Heaven & Hell (Open to Everyone)

[Dutch Uncle]

Is it "worship" if you merely acknowledge that a mystery could exist that is beyond our current capacity to understand at this point in time?

...or take steps to understand it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hmm. I would call that "curiosity," and maybe even "science." We've gotten where we are as a species at least partly for our insatiable curiosity and drive to know.

Which might help explain human likings of cats.

Cypresses threads on intelligence addressed some of about how the science and/or "truth" seeking natures of mankind helped us leave trees and caves.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Huxley doesn't define 'agnostic' or 'atheism'. False authority fallacy.

Mantra 42 small dick syndrome

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

fuck you troll

 

[BidenPresident]

you are as big an asshole as doc dutch

back to ignore jerkoff

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Huxley doesn't define 'agnostic' or 'atheism'. False authority fallacy.

Huxley invented the term. Learn SOMETHING other than electricity.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

you are as big an asshole as doc dutch

back to ignore jerkoff

Nah, I can't be as big an asshole as Doc Dutch! He mocks the disabled!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. You have not yet defined 'transcendent reality'.

Fine.

Man is not a chimpanzee.

Buzzword fallacy.

Buzzword fallacies.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. Atheism has no position and is no religion at all.
The Universe just is. It doesn't need a reason.

There are two competing theories concerning the Universe: the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum. One says the Universe has a beginning (and an end). The other says the Universe as always existed and always will.

Mantra 43 Fecal incontinence due to sex-related weakened anal sphincter

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nah, I can't be as big an asshole as Doc Dutch! He mocks the disabled!

When people have to lie about me is how I know I'm winning.

If I was in the wrong, they'd be using facts against me. You don't have any facts, Perry, just lies and bullshit. Sad.

Maybe one day maybe you'll become strong and honest enough to admit when you dropped out of college and always regretted it.

 

[Cypress]

Quite right. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory and a religion.

By 'militant atheists' you mean the Church of No God. Atheists don't care if there is a god or not. They are not religious.

Same with an atheist.

Science doesn't know anything. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Math error. Failure to declare boundary.

He didn't. He was talking the Theory of the Big Bang. The Universe, however, just is. It exists. No further explanation about the Universe is necessary for the Universe to exist.

Buzzword fallacy. What is 'transcendant reality'?

Man is not a chimpanzee. They are separate species. Otherwise, correct.

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Fallacy 36b.

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

If one does not understand why there are two high tides and two low tides everyday, does that mean you worship them?

Silly conclusion, dude.

Mantra 44 Pulling nonsensical conclusions out of your ass.

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Cypress]

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. You have not yet defined 'transcendent reality'.
Fine.
Man is not a chimpanzee.

Buzzword fallacy.

Buzzword fallacies.

There is no such thing as a 'militant atheist'. Atheism has no position and is no religion at all.
The Universe just is. It doesn't need a reason.
There are two competing theories concerning the Universe: the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum. One says the Universe has a beginning (and an end). The other says the Universe as always existed and always will.

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

 

[BidenPresident]

Two fifths rule. Every thread has two people talking and three people trolling.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

yes, they are.......you get to choose......

An ultimatum is not a choice.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Okay, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

You said that acknowledging the existence of a "mystery" -- something we don't understand, can't measure -- is "worship." Are we defining "mystery" differently?

 

[BidenPresident]

You said that acknowledging the existence of a "mystery" -- something we don't understand, can't measure -- is "worship." Are we defining "mystery" differently?

Mystery: I know this is mysterious.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

An ultimatum is not a choice.

Correct. It's the dogma that makes it an ultimatum, not the actual choice. How can anyone have free will if they are given an ultimatum?

 

[IBDaMann]

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. I never said any theory was inconsistent with the Theory of the Big Bang.

I apologize. That's what I thought you meant when you wrote:

I submit that the Theory of the Big Bang is NOT consistent with any model of science.

I would have to ask for clarification because I don't understand what you mean.

Here you have it right. The Theory of the Big Bang can be consistent with theories of science, but no theory of science depends on it.

Exactly. Whatever actually happened at that point in time is speculative ... and irrelevant. Stephen Hawking simply made a model that is consistent with all observations made by humanity, i.e. the observable universe is expanding like an inflating balloon, so going backwards in time, the observable universe contracts like a deflating balloon. Maybe things really didn't happen exactly that way in the past. Maybe the balloon inflated some and then deflated and inflated some more and deflated some more or whatever. Hawking's singularity could be replaced by any theory you like, include yours, as long as your speculation holds that the observable universe (just the part that we can observe and/or have observed) began expanding at some point like an inflating balloon into what we observe now, i.e. expanding. It is within this context that Hawking's thesis fits, i.e. "Properties of Expanding Universes." You might take umbrage with the title, making "Universes" a plural, but if there is only one universe and it is expanding, it holds the properties explained in the thesis.

Of course, anyone is free to dispute the assumption that the observable universe is expanding, and thus dispute Hawking's properties of the observable universe. My personal opinion is that such a denial is not rational and will not make for a convincing rational argument.

You JUST SAID that we cannot see much of the Universe at all.

Correct. I stand by that.

Sure, our little corner appears to have objects moving away from each other, but that means NOTHING for the remaining Universe.

Correct. The vast bulk of what exists, and what is going on, is a matter of speculation. My personal speculation is one of extrapolation based on the flake of the particle of the speck that we can observe. I definitely could be mistaken but it's my operating assumption.

The Universe is just that...universal. It is everything and everywhere.

That is your speculation; you haven't seen everything everywhere. However, your speculation is as valid as anyone else's, or moreso in the case of irrational speculations that deny observations.

The question that remains, and you don't need to give an answer, is whether you agree that the part we observe is expanding. If you agree that it is expanding, you are signing up for the properties that Hawking lays out in his thesis (and not for any narrative of the past).

It has no known boundaries.

Actually (damn, I hate sounding like Swan) Hawking clearly specifies boundaries for the purposes of creating an unambiguous model. You might very well disagree, but Hawking gives you all the ammunition you might want in the way of context and assumptions for you to rip into the model if you so choose. I'll explain it here for you.

Imagine time going in reverse and you are observing that everything observable is contracting towards a single point. You rewind the clock all the way to the point of the singularity, then you allow time to resume going forward and the light that escapes from the singularity forms an expanding outer sphere that wholly contains the expanding sphere of the matter within. The outer light sphere forms the limit to what we can observe (we can't see anything beyond that) and the outer sphere contains all the information about the singularity and the moments thereafter. Many people who are desperate for attention and who wish to appear "thuper thmart" talk about the mysterious cosmic background radiation as unlocking all the secrets to the mysteries of the universe and, you'll get a kick out of this, confirming the Big Bang ... but only certain thientithts are qualified and blessed by the right universities to "interpret" the wonderful information being provided by the holy cosmic background radiation.

Look at this post by Cypress. We can all use a laugh.

The bad news for humanity is that all the information about what happened at the singularity (and possibly before) was off to the races at the speed of light long ago and as hard as we might ride to catch that herd we ain't a gonna be catching it.

The multiverse. It figures both Cypress and keepit would share a liking for that fantasy.

There is no unit of measure for the Universe.

There are many. The meter works well enough. The light year works as well. My favorite is the cubit; we should bring that back. If it was good enough for the window on the ark, it's good enough for me.

To have more than one 'universe' means the Universe is not universal. It is not everything and everywhere.

You are making a strong case for getting rid of the unfortunate "uni" prefix.

How do you 'expand' something that has no boundaries???

You start by recognizing the boundaries that are there (see above). If you don't wish to recognize those boundaries then you should probably discard the model. The speed of light, however, makes for quite a good boundary.

Everything you are discussing here by Hawking is not science. It is religion.

I really haven't discussed any of Hawking's science, i.e. the properties of an expanding universe. You are correct that all I have discussed thus far is the context of the expanding universe model into which Hawking's properties fit.

 

[Cypress]

Nice backtracking.

As a militant atheist, you claimed it was scientifically proven there was zero possibility of any transcendent reality.

As an agnostic, I see that as a claim of omniscience. I think there is knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains can never acquire. And we might not even comprehend the answers even if someone told us. Our language might not even have the words to describe a higher transcendant reality.

And while you claim certainty and omniscience, I leave open the possibility that human brains and our limited cognition might not have access to certain kinds of higher truths, some of which might be an underlying organizing principle of the universe.

But I also can't rule out the militant atheist position that the universe and everything in it just happened for no reason at all.

God, Brahman, Li, The Dao are just avatars for the mystery of the infinite. Unlike those that atheists who claim certainty or omniscience, I think there is a vast amount of knowledge humans can never acquire or know because our chimpanzee brains aren't capable of knowing, and our methods of scientific induction are to limited.

Out of all the silly myths and tales found in world religions, one really good insight they had is that there may be higher truth, a meaning to the cosmos that is unfathomable to humans and completely beyond our tools of science to grasp.

The Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore basically said it, but better than me:

"According to Indian Philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth, which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called maya or illusion."

 

[IBDaMann]

An ultimatum is not a choice.

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.