course, there might be others elsewhere. For me to be arguing for a "multiverse" I have to be claiming that there are, in fact, others and I am not making that claim.

I would add that I do not know what lies beyond our expandiverse, and it might be a universe that extends infinitely in all directions and always was, and this universe might have other expandiverses. I don't know.

My only claim is that humanity appears to be stuck on a planet that can see extremely little of what's out there, but all of what we can see is expanding. How can we conclude that the universe is expanding from our red-shift observations? Hawking addresses that very well in his thesis via the properties of expanding universes ... or what I call expandiverses.

Oddly enough, YOU are currently arguing for the 'multiverse' as well!

You are confusing the concept of a "multiverse" with the "many worlds" theory.

None. There is no unit called 'universe'. These are units of length, not units of universe.

There is no unit called "gasoline" but "gallon" works well enough as a unit of measure. There's also "octane" for other aspects.

Not science.

I don't think you've really looked at it. His thesis contains many falsifiable models for properties (physics) of what he calls an expanding universe, models that predict nature, models that have endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and that have not yet been falsified. Nobody has yet discussed any of them in this thread. All that has been discussed is the singularity as a theoretical limit for rolling back the clock of an expanding universe.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

Yes, an ultimatum is a type of choice. Did you never learn what a "choice" is? Having to choose between the lesser of two evils is still choosing, as is choosing between any things you really don't like.

So, answer the question.

Option A: Spend eternity fellating an egotistical monster.

Option B: Spend eternity burning for refusing to fellate an egotistical monster.

Damn. Good thing your god is myth.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

if you don't believe there is a god, what ultimatum are you thinking of?........

I'm referring to your religion.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I'm referring to your religion.

I am finding that many people on this particular forum are unable to accept that one can debate a point even if one does not believe that point to be true. I think everyone should have to have a philosophy class in undergrad taught by a good prof who knows how to challenge people and get them thinking about thinking as a sport and to be able to discuss a topic without regards to the personal frame.

 

[IBDaMann]

Option A: Spend eternity fellating an egotistical monster.
Option B: Spend eternity burning for refusing to fellate an egotistical monster.

Damn. Good thing your god is myth.

What egotistical monster and which god is my god?

 

[IBDaMann]

your photoshops take up a lot of space......

Let's make an agreement. I'll make posts that use less space, and you make posts that use more thought. Fair?

By the way, I don't use Photoshop. I use GIMP.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think everyone should have to have a philosophy class in undergrad taught by a good prof who knows how to challenge people and get them thinking about thinking as a sport and to be able to discuss a topic without regards to the personal frame.

That would totally the wrong way to go. Computer programming, optimally Java, would teach this far better than a leftist professor who is merely using the opportunity to indoctrinate a captive audience of stupid college students who think they are already geniuses with all the life experience they are ever going to need.

 

[Into the Night]

Hence the unfortunate nature of the decision to use the prefix "uni."

So now you choose to argue for a multiverse.

Light makes a very concrete boundary.

Light is not concrete nor a boundary.

There is a solid boundary, i.e. the light that is expanding outward.

Light is not a boundary.

There is no rational basis for belief that the first light emitted either just stopped at some point or simply vanished. There is no rational basis for belief that there was never any light emitted.

This is assuming there is a 'first light', i.e. a Big Bang. Circular reasoning.

Nope. I don't claim to know how many of these "expandiverses" there are. Ours might be the only one. Of course, there might be others elsewhere. For me to be arguing for a "multiverse" I have to be claiming that there are, in fact, others and I am not making that claim.

You are making that claim, then you try to deny making that claim. That's a paradox. It's irrational to argue both sides of paradox. You can't dodge it with semantic fallacies.

I would add that I do not know what lies beyond our expandiverse, and it might be a universe that extends infinitely in all directions and always was, and this universe might have other expandiverses. I don't know.

Then there is no universe, for you are arguing a multiverse. You are doing the same thing a warmazombie does when trying to partition the atmosphere and the earth.

My only claim is that humanity appears to be stuck on a planet that can see extremely little of what's out there, but all of what we can see is expanding. How can we conclude that the universe is expanding from our red-shift observations? Hawking addresses that very well in his thesis via the properties of expanding universes ... or what I call expandiverses.

A universe without boundaries cannot expand. There is nothing about the size of said universe to 'expand'.

You are confusing the concept of a "multiverse" with the "many worlds" theory.

Semantics fallacy.

There is no unit called "gasoline" but "gallon" works well enough as a unit of measure. There's also "octane" for other aspects.

A gallon is not a measure of the universe.

I don't think you've really looked at it. His thesis contains many falsifiable models for properties (physics) of what he calls an expanding universe, models that predict nature, models that have endured the scrutiny of the scientific method and that have not yet been falsified. Nobody has yet discussed any of them in this thread. All that has been discussed is the singularity as a theoretical limit for rolling back the clock of an expanding universe.

No science is being discussed here. You cannot declare a theory based on a fallacy. Something without a boundary cannot expand.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Yes, we don't know why there was just slightly more matter created than antimatter after the big bang. Particle physics research seems to indicate they are created in exactly equal amounts.

I don't see why there couldn't be a universe of pure energy or plasma if you screwed around with the Higgs field and the universal physical constants. The fact that matter, biology, chemistry exist was seemingly a consequence of a precise mathmatical convergence of physical constants. Maybe it is a random coincidence.

Something created means it isn't just random coincidence.

 

[IBDaMann]

So now you choose to argue for a multiverse.

Nope. You are trying to assign to me a position that I do not hold. I make absolutely no claim as to the number of expandiverses that exist or that have existed beyond the one in which I find myself. I have thoroughly explained my (humanity's) severe lack of visibility. I do not know and I have no belief in that regard. I don't even have any interest. My only interest is in the properties of the expandiverse in which I find myself.

Light is not concrete nor a boundary.

Yes, it most certainly is. The light as I described it most certainly forms the boundary that I described.

This is assuming there is a 'first light',

Yes, which is why I took the time to explain the concept of a singularity. i.e. roll back time to the theoretical limit.

i.e. a Big Bang. Circular reasoning.

Nope. The idea of a singularity is a rational assumption based on countless observations. No one is requiring you to accept the observations, but you can't very well hold those observations against those who have made them and documented them.

You are making that claim,

I never have.

A gallon is not a measure of the universe.

Sure it is. I can point to one gallon of the universe right now. You can too.

No science is being discussed here.

That's what I've been saying. Nobody has breached any of Hawking's properties. All that has been discussed is the theoretical limit of a singularity, which is nothing more than a definition.

Also, Hawking addressed your idea of an infinitely timeless universe and noted that for it to be the case, the stars that we see would have had to have had an infinite supply of energy, having shown for an infinite amount of time. This is a valid argument that needs a response. If your answer is that God has been feeding the stars with energy for eternity, then there is a problem because science can't build religion into its models (Occam's Razor cuts it out). Without an explanation, however, the 2nd law of thermodynamics kills that idea. An expanding universe from a singularity not only does not suffer from this problem, it conforms to all observations.

It's a tough model to circumvent on the science front. Religion, of course, provides an expanded possibility set, but those can't reside in science.

Note: if this thread should ever get beyond the singularity and the expanding universe description (in the book's introduction) and begin discussing the actual science in the thesis, Hawking references Maxwell's equations and their impact on science, and I'm looking forward to popping that out of my back pocket for a nice sub-thread.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. You are trying to assign to me a position that I do not hold. I make absolutely no claim as to the number of expandiverses that exist or that have existed beyond the one in which I find myself. I have thoroughly explained my (humanity's) severe lack of visibility. I do not know and I have no belief in that regard. I don't even have any interest. My only interest is in the properties of the expandiverse in which I find myself.

No boundary. You can't expand something with no boundary.

Yes, it most certainly is. The light as I described it most certainly forms the boundary that I described.

Light is not a boundary.

Yes, which is why I took the time to explain the concept of a singularity. i.e. roll back time to the theoretical limit.

An assumption. Not science. A religion.

Nope. The idea of a singularity is a rational assumption based on countless observations.

So is Christianity. So is the Church of No God. So is Shinto.

No one is requiring you to accept the observations, but you can't very well hold those observations against those who have made them and documented them.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Observations are not a proof.

I never have.

You have. You have talked about multiple 'verses, just the same as those you make fun of for doing so.

Sure it is. I can point to one gallon of the universe right now. You can too.

One gallon is not the universe. You cannot measure what has no boundary.

That's what I've been saying. Nobody has breached any of Hawking's properties. All that has been discussed is the theoretical limit of a singularity, which is nothing more than a definition.

A definition based on a religion. Perhaps you aren't the atheist you think you are.

Also, Hawking addressed your idea of an infinitely timeless universe and noted that for it to be the case, the stars that we see would have had to have had an infinite supply of energy,

Not necessary. Stars can certainly come and go.

having shown for an infinite amount of time.

Not necessary. Nothing says a star has to be shining for an infinite amount of time in a universe that has always been and always will be.

This is a valid argument that needs a response.

Nope. It's a false conditional.

If your answer is that God has been feeding the stars with energy for eternity,

No God necessary.

then there is a problem because science can't build religion into its models (Occam's Razor cuts it out).

No God necessary.

Without an explanation, however, the 2nd law of thermodynamics kills that idea.

No it doesn't. The 2nd law means entropy can never decrease. It can certainly increase or stay the same. In a universe that has always been and always will be, entropy simply stays the same.

An expanding universe from a singularity not only does not suffer from this problem, it conforms to all observations.

No, it doesn't. No boundary has ever been observed.

It's a tough model to circumvent on the science front.

It is not science.

Religion, of course, provides an expanded possibility set, but those can't reside in science.

Correct.

Note: if this thread should ever get beyond the singularity and the expanding universe description (in the book's introduction) and begin discussing the actual science in the thesis, Hawking references Maxwell's equations and their impact on science, and I'm looking forward to popping that out of my back pocket for a nice sub-thread.

There was a brief interlude about Maxwell, but the twit rejected it, of course. I don't think you're going to get your thread about Maxwell's equations unless you start it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm referring to your religion.

so am I.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I am a GIMP.

..