[quote]Doyle wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.
How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
If you are traveling the speed of light, infinity is an exact singular moment, and the universe condenses to 2D space.
This makes no sense, light travels at the speed of light constantly, yet the universe is not condensed to 2d space. Why would a human traveling at the speed of light be different? Only the persons perception of space would change.
[/quote]
No, the universe hasn’t collapsed in on itself from our point of view which is why spacial measurements are entirely inaccurate on a universal scale. My point is that measuring time and space are inconsistent non-factual concepts.
From the perspective of the photon the universe is entirely flat. But the warping of time and space is continuous for any object at any speed. It’s just not noticeable until you get to a reasonable percentage of the speed of light.
And no, it is not just perception that changes, but the space and time itself. The faster you go the slower your clock, the more the universe compresses. There is no correct time frame or momentum frame for an event.
How long does X event take? It depends entirely on your frame of reference. You can take 2 entirely different measurements with 100% accurate instruments for said event and both be correct.
In normal everyday life it doesn’t matter, however when quantifying the universe and eternity, it becomes consequential. Especially when the discussion includes things like photons.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is a good point. From a survival of the fittest perspective, morals related to helping others, when you don’t have to, have no advantage. As such, the idea of helping others over one’s self could not have originated from a natural selection process. So morals had to come from somewhere else. [/quote]
#1 Protect yourself, so you can… #2 Spread your genes, and make sure you can do this by… #3 Making sure the human race doesn’t die out so that you can… #4 Mix and match your genes with maximum variation to find a superior combination.
That’s about the gist of it. So… yeah helping others DID originate form a natural selection process. If it were as simple as you made out, why would animals care for their young? That would be an unnecessary waste of resources. They can fend for themselves, right?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, I’m no loser drug user, now.[/quote]
Run a search for DMT. I’m not calling you a drug user by a long shot. Although technically you and everyone in this thread shoule be arrested for possession and use.
[quote]Doyle wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.
How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
If you are traveling the speed of light, infinity is an exact singular moment, and the universe condenses to 2D space.
This makes no sense, light travels at the speed of light constantly, yet the universe is not condensed to 2d space. Why would a human traveling at the speed of light be different? Only the persons perception of space would change.
[/quote]
…our perception of reality isn’t at the speed of light, but 186000 miles a second slower. We don’t know what happens when we move at the speed of light. Perhaps it’s similar to what happens at - 459.67 °F, we just don’t know. Or do we?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Doyle wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.
How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
If you are traveling the speed of light, infinity is an exact singular moment, and the universe condenses to 2D space.
This makes no sense, light travels at the speed of light constantly, yet the universe is not condensed to 2d space. Why would a human traveling at the speed of light be different? Only the persons perception of space would change.
…our perception of reality isn’t at the speed of light, but 186000 miles a second slower. We don’t know what happens when we move at the speed of light. Perhaps it’s similar to what happens at - 459.67 °F, we just don’t know. Or do we?
[/quote]
Time dilation at very near the speed of light has been observably proven. Technically if a massed particle were to travel the speed of light, it would become infinitely dense, which is why it’s thought to be impossible. You get zeros in the denominators of your equations.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.
I’m glad you admit that the universe may in fact be infinite. Given that, your argument that god must exist because the universe is finite doesn’t hold any weight.
Theists can accept events outside the realm of time in the affect of simultaneous causation. Atheists require that each cause precedes it’s effect. It’s this rigidity that weakens the atheist’s argument.
Run that by me again? What does atheism have to do with denying timelessness? It is science that proposed matter and energy are eternal, it is science that proposed the possibility of infinite universes, and it is science that stepped outside of time via the theory of relativity.
Can you think of anything that sits outside the causal chain? If you can find even one tiny thing, you can prove there is no God.
Double-Slit experiment, proving true randomness rather than causality in the slit through which the electron passes. Hence by your own logic, there is no god.
First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists. Wouldn’t disproving causality disprove atheists and forelife?s eternal existence just as much? If a physical cause is not necessary to an event, couldn’t that be an argument for god? Doesn’t that mean that when he argues that each moment being the cause for the following moment isn’t necessarily true? Doesn’t it prove there are things outside of time? Maybe I misunderstand. I guess you are arguing that the universe doesn’t have to have a cause ei god, but to me that just means, it doesn’t have to have a physical cause.
Second, I?m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.
It doesn’t. It just shows we don’t understand the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. The results are reproducible and predictable. You shoot sub-atomic particles at a screen with 2 slits and you will get a disturbance pattern. It is not known why, but it is not random.
Causality is essential to the Cosmological argument. But not understanding a phenomenon does not qualify as being random. That’s as dumb as saying that for every event we do not understand God is the direct cause of it.
Randomness does not exist. What we call random is just a lack of knowledge and understanding.
I disagree, with your thoughts on randomness depending on how you define randomness.
If you take single electrons and shot them at the exact same speed and direction through the apparatus, they will hit the far wall in different locations. You can however assign probabilities to given locations and bound all possibilities. This is not unknown unexplained randomness. This randomness is predicted by quantum not just posthumously observed…[/quote]
Randomness would be an event that is either not caused or the initial cause did not result in the desired effect. What we have is an event that is not fully understood, but that does not make it random. Sub-atomic matter is not subject to standard Newtonian physics. That just means we do not understand how light works, but we can still make reliable predictions based on the behavior we do know. Seconld, in the slit experiment. We may not know where the subatomic particle is going to hit on the screen, but we do know a) it will hit the screen and b) provided enough particles are throw it will create a disturbance pattern.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.
How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
If you are traveling the speed of light, infinity is an exact singular moment, and the universe condenses to 2D space. [/quote]
Yet light travels through space and takes time to reach it’s destination.
Time is just a measurement it is not an entity unto itself. Time measures movement and change. Moving at the speed of light you are presumably moving at atomic speed, I.E. you are moving at the speed at which sub atomic particles move, in a sense you stop movement and hence stop time. It somewhat of a paradox because light moves at light speed, yet it takes time to get places.
[quote]pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
It is certainly possible, but not necessarily plausible that the universe is infinite in time and space, however, that does not trump the argument from the point of contingency.
I’m glad you admit that the universe may in fact be infinite. Given that, your argument that god must exist because the universe is finite doesn’t hold any weight.
Theists can accept events outside the realm of time in the affect of simultaneous causation. Atheists require that each cause precedes it’s effect. It’s this rigidity that weakens the atheist’s argument.
Run that by me again? What does atheism have to do with denying timelessness? It is science that proposed matter and energy are eternal, it is science that proposed the possibility of infinite universes, and it is science that stepped outside of time via the theory of relativity.
Can you think of anything that sits outside the causal chain? If you can find even one tiny thing, you can prove there is no God.
Double-Slit experiment, proving true randomness rather than causality in the slit through which the electron passes. Hence by your own logic, there is no god.
First off, I’m not sure how disproving causality disproves theists. Wouldn’t disproving causality disprove atheists and forelife?s eternal existence just as much? If a physical cause is not necessary to an event, couldn’t that be an argument for god? Doesn’t that mean that when he argues that each moment being the cause for the following moment isn’t necessarily true? Doesn’t it prove there are things outside of time? Maybe I misunderstand. I guess you are arguing that the universe doesn’t have to have a cause ei god, but to me that just means, it doesn’t have to have a physical cause.
Second, I?m not sure how you are arguing that the duel slit experiment disproves causality.
It doesn’t. It just shows we don’t understand the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. The results are reproducible and predictable. You shoot sub-atomic particles at a screen with 2 slits and you will get a disturbance pattern. It is not known why, but it is not random.
Causality is essential to the Cosmological argument. But not understanding a phenomenon does not qualify as being random. That’s as dumb as saying that for every event we do not understand God is the direct cause of it.
Randomness does not exist. What we call random is just a lack of knowledge and understanding.
I disagree, with your thoughts on randomness depending on how you define randomness.
If you take single electrons and shot them at the exact same speed and direction through the apparatus, they will hit the far wall in different locations. You can however assign probabilities to given locations and bound all possibilities. This is not unknown unexplained randomness. This randomness is predicted by quantum not just posthumously observed…
Randomness would be an event that is either not caused or the initial cause did not result in the desired effect. What we have is an event that is not fully understood, but that does not make it random. Sub-atomic matter is not subject to standard Newtonian physics. That just means we do not understand how light works, but we can still make reliable predictions based on the behavior we do know. Seconld, in the slit experiment. We may not know where the subatomic particle is going to hit on the screen, but we do know a) it will hit the screen and b) provided enough particles are throw it will create a disturbance pattern. [/quote]
Like I said it is bounded, so it depends on how your define random.
But the experiment proves the predicted wave properties of matter (massed particles, not just photons). As a wave it’s behavior is entirely predicted and understood. The short coming is the way we view the world. Matter doesn’t exist in an exact spacial location. It can in fact exist multiple locations simultaneously. Which again is why I don’t consider spatial measurements true measures.
Inability to predict an event isn’t the same as not able to assign a cause though. You can say what happened to the electron and photon once the event is over and assign a specific cause, even if you can’t predict the event.
The results of the dual slit experiment absolutely have a known cause.
Maybe I’m slow, I’m just not getting how they are opposites.
[quote]pat wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Beginning as in origin.
How can there be an origin if space and time aren’t real?
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
If you are traveling the speed of light, infinity is an exact singular moment, and the universe condenses to 2D space.
Yet light travels through space and takes time to reach it’s destination.
Time is just a measurement it is not an entity unto itself. Time measures movement and change. Moving at the speed of light you are presumably moving at atomic speed, I.E. you are moving at the speed at which sub atomic particles move, in a sense you stop movement and hence stop time. It somewhat of a paradox because light moves at light speed, yet it takes time to get places.[/quote]
It is not a paradox because you are once again using an inaccurate measure. From side of the photon it would take no time. The speed of light is always the same, from every perspective.
If 2 people, one traveling towards a photon, one away from said photon, the relative speed to both people is the same. Speed is distance divided by time. The warping of one balances out the warping of the other.
They are yardsticks that change size depending on who is using them. Measuring an event differently is a result of the inaccuracies inherent to the yard stick, not a paradox of the situation.
We measure time and space as independent quantities when they are not.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I disagree about them being mutually exclusive. They define opposite directions of events. Randomness means an that an effect cannot always be predicted by an action. Causality means looking backwards you can’t attribute an effect to a given cause. There is still a cause for the effect observed in the dual slit experiment, the effect is just not always predicted ahead of time.
[/quote]
The ability to predict something is limited by one’s knowledge of it, so you can be unable to predict an event that is perfectly causal. Randomness relates to the origin of the event, not just to the predictability of it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Specifically who in my congregation are you speaking about? or are you generalizing me and my faith?[/quote]
I’m talking about anybody that claims to be able to perform miracles through the power of “god”. Such a claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
Nutshell:
Religious claims related to the material world can and should be tested. Not coincidentally, every time these claims are put to the test, they fail.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I disagree about them being mutually exclusive. They define opposite directions of events. Randomness means an that an effect cannot always be predicted by an action. Causality means looking backwards you can’t attribute an effect to a given cause. There is still a cause for the effect observed in the dual slit experiment, the effect is just not always predicted ahead of time.
The ability to predict something is limited by one’s knowledge of it, so you can be unable to predict an event that is perfectly causal. Randomness relates to the origin of the event, not just to the predictability of it. [/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Specifically who in my congregation are you speaking about? or are you generalizing me and my faith?
I’m talking about anybody that claims to be able to perform miracles through the power of “god”. Such a claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
Nutshell:
Religious claims related to the material world can and should be tested. Not coincidentally, every time these claims are put to the test, they fail.[/quote]
I’ve don’t know anyone that claims to preform miracles.
[quote]pat wrote:
Do you know what the word “contingency” means. I never said God must exist because the universe is finite. Those words are yours and you just now said them. Whether or not the universe is infinite is irrelevant if arguing from the point of contingency.[/quote]
If the universe is infinite, contingency requires recognizing that the universe may not have been created by a god.
I never said an infinite universe proves that god doesn’t exist, only that it proves the contingency that god is just a fairy tale.
My point was that agnosticism/atheism doesn’t require an exclusively deterministic mindset as you claim, and that science in fact strongly supports the ideas of infinite matter/energy and relative time.
In the case of either reproduction or simultaneously landing in multiple places, does this not suggest to you that we have scientific support for either ex nihilo production of matter or timelessness? Even if you stick with a deterministic model, the experiment still steps within the bounds of what you claim is exclusively the domain of religion.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Specifically who in my congregation are you speaking about? or are you generalizing me and my faith?
I’m talking about anybody that claims to be able to perform miracles through the power of “god”. Such a claim is subject to scientific scrutiny.
Nutshell:
Religious claims related to the material world can and should be tested. Not coincidentally, every time these claims are put to the test, they fail.[/quote]
Really? Which ones? I can think of several that have been tested and yet are still baffling.
[quote]pat wrote:
Causality is essential to the Cosmological argument.[/quote]
Causality is not the same as exclusive causality. You can have deterministic events within a universe that has randomness as well.
Lack of understanding is only a possibility. You don’t know that it isn’t random, and continency requires accepting randomness as one viable explanation.