[quote]pat wrote:
Space and time aren’t real? LOL…I want to hear this explanation.[/quote]
I think space and time are real, it was his argument not mine.
Space and time appear to be connected via the space-time continuum, and are relative rather than absolute.
Which scares people that view the universe in absolute terms, and are unable to see colors other than black and white.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
[/quote]
There you go again, equating absolutism with realism. That is a consistent logical flaw that you really need to get looked at.
Just because something is relative doesn’t make it any less real.
Obviously matter is real, irrespective of the fact that it is relative to the observer.
The same is true for your claims about morality. Morals don’t have to be absolute in order to be real.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
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.
This does not surprise me that you do not understand. Many of your atheistic friends rely on the theory of determinism to support their argument that there is no God.
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.
Is the dotted image a reproduction or the particle itself landing in multiple places simultaneously?
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]
I think you guys misunderstand the experiment. The particles, photons, or electrons don’t hit the screen at multiple locations simultaneously. When you interfere with the system to determine location of the particle (have them hit a wall) they behave as ordinary particles. An electron only hits the wall at 1 location. the probability of where it will hit follows an interference pattern. The simultaneous existence only happens when you aren’t observing it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
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.
This does not surprise me that you do not understand. Many of your atheistic friends rely on the theory of determinism to support their argument that there is no God.
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.
Is the dotted image a reproduction or the particle itself landing in multiple places simultaneously?
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]
Would you stop saying I said things that I never said. I never claimed unexplained events are the exclusive domain of religion, you small minded bigot.
Contingency does not require time. It simply requires that one thing comes from another. This could be in a space time continuum or not. Not everything that exists exists as physical matter. But everything that does exist is as a result of something else. Because an infinite regress is circular reasoning and therefore a logical fallacy, the only solution to the problem is for there to be an uncaused-cause.
Atheists are required to be determinists because an atheist cannot acknowledge freewill. Agnostics do not have to be because they are open to the possibility that their 5 senses do not give them all the information there is to get.
The single atomic particle landing in two places at once again only illustrates we do not understand subatomic behaviour all that well. It has nothing to do with religion.
What we don’t know if the same particle makes the same spot simultaneously or if one follows the other. We don’t know what direction takes, how much it weighs, etc. All that means that, science, being limited in scope, can only do so much. Somebody will eventually sole the problem, but in no way is it random.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Bingo!
Now instead of concluding this means space and time aren’t real, maybe you should consider this means that reality is in the eye of the beholder, and there is no such thing as a singular universe.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Causality is essential to the Cosmological argument.
Causality is not the same as exclusive causality. You can have deterministic events within a universe that has randomness as well.
[/quote]
No you can’t.
No it doesn’t. Contingency requires the anything that exists, was brought about by something else. That is all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Space and time are perspective based. There is no absolute measure of time or space. Hence, I’m saying they aren’t real quantities.
There you go again, equating absolutism with realism. That is a consistent logical flaw that you really need to get looked at.
Just because something is relative doesn’t make it any less real.
Obviously matter is real, irrespective of the fact that it is relative to the observer.
The same is true for your claims about morality. Morals don’t have to be absolute in order to be real.[/quote]
My point is that if they aren’t absolute, you can’t use them as a universal standard. You cannot quantify others, or all matter based on perspective based tools.
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
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.
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.
This does not surprise me that you do not understand. Many of your atheistic friends rely on the theory of determinism to support their argument that there is no God.
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.
Is the dotted image a reproduction or the particle itself landing in multiple places simultaneously?
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.
Would you stop saying I said things that I never said. I never claimed unexplained events are the exclusive domain of religion, you small minded bigot.
Contingency does not require time. It simply requires that one thing comes from another. This could be in a space time continuum or not. Not everything that exists exists as physical matter. But everything that does exist is as a result of something else. Because an infinite regress is circular reasoning and therefore a logical fallacy, the only solution to the problem is for there to be an uncaused-cause.
Atheists are required to be determinists because an atheist cannot acknowledge freewill. Agnostics do not have to be because they are open to the possibility that their 5 senses do not give them all the information there is to get.
The single atomic particle landing in two places at once again only illustrates we do not understand subatomic behaviour all that well. It has nothing to do with religion.
What we don’t know if the same particle makes the same spot simultaneously or if one follows the other. We don’t know what direction takes, how much it weighs, etc. All that means that, science, being limited in scope, can only do so much. Somebody will eventually sole the problem, but in no way is it random.[/quote]
We do know how much electrons weigh.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
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.
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.
This does not surprise me that you do not understand. Many of your atheistic friends rely on the theory of determinism to support their argument that there is no God.
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.
Is the dotted image a reproduction or the particle itself landing in multiple places simultaneously?
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.
I think you guys misunderstand the experiment. The particles, photons, or electrons don’t hit the screen at multiple locations simultaneously. When you interfere with the system to determine location of the particle (have them hit a wall) they behave as ordinary particles. An electron only hits the wall at 1 location. the probability of where it will hit follows an interference pattern. The simultaneous existence only happens when you aren’t observing it.[/quote]
You have a point. Observeation does alter it’s behaviour pattern.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Actually, you’ll find randomness doesn’t exist. Everything bases itself around a pattern, it’s just a matter of identifying said pattern.[/quote]
I don’t think we know enough yet to definitely rule out the possibility of randomness.
I think it’s possible randomness doesn’t exist, but it’s also possible that it does.
Regardless, a deterministic universe doesn’t require the existence of a supernatural being. It is less a stretch to claim matter and energy have always existed than to claim a supernatural being has always existed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Actually, you’ll find randomness doesn’t exist. Everything bases itself around a pattern, it’s just a matter of identifying said pattern.
I don’t think we know enough yet to definitely rule out the possibility of randomness.
I think it’s possible randomness doesn’t exist, but it’s also possible that it does.
Regardless, a deterministic universe doesn’t require the existence of a supernatural being. It is less a stretch to claim matter and energy have always existed than to claim a supernatural being has always existed.[/quote]
Once again, saying “always” existed is a perspective based tool. There are things that exist outside of time (photons) that you cannot use terms like that to quantify.
Edit: It’s like you are measuring horse power with a ruler. It just doesn’t make sense to do so.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not the way I understand the word. If it does, that isn’t what I meant.[/quote]
Then what did you mean? How can your god have created the universe if time and space aren’t real? The universe by definition requires space, and the event of creation requires time.
Don’t you have an LDS background? What about priesthood healings?
[quote]pat wrote:
Really? Which ones? I can think of several that have been tested and yet are still baffling. [/quote]
The prayer experiment I quoted earlier, for example. Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed scientific experiment showing that people were able to perform a religious miracle?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not the way I understand the word. If it does, that isn’t what I meant.
Then what did you mean? How can your god have created the universe if time and space aren’t real? The universe by definition requires space, and the event of creation requires time.[/quote]
No, I don’t think it does. A loop has no beginning or end, but it can still come from somewhere.
Like I’ve been saying applying our intuition of space and time doesn’t make sense in the universe.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve don’t know anyone that claims to preform miracles.
Don’t you have an LDS background? What about priesthood healings?[/quote]
LOL, no, not at all. I don’t agree with the Mormons. I’ve just read their books.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The simultaneous existence only happens when you aren’t observing it.[/quote]
Doesn’t that suggest relative rather than absolute reality? If it were absolute, why would observation make any difference?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The simultaneous existence only happens when you aren’t observing it.
Doesn’t that suggest relative rather than absolute reality? If it were absolute, why would observation make any difference?[/quote]
There is no way of observing the particles without “touching” them.
The wave nature of matter does suggest a discontinuous universe though. The x-intercepts of the sin wave of probability are instances where the probability of finding the particle are 0 while it travels. As a particle moves it “jumps” past certain spacial locations.
[quote]pat wrote:
Contingency does not require time. It simply requires that one thing comes from another.[/quote]
Check your logic theory. Contingency is a logical argument mutually exclusive with Necessity. It is not the same as determinism.
So you think the First Law of Thermodynamics is a logical fallacy?
I don’t know which atheists you’ve talked to, but atheism in no way requires believing there is no free will. Nor does it require believing that randomness doesn’t exist in the universe.
Or it could illustrate true randomness. We don’t really know yet, so why are you claiming one conlusion at the expense of the other? What happened to contingency?
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
Causality is not the same as exclusive causality. You can have deterministic events within a universe that has randomness as well.
No you can’t.[/quote]
Why not?
You seem confused, let me help you out: