‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

The things that happened before the appearance of God in the universe

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
23 December 2018 18:39
 
MrRon - 23 December 2018 05:44 PM
bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:28 AM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:00 AM

You seem to be trying really hard for the guy who is famous for saying more or less that you don’t care what others think and that you’re not here to convince anybody of anything.

I’m quoting stuff about physics.  I didn’t make up any of it, I’m just pointing out where your understanding of it is lacking.  Take it or leave it, it’s not about me, after all.

And I’m trying to point out why your assessment of my understanding is inaccurate. But go on. I’m sure you’ll continue in your efforts to be recognized as having an opinion worth addressing.

I’m quoting physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians, etc.  You’re arguing with them, you’re not arguing with me.  Convince them.  I don’t matter.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 03:37
 
bbearren - 23 December 2018 06:39 PM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 05:44 PM
bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:28 AM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 10:00 AM

You seem to be trying really hard for the guy who is famous for saying more or less that you don’t care what others think and that you’re not here to convince anybody of anything.

I’m quoting stuff about physics.  I didn’t make up any of it, I’m just pointing out where your understanding of it is lacking.  Take it or leave it, it’s not about me, after all.

And I’m trying to point out why your assessment of my understanding is inaccurate. But go on. I’m sure you’ll continue in your efforts to be recognized as having an opinion worth addressing.

I’m quoting physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians, etc.  You’re arguing with them, you’re not arguing with me.  Convince them.  I don’t matter.

I’m not arguing with them. I’m pretty sure they would all agree that it objectively takes photons 8 minutes to travel the 93 million miles through space from the Sun. And that photons can be detected. And that the speed of light through space can be measured. If anything I’m arguing with your interpretation of my posts and the distinction between the subjective “life” of a photon and the objective fact of their existence in a spatial temporal universe.

Ron

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 December 2018 06:31
 
MrRon - 23 December 2018 06:03 AM

To the extent that they are making a claim (e.g. that something can exist outside of time and space), then honest discourse dictates that they back up the claim with evidence when challenged. Otherwise, you are giving a free pass to any assertion that is not made in an attempt to “convince someone of their faith”. Would you be so charitable to someone who claimed that The One Eyed Spaghetti Monster created the universe?

Honest discourse can also be someone explaining clearly why they believe in something without fitting the belief into the “only evidence” world view. Yours is not the only view of things. In my view, there can be valid experiences for which there is no or little confirming scientific evidence. The world of all things does not merely consist of matters that science has proven. I don’t have any evidence that I saw a deer in my yard the other day, but it happened.

As far as Spaghetti Monsters and Butt Fairies, we know that those were created by other people - with respect to the BF, we were on hand for its creation. There is no reason to be “charitable” to their creators in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, ancient beliefs in another religious outlook often warrant being taken seriously.  There are too many people who have experiences within a particular religious framework for me to consider those experiences to be bogus.

 

[ Edited: 24 December 2018 07:44 by EN]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3807
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
24 December 2018 07:33
 
MrRon - 24 December 2018 03:37 AM

I’m not arguing with them. I’m pretty sure they would all agree that it objectively takes photons 8 minutes to travel the 93 million miles through space from the Sun. And that photons can be detected. And that the speed of light through space can be measured. If anything I’m arguing with your interpretation of my posts and the distinction between the subjective “life” of a photon and the objective fact of their existence in a spatial temporal universe.

No, quite obviously they all would not/do not agree with you.  In 2015, “Canada’s Arthur B McDonald and Japan’s Takaaki Kajita have won this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics for their surprising discovery that tiny, subatomic particles called neutrinos have mass. Their experimental results forced scientists to rethink the Standard Model of particle physics that had successfully explained all observations of the subatomic world for decades.”

But the story of light gets even more interesting, when you think about the journey light needs to make inside the Sun.

You probably know that photons are created by fusion reactions inside the Sun’s core. They start off as gamma radiation and then are emitted and absorbed countless times in the Sun’s radiative zone, wandering around inside the massive star before they finally reach the surface.

What you probably don’t know, is that these photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago and it took that long for them to be emitted by the sun.

Once they escaped the surface, it was only a short 8 minutes for those photons to cross the vast distance from the Sun to the Earth.”

These are the salient points:

bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

bbearren - 23 December 2018 08:27 AM

Eternal, adjective, without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal).”

Temporal, adjective, of or relating to time.”

Eternal does not entail time; by definition, it opposes time.

bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:23 AM

“In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling.  But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all.  So how can light get from one place to another?  The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.

Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going.  Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

None of the above is my opinion.  I’m quoting stuff from bona fide sources.  Your argument is not with me, it is, indeed, with them.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17604
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 08:38
 
EN - 24 December 2018 06:31 AM

As far as Spaghetti Monsters and Butt Fairies, we know that those were created by other people - with respect to the BF, we were on hand for its creation. There is no reason to be “charitable” to their creators in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, ancient beliefs in another religious outlook often warrant being taken seriously.  There are too many people who have experiences within a particular religious framework for me to consider those experiences to be bogus.

Bullshit. All you are saying is that if you weren’t present when something was created then you believe it true. But not everything that you were not present for, no, just the bullshit you want to believe. And since you were not present who do you get your information from, the people who were present which contradicts your criteria of belief. Your argument is circular and ludicrous and quite frankly embarrassing.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
24 December 2018 10:35
 

So to paraphrase…Beliefs unsubstantiated by evidence should be granted equal respect with evidence based beliefs, especially if they are religious beliefs believed by a large number of people. Also, a “valid experience” requires no evidence. Bronze-aged reasoning in the 21st century. Yikes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 December 2018 14:26
 
GAD - 24 December 2018 08:38 AM
EN - 24 December 2018 06:31 AM

As far as Spaghetti Monsters and Butt Fairies, we know that those were created by other people - with respect to the BF, we were on hand for its creation. There is no reason to be “charitable” to their creators in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, ancient beliefs in another religious outlook often warrant being taken seriously.  There are too many people who have experiences within a particular religious framework for me to consider those experiences to be bogus.

Bullshit. All you are saying is that if you weren’t present when something was created then you believe it true. But not everything that you were not present for, no, just the bullshit you want to believe. And since you were not present who do you get your information from, the people who were present which contradicts your criteria of belief. Your argument is circular and ludicrous and quite frankly embarrassing.

Hi GAD. God bless you this Christmas Eve. No, I’m not saying that if I wasn’t present when something was created that I believe it. Surely you understand language and logic better than that.  I’m saying I know the BF is not real because I saw you pull it out of your ass.  I can’t say that about Yahweh or Allah.  I believe something when I have experience of it.  I am open to something when many other people experience it.  I reject something when I see it being pulled out of someone’s ass.  Can you understand that?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 December 2018 14:29
 
proximacentauri - 24 December 2018 10:35 AM

So to paraphrase…Beliefs unsubstantiated by evidence should be granted equal respect with evidence based beliefs, especially if they are religious beliefs believed by a large number of people. Also, a “valid experience” requires no evidence. Bronze-aged reasoning in the 21st century. Yikes

No, your paraphrase is wrong. You shouldn’t believe what you do not experience. If millions are experiencing it you should have a more humble and open attitude.  Don’t mischaracterize my statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 15:05
 
EN - 24 December 2018 06:31 AM
MrRon - 23 December 2018 06:03 AM

To the extent that they are making a claim (e.g. that something can exist outside of time and space), then honest discourse dictates that they back up the claim with evidence when challenged. Otherwise, you are giving a free pass to any assertion that is not made in an attempt to “convince someone of their faith”. Would you be so charitable to someone who claimed that The One Eyed Spaghetti Monster created the universe?

Honest discourse can also be someone explaining clearly why they believe in something without fitting the belief into the “only evidence” world view. Yours is not the only view of things. In my view, there can be valid experiences for which there is no or little confirming scientific evidence.

Sure. But given the extent with which humans often get it wrong, shouldn’t we be skeptical of extraordinary claims based on subjective experience? 

The world of all things does not merely consist of matters that science has proven. I don’t have any evidence that I saw a deer in my yard the other day, but it happened.

But we know that deer exists. We know that people see them. We know they leave droppings and other signs of their presence. So the claim that you saw a deer neither raises eyebrows nor does it demand much evidence. I’m willing to take your word for it. And the consequences of me mistakenly taking your word for it are inconsequential. However, it’s a whole other ballgame when you get into grand claims of a religious nature.

As far as Spaghetti Monsters and Butt Fairies, we know that those were created by other people - with respect to the BF, we were on hand for its creation. There is no reason to be “charitable” to their creators in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, ancient beliefs in another religious outlook often warrant being taken seriously.  There are too many people who have experiences within a particular religious framework for me to consider those experiences to be bogus.

This is a classic argumentum ad populum. Anyway, what kind of “experiences” are you referring to? 

Thanks.

Ron

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 15:10
 
bbearren - 24 December 2018 07:33 AM

Once they escaped the surface, it was only a short 8 minutes for those photons to cross the vast distance from the Sun to the Earth.”

Which is what I said!

These are the salient points:

bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

bbearren - 23 December 2018 08:27 AM

Eternal, adjective, without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal).”

Temporal, adjective, of or relating to time.”

Eternal does not entail time; by definition, it opposes time.

“Lasting forever”. What do you think that means? Is time a component of “lasting forever”? At any rate, as I have already pointed out to EN, the word “eternal” is ambiguous. I concede it has more than one definition. And therefore it’s not very useful for the purposes of this discussion. 

bbearren - 23 December 2018 11:23 AM

“In order to move from one place to another always takes a little time, no matter how fast you’re traveling.  But “time slows down close to the speed of light”, and indeed at the speed of light no time passes at all.  So how can light get from one place to another?  The short, unenlightening, somewhat irked answer is: look who’s asking.

Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going.  Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

None of the above is my opinion.  I’m quoting stuff from bona fide sources.  Your argument is not with me, it is, indeed, with them.

I’ve already made the distinction between the subjective “life” of a photon and the objective fact of their existence in our spatial temporal universe. In essence, I AGREE with those sources on the “perspective of a photon.” Why aren’t you getting this?

Ron

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
24 December 2018 15:31
 

People all over the world, for all of recorded human history, have had spiritual experiences that they attribute to God, in some form.  This does not prove that they are objectively right. It does demonstrate that this is a fairly basic human experience.  Can it mean that humans ar e”receivers” for divine revelations/disclosures?  It could. It should not be dismissed out of hand.  Especially when you don’t know everything, which you don’t.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1804
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
24 December 2018 16:18
 
EN - 24 December 2018 03:31 PM

People all over the world, for all of recorded human history, have had spiritual experiences that they attribute to God, in some form.  This does not prove that they are objectively right. It does demonstrate that this is a fairly basic human experience.  Can it mean that humans ar e”receivers” for divine revelations/disclosures?  It could. It should not be dismissed out of hand.  Especially when you don’t know everything, which you don’t.

It could mean that, prior to modern medicine, parents regularly needed to lie to their children when one of them died, just to get through the day. Such lessons, for youngsters, have a way of wandering around the skull well into adulthood.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17604
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 17:40
 
EN - 24 December 2018 02:26 PM
GAD - 24 December 2018 08:38 AM
EN - 24 December 2018 06:31 AM

As far as Spaghetti Monsters and Butt Fairies, we know that those were created by other people - with respect to the BF, we were on hand for its creation. There is no reason to be “charitable” to their creators in the sense that you mean. On the other hand, ancient beliefs in another religious outlook often warrant being taken seriously.  There are too many people who have experiences within a particular religious framework for me to consider those experiences to be bogus.

Bullshit. All you are saying is that if you weren’t present when something was created then you believe it true. But not everything that you were not present for, no, just the bullshit you want to believe. And since you were not present who do you get your information from, the people who were present which contradicts your criteria of belief. Your argument is circular and ludicrous and quite frankly embarrassing.

Hi GAD. God bless you this Christmas Eve. No, I’m not saying that if I wasn’t present when something was created that I believe it. Surely you understand language and logic better than that.  I’m saying I know the BF is not real because I saw you pull it out of your ass.  I can’t say that about Yahweh or Allah.  I believe something when I have experience of it.  I am open to something when many other people experience it.  I reject something when I see it being pulled out of someone’s ass.  Can you understand that?

Notice where I said “But not everything that you were not present for, no, just the bullshit you want to believe.”

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17604
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
24 December 2018 17:51
 
EN - 24 December 2018 03:31 PM

People all over the world, for all of recorded human history, have had spiritual experiences that they attribute to God, in some form.  This does not prove that they are objectively right. It does demonstrate that this is a fairly basic human experience.  Can it mean that humans ar e”receivers” for divine revelations/disclosures?  It could. It should not be dismissed out of hand.  Especially when you don’t know everything, which you don’t.

But I had such an experience and you dismiss it out of hand, not because you know everything but because if my experience is as genuine as yours then yours and your god aren’t special anymore. So you put down my experience to elevate your own.

Merry Buttmas and a Flatulent New Year.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1857
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
25 December 2018 05:32
 
EN - 24 December 2018 03:31 PM

People all over the world, for all of recorded human history, have had spiritual experiences that they attribute to God, in some form.  This does not prove that they are objectively right. It does demonstrate that this is a fairly basic human experience.  Can it mean that humans ar e”receivers” for divine revelations/disclosures?  It could. It should not be dismissed out of hand.  Especially when you don’t know everything, which you don’t.

A) We know that human brains are imperfect interpreters of experience. In fact, we underappreciate just how flawed our brains really are.
B) Hyperactive Agency Detection is a consequence of our evolutionary history.
C) We have no proof of anything “divine”.
D) Conflicting “revelations/disclosures” are not uncommon (just look at all the thousands of different religions).

Given those facts, it is much more likely that “spiritual experiences” are merely internal brain states independent of any external reality, rather than a God reaching down and enlightening a select few while leaving the rest to wrestle with the question of his existence (and severely punishing those who were never convinced of his existence).

And as Christopher Hitchens said, “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

Ron

 

 

[ Edited: 25 December 2018 05:36 by MrRon]
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >