whateverdude Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 it's axiomatic that there will always be things we can't know (Goedel and Heisenberg pretty much proved that). Logical or not, it is empirical, explained and predicted by theory, and has in fact been observed. Wish I could explain it...bottom line is you're assuming time is extra-universal when it is in fact a feature of the universe (General Relativity), assuming a tangible physical set of properties can be attributed to the "pre" Big Bang singularity that are probably inaccurate (but in your defense, physics can't explain those characteristics yet either), and presuming "action" as a necessity to an event, which is demonstrably false as a physical principle (again, radioactive decay - an event precipitated by no triggering action). The problem with the Big Bang theory is that the mathematical laws of general relativity do not work at a singularity, which means not we can not truly understand space/time before the big bang nor even after it, but we do know it exists. we have just not found a theory that fully explains it. M-theory is close.
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 The problem with the Big Bang theory is that the mathematical laws of general relativity do not work at a singularity, which means not we can not truly understand space/time before the big bang nor even after it, but we do know it exists. we have just not found a theory that fully explains it. M-theory is close. That's not a problem with the Big Bang, that's a problem of reconciling quantum and relativity theories. It'll get solved...eventually. Probably when they figure out what "dark energy" is, and finally detect gravitons and gravity waves.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 You just have to take it on faith huh? Take WHAT on faith? I never heard of this before, but I've actually thought about something similar to this. Or maybe it was just because I saw the movie Matrix and THEN I thought of this. Unfortunately, I have burnt too many brain cells to recall which came first. The Matrix completely ripped this off, but did a very nice job of it IMO.
Booster4324 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Take WHAT on faith? This, try to keep up Gene. a tremendous burst of energy was created out of nothing without there being an energy to create that burst
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 a tremendous burst of energy was created out of nothing without there being an energy to create that burst First, the premise is flawed, nobody said it came out of nothing, just that we can't understand it or where it "came from" (whatever that means). Second, I'm not making any statement about where the singularity "came from", so there's really nothing to have faith in. I simply accept that it is unknowable an choose to concern myself with things which are knowable. Third, your God of the Gaps argument here is a classic logical fallacy. Lack of scientific explanation does not in any way prove, imply or suggest that "god did it".
Booster4324 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 First, the premise is flawed, nobody said it came out of nothing, just that we can't understand it or where it "came from" (whatever that means). Second, I'm not making any statement about where the singularity "came from", so there's really nothing to have faith in. I simply accept that it is unknowable an choose to concern myself with things which are knowable. Third, your God of the Gaps argument here is a classic logical fallacy. Lack of scientific explanation does not in any way prove, imply or suggest that "god did it". I didn't make any argument, so there goes your 3rd point. As to your first and second, that is classic religion. You just choose not to use the term faith.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 I didn't make any argument, so there goes your 3rd point. As to your first and second, that is classic religion. You just choose not to use the term faith. Unlike every religion ever, I make no claims which require faith. In fact, I make no claims at all. I am only interested in what is observable, testable and provable (or at the very least mathematically possible).
Booster4324 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Unlike every religion ever, I make no claims which require faith. In fact, I make no claims at all. I am only interested in what is observable, testable and provable (or at the very least mathematically possible). Please, you are a proselytizing atheist. You simply replaced Catholicism with your new religion of "science and rational thought". What you despise in organized religion, you ape in your new faith. 'Tis really that simple. Happy Holidays if you have something you care to celebrate.
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Unlike every religion ever, I make no claims which require faith. In fact, I make no claims at all. I am only interested in what is observable, testable and provable (or at the very least mathematically possible). That would be placing faith in the primacy of empiricism. Ultimately, any logically consistent 'language' requires at least one a priori assumption that cannot be proved. Goedel's Proof. Not God...but you need faith in at least one unprovable axiom.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) Please, you are a proselytizing atheist. You simply replaced Catholicism with your new religion of "science and rational thought". What you despise in organized religion, you ape in your new faith. 'Tis really that simple. Happy Holidays if you have something you care to celebrate. I can see you are struggling with your faith - feel free to take it out on me. I'd rather think of myself as agnostic, but you can call me whatever you like. Science and rational thought are a lack of faith and a requirement of proof, if anything, but again you are free to think what you like. If I'm passionate about these things, well that's just how god made me. I put a high value on empirical evidence and do not like to get fleeced. Santa's coming...Merry Christmas! Ho Ho Ho! In all seriousness, I hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas. That would be placing faith in the primacy of empiricism. Ultimately, any logically consistent 'language' requires at least one a priori assumption that cannot be proved. Goedel's Proof. Not God...but you need faith in at least one unprovable axiom. I understand the argument, and if I have faith, it is in empiricism. What about you? Edited December 23, 2010 by Gene Frenkle
Gene Frenkle Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Incidentally, Tom, I'd like to thank you for helping me find my faith, especially at this special time of year. It's a Christmas Miracle!
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 I understand the argument, and if I have faith, it is in empiricism. What about you? I've said so before. Many times.
Booster4324 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 I've said so before. Many times. And yet you do not feel the need to disparage others' beliefs, well at least not about something that is inherently unprovable. Perhaps Gene could learn from that.
/dev/null Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Take WHAT on faith? Having faith is bad? So what does that argument have to do with the whole concept of full faith in the credit of the US Government?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 And yet you do not feel the need to disparage others' beliefs, well at least not about something that is inherently unprovable. Perhaps Gene could learn from that. Tom mostly thinks we're all a bunch of idiots and says so constantly. I guess it's ok to disparage your intelligence, but not your belief system? Argue the points, stay out of the conversation or simply get over yourself already. In case you haven't noticed, not much is sacred here and it's a much more interesting board because of that. Having faith is bad? So what does that argument have to do with the whole concept of full faith in the credit of the US Government? Pretty sure I never said either of those things.
Booster4324 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Argue the points, stay out of the conversation or simply get over yourself already. In case you haven't noticed, not much is sacred here and it's a much more interesting board because of that. What points? Your disbelief in some sort of God? Your palpable need to post about it? We got it. You haven't brought up a new point in ages.
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 And yet you do not feel the need to disparage others' beliefs, well at least not about something that is inherently unprovable. Perhaps Gene could learn from that. Just conner's. And Holcomb's Arm's. Really, what's the sense in arguing belief. It's not empirical, it's completely subjective. Arguing about it is like contemplating the color of the inside of a brick.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 What points? Your disbelief in some sort of God? Your palpable need to post about it? We got it. You haven't brought up a new point in ages. OK, I'm done with this for now. Peace.
Booster4324 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Just conner's. And Holcomb's Arm's. Really, what's the sense in arguing belief. It's not empirical, it's completely subjective. Arguing about it is like contemplating the color of the inside of a brick. Infradark was it?
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Tom mostly thinks we're all a bunch of idiots and says so constantly. I guess it's ok to disparage your intelligence, but not your belief system? 1) When I call someone an idiot, there's observable data that supports the statement, and is hence an objectively factual statement. "Disparaging," on the other hand, is a subjective judgement. So when I call you an idiot for equating "intelligence" and "belief," I am not at all being disparaging, merely empirically factual. 2) You're an idiot. I think you know why.
Recommended Posts