What is the True Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I already told you, I am uninterested in becoming a bible scholar. My interest is identifying evidence for a god. Before I can consider the Bible as evidence, it must meet certain criteria. It fails on that front.

[/quote]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Before I can consider the Bible as evidence, it must meet certain criteria. It fails on that front.

[/quote]

Therefore you won’t actually read the bible. Yet you persistently quote the bible and spend time critiquing the bible. And you cannot see how fatuous that is? There are plenty of atheists who have read the bible and know it well - why don’t you leave it to them and stop making yourself look silly.[/quote]

The bible is not evidence for anything claimed in the bible.

If I said Harry Potter was historical fact, would you have to read all the Harry Potters before you can dismiss this claim?

142

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:soundest historical interpretation[/quote]lol[/quote]Yes, soundest historical indeed dearest Christopher. I have some news for you btw as soon as I get a flippin chance. =[
[/quote]

Lol.

143

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

If I said Harry Potter was historical fact, would you have to read all the Harry Potters before you can dismiss this claim?[/quote]

Not relevant. If I spent most my time critiquing the Harry Potter History Group, wouldn’t you expect me to be familiar with the Harry Potter books and what the Harry Potter History Group believes?

144

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community.

145

[quote]pat wrote:

Sounds like you don’t like philosophy because it challenges your preconceived notions. And that’s precisely why I love it so… [/quote]

What “preconceived notions” of mine have been challenged? I don’t remember that happening. In fact, I am one of the few people in this thread with the ability to say that I don’t know and that there are several possibilities that are just as likely so we can at best say that We can’t be sure.

[quote]
Now as to your challenges…
Infinite possibilities on how it came to be… Maybe, but all those possibilties still share teh same two common problems, they are all caused and are all rooted in something that is not caused? [/quote]

Exactly. Which means that at best we have a bunch of possibilities that potentially solve the problem and no way to tell which one is correct because they all make the same assumptions and result in the same problems. Theists generally have one more issue that they themselves have added, which is that there is no reason why this “uncaused cause” has to be sentient, still around, and would for some reason care about and interact with humans. It is also possible that we do not even fully understand the problem and all possible solutions. There are limits to human knowledge and understanding

[quote]
How do I know, becuase logic dictate it must be so. There is no way around that problem . It’s easy to say, “You don’t know, it could be a million different ways.” But that statement doesn’t address the issue at hand. In other words it’s logical fallacy known as a Red Herring. I.E. it’s a diversion technique that is designed to avoid the problem rather than solve it.
Therefore, the reason this counter claim is not valid is because it does not prove the argument wrong. For you to claim there are millions of other possibilities you have to show how this argument is not the possibility. Because if this argument is true, then there are no other possible ways. So you can introduce other possible ways, when you prove this argument is wrong. You have no choice, you have to this first, because all I have to do for every counter claim is to prove it’s caused, which will not be hard. [/quote]

What? Seriously, what? In order for your scenario to be true, there can be no other explanations that solve the problem just as well. If even one scenario exists that explains the issue just as well as yours (i.e. relies on the same assumptions and produces the same issues) then at best you can say “I don’t know, it could be either one of those”

If ‘god’ exists, which is the basic premise of all deistic religions, then it is something. Saying “he/she/it just is and always has been because he/she/it has to for my argument to be true” is the exact same thing as saying that something came from nothing, since he had no cause. That is the same problem you yourself attributed to atheists. If god can exist just because your argument requires him to be, then any other argument that also requires something to be “just because” is just as valid until actual evidence comes about to show which argument is correct.

146

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

links plz

147

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

links plz[/quote]

This is one of the experiments that demonstrates one of the limits on “higher dimensions” that is inconsistent with M-theory. There are a few more but they are still in the peer review process. As to the rest of my post, go get a PhD in physics like I did. Watching nova or reading “The Elegant Universe” cannot compare.

148

I tend to agree with Dr Matt on many points. Although I am a computer scientist and not a physics/philosophy guy, I agree that Pat’s argument is invalid.

If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, and Pat asserts that something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from? I would be blown away if someone could answer this in 3 sentences or less.

Our counter claim is not valid because we do not prove your argument wrong. Your counter claim is equally invalid because you cannot prove our argument wrong. Neither of us can prove our arguments right. Therefore, I am right.

Right?

149

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

links plz[/quote]

This is one of the experiments that demonstrates one of the limits on “higher dimensions” that is inconsistent with M-theory. There are a few more but they are still in the peer review process. As to the rest of my post, go get a PhD in physics like I did. Watching nova or reading “The Elegant Universe” cannot compare.

[/quote]

All right, what you say has credibility, but if what you say is true, that there are 10 dimensions, all subject to the constraints of time, it implies that these dimensions all had a “cause”, which implies the existence of something greater than these 10 dimensions, let’s say, an eleventh dimension. Hmm?

You’re probably already aware of Rob Bryanton’s blog. Well, he’s a proponent of the 10 spacial dimension theory, but the way he describes it is “10 dimensions, plus time” and that the 11 dimensional theory is functionally equivalent to the 10 dimensional theory when viewed in this way. Imagining the Tenth Dimension: Wrapping It Up in the Tenth Dimension

Maybe you know something he doesn’t, but that post is only a little over a month old.

My point is, we have a problem. If everything had a beginning, then what is the first cause? Either that cause is God, or a natural phenomenon. Either one must be above the constraints of time, otherwise your just pushing the goalpost. Personally, I lean towards a timeless natural phenomenon.

I’m not going to pretend that I know more about physics than do you as I can only draw on information given from people with extensive education on the matter like yourself, but do you not agree that there must be at least one dimension above the constraints of time in order for the multi-verse to be more than utter nothingness?

150

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

links plz[/quote]

This is one of the experiments that demonstrates one of the limits on “higher dimensions” that is inconsistent with M-theory. There are a few more but they are still in the peer review process. As to the rest of my post, go get a PhD in physics like I did. Watching nova or reading “The Elegant Universe” cannot compare.

[/quote]

That is one interesting link

151

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I tend to agree with Dr Matt on many points. Although I am a computer scientist and not a physics/philosophy guy, I agree that Pat’s argument is invalid.

If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, and Pat asserts that something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from? I would be blown away if someone could answer this in 3 sentences or less.

Our counter claim is not valid because we do not prove your argument wrong. Your counter claim is equally invalid because you cannot prove our argument wrong. Neither of us can prove our arguments right. Therefore, I am right.

Right?[/quote]

Ok I don’t agree with the cosmological argument but isn’t being expressed the way proponents would. A more modern version followed by a big ass explanation and defense of it is here.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html

I think looking for a philosopher saying anything in 3 sentences or less is going to be impossible :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

152

The reason I asked for a length limitation is that if Pat, Trib, et al claim it is “so obvious” that God must exist, then it should not require pages of complex explanation. After multiple threads discussing similar issues, it’s clear that even if the aforementioned individuals are set in their dogmatic beliefs (Pat/Trib, not hating on you guys at all) it was not something that required little to no thought … therefore making it nonobvious.

153

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
The reason I asked for a length limitation is that if Pat, Trib, et al claim it is “so obvious” that God must exist, then it should not require pages of complex explanation. After multiple threads discussing similar issues, it’s clear that even if the aforementioned individuals are set in their dogmatic beliefs (Pat/Trib, not hating on you guys at all) it was not something that required little to no thought … therefore making it nonobvious. [/quote]

The shorter an illogical statement is, the easier it is to find the flaw in it. So I can understand these complex explanations of god existing.

154

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
The reason I asked for a length limitation is that if Pat, Trib, et al claim it is “so obvious” that God must exist, then it should not require pages of complex explanation. After multiple threads discussing similar issues, it’s clear that even if the aforementioned individuals are set in their dogmatic beliefs (Pat/Trib, not hating on you guys at all) it was not something that required little to no thought … therefore making it nonobvious. [/quote]

I don’t know about this case in particular but I think some things are very obvious to most of us intuitively, yet are not easily explainable succinctly.

I also think that some things that are obvious to those with specialized knowledge and jargon look incredibly mysterious to me.

155

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

All right, what you say has credibility, but if what you say is true, that there are 10 dimensions, all subject to the constraints of time, it implies that these dimensions all had a “cause”, which implies the existence of something greater than these 10 dimensions, let’s say, an eleventh dimension. Hmm? [/quote]

None of the 10 spacial dimensions and one non-spacial dimension described in M-theory are ever described in the theory has not having a cause. The various string theories are not trying to determine the so called “uncaused cause.” They are trying to resolve the rest of the fundamental forces with gravity. That is it, and that is all that is meant by the phrase “Unified Theory if Everything.” And there is no reason why a dimension above a Minkowski continuum would be outside the laws of causality, and there is no research being done that is trying to show that.

[quote]
You’re probably already aware of Rob Bryanton’s blog. Well, he’s a proponent of the 10 spacial dimension theory, but the way he describes it is “10 dimensions, plus time” and that the 11 dimensional theory is functionally equivalent to the 10 dimensional theory when viewed in this way. Imagining the Tenth Dimension: Wrapping It Up in the Tenth Dimension

Maybe you know something he doesn’t, but that post is only a little over a month old. [/quote]

His general description of the dimensions IS what M-theory states: 11 dimensions, 10 spacial and one Minkowski continuum. His description of time as not being a dimension is misleading, and his descriptions are so simplified as to lose all real meaning. I don’t know if he is just making stuff up to sell books or is just a bad scientist, but he and his ideas are not well respected by most of us in the physics community.

[quote]
My point is, we have a problem. If everything had a beginning, then what is the first cause? Either that cause is God, or a natural phenomenon. Either one must be above the constraints of time, otherwise your just pushing the goalpost. Personally, I lean towards a timeless natural phenomenon.

I’m not going to pretend that I know more about physics than do you as I can only draw on information given from people with extensive education on the matter like yourself, but do you not agree that there must be at least one dimension above the constraints of time in order for the multi-verse to be more than utter nothingness? [/quote]

No, there does not NEED to be a dimension outside of the constraints of time, and even if there were it would not necessarily be outside of the laws of causality. The beginning of time and matter and causality as we know it is a mystery, but we have no current way of knowing it or testing any of the hypotheses about it so all anyone can honestly say on it is “I don’t know” which seems to be a very hard thing to do. I agree with you that a sentient and eternal being as the “uncaused cause” is not very likely, but we just simply do not know and thus can not honestly rule anything out.

156

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

His general description of the dimensions IS what M-theory states: 11 dimensions, 10 spacial and one Markowski continuum. His description of time as not being a dimension is misleading, and his descriptions are so simplified as to lose all real meaning. I don’t know if he is just making stuff up to sell books or is just a bad scientist, but he and his ideas are not well respected by most of us in the physics community.[/quote]

Really? Well, good to know.

[quote]
No, there does not NEED to be a dimension outside of the constraints of time, and even if there were it would not necessarily be outside of the laws of causality. The beginning of time and matter and causality as we know it is a mystery, but we have no current way of knowing it or testing any of the hypotheses about it so all anyone can honestly say on it is “I don’t know” which seems to be a very hard thing to do. I agree with you that a sentient and eternal being as the “uncaused cause” is not very likely, but we just simply do not know and thus can not honestly rule anything out.[/quote]

Okay, you don’t know and I don’t know either, but it seems logically inescapable that there must be something without a beginning as everything with a beginning had a cause for its existence, therefore either the multi-verse is an infinite regression of causes or there is something not constrained by time, at least to the extent that it does not require a beginning.

I agree with you that nothing can be ruled out, perhaps reality is an infinite regression of causes ( I would say that makes it above the constraints of time, but let’s not argue semantics). After all, just because logic, as our brains understand logic, deems it impossible hasn’t stopped quantum mechanics from making no sense to us before.

Maybe you don’t agree with me on this, but I find it less logically impossible for a spatial dimension to be above time than for the universe to be an infinite regression of causes, so, until further notice, this is the theory I will continue to go by, but given the information you’ve revealed to me, I will preface this theory as my personal opinion rather than the natural conclusion of M-theory as I previously thought from this point on.

157

[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, >>>[/quote]I say it’s just the opposite. God dictates logic.

158

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, >>>[/quote]I say it’s just the opposite. God dictates logic.
[/quote]

No, blue elephants dictate logic.

How do our statements differ in terms of validity? Both are beliefs, both are unsubstantiated, both cannot be proven.

159

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:<<< If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, >>>[/quote]I say it’s just the opposite. God dictates logic.
[/quote]

This makes sense, if you believe all that God stuff.

160

You both have versions of points I’ve been making forever here.