The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

When will Jesus come back ? Options
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 2:06:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 2:44:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I've already responded to this more than once... The answer is very simple, and it's been before our very eyes all along.

You’ll have to forgive me, this is the first time for me personally.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I am in a good mood today, so let me make one more try.

Your philosophy appears to have no basis in current scientific understanding, and appears to be scientifically untestable… like most other personal philosophies, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with it. I don’t have much interest or time for fantasy – Kelly Brook and a tub of banana yogurt notwithstanding. Shhh

I’m fairly up to date on current thinking in theoretical physics, leading candidates for a ‘Theory of Everything’, particularly the basics of String Theory and M Theory, extra dimensions, Calabi–Yau manifolds etc… nothing in your post makes any sense scientifically, from your rather odd musings on 2-dimensional Euclidean space to the bastardization of thermodynamics.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
by design the physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution". When left without attendance, the physical matter only degrades into less organized chaotic forms…

Matter frequently and quite demonstrably develops from simple forms into more organized forms, if it didn’t literally nothing would exist. The physical law that you are so spectacularly misunderstanding is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In short, your phrase “left without attendance” completely ignores the constant input (and transfer) of energy into the system – in this instance from our Sun into the Earth, our existence, evolution and every darn thing you experience. You are overlooking, or don't understand, the within a closed system caveat of the 2nd law.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So it looks quite a ridiculous idea (to me, anyway) that such unbelievably complex structures as a human body, for example, could have somehow imerged from "raw matter" without a creative process involved. Such an idea contradicts all our experince.

Yet apparently you have no problem with imagining a god – that would logically need to be even more unbelievably complex than the complex universe it creates – somehow emerging without a creative process involved. Infinite regression; turtles all the way down.

Before you say ‘But God doesn’t...’, can I point out that special pleading is a logical fallacy.

My point was that Big Bang Theory – or any current scientific theory of merit – does not state that the universe “somehow originated itself from nothing”, but, apparently, that is the exact premise from which your personal philosophy springs: An unbelievably complex God must have sprung from nothing to create our complex universe, because complex things can’t possibly spring from nothing.

And still nothing in your answer explains why these miraculous gods – somehow able to circumvent the paradox of infinite regress – should be so intimately and prescriptively interested in the foreskins of infants or who is eating shellfish… and all the other nonsense in the seemingly endless stream of religious doctrine – always conveniently revealed via mere mortals.


.

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:44:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

Your philosophy appears to have no basis in current scientific understanding, and appears to be scientifically untestable… like most other personal philosophies, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do with it.


You are not supposed to do anything with it.Boo hoo!

will wrote:

from your rather odd musings on 2-dimensional Euclidean space to the bastardization of thermodynamics.


I can only suggest you might want to read these "musings" more carefully and give it a better thought. That's really the key point. It's key to all the rest.

(I mentioned the Euclidian space only as an example - one of myriads - so people whose knowledge of math is limited to a course of geometry in school can picture that example and better see the point. You can take out the reference to that particular space if you like. The argument holds).

Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 7:10:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



I have no idea about a creator.

What I say are these two things:

(i) There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes. With my background I can best demonstrate it with the example of mathematical abstractions. Other people with different education and background may suggest other examples.

And this understanding opens up a whole range of possibilities regarding what might be there in that "bigger world", including what people call God or gods, if you like, but this remains a pure speculation. The very existance of that bigger reality - that is the crucial point that has to be realized before anything else can be contemplated and discussed.

(ii) In the beginning was the word...
A word is not a physical object, it's a piece of information, an ideal object. In my explanations I use the term "ideal image" instead of "word", but I mean the same thing - in the process of creation the ideal image (the "word" in Biblical terms) comes before the physical encaranation of that idea.

The only way matter can be shaped into more organized forms (e.g. a building can be built from stones and other raw materials) is through the process of creation, whereby the ideal image of what you want to achieve comes first, and encarnation of that idea into matter comes second. The matter itself governed by laws of physics is only a "raw stuff" from which creative beings can make things. When it is left alone it degrades, not develops itself. An abandonned building left without maintenance will gradually morph into dust and sand, and never the other way around.

And since biological beings are arguably the most advanced physical systems that we know, far more advanced than anything humans themselves are able of doing at this point, I think it reasonably follows that yes, probably we are a creation. And the physical universe itself may be a creation, too. Easily. Nothing in this contradicts science.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 12:14:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov,

So do I understand you correctly to say that you think there must have been a creator to design atomic structure with positive and negative charges, quarks, etc., in such a way that they can combine to form more complicated structures; that this could not have happened on its own?



I have no idea about a creator.

What I say are these two things:

(i) There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes. With my background I can best demonstrate it with the example of mathematical abstractions. Other people with different education and background may suggest other examples.

And this understanding opens up a whole range of possibilities regarding what might be there in that "bigger world", including what people call God or gods, if you like, but this remains a pure speculation. The very existance of that bigger reality - that is the crucial point that has to be realized before anything else can be contemplated and discussed.

(ii) In the beginning was the word...
A word is not a physical object, it's a piece of information, an ideal object. In my explanations I use the term "ideal image" instead of "word", but I mean the same thing - in the process of creation the ideal image (the "word" in Biblical terms) comes before the physical encaranation of that idea.

The only way matter can be shaped into more organized forms (e.g. a building can be built from stones and other raw materials) is through the process of creation, whereby the ideal image of what you want to achieve comes first, and encarnation of that idea into matter comes second. The matter itself governed by laws of physics is only a "raw stuff" from which creative beings can make things. When it is left alone it degrades, not develops itself. An abandonned building left without maintenance will gradually morph into dust and sand, and never the other way around.

And since biological beings are arguably the most advanced physical systems that we know, far more advanced than anything humans themselves are able of doing at this point, I think it reasonably follows that yes, probably we are a creation. And the physical universe itself may be a creation, too. Easily. Nothing in this contradicts science.

Ah, okay. That's fine. I just wanted to be sure I understood correctly.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 4:17:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You are not supposed to do anything with it

Odd then that you should bring it up, apparently repeatedly, on a public discussion forum? And why later insist “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it”?.. I’ll come back to this later.

Your refusal to address the problem of infinite regress, that is catastrophic to your whole argument, is duly noted.

Likewise, the fact that you chose to ignore my challenge of your misunderstanding of Thermodynamics (but chose to repeat the same bastardized version in your reply to FounDit) has also been noted.

Science isn’t like theism, you can’t just pick and chose the bits that seem to fit the conclusions you’ve already formed. If you want the credibility of science by pretending you understand entropy you should at least give the pretence of a scientifically enquiring mind.
Put a bowl of salt water on a sunny window sill, leave it for a week, and then tell me if you still believe that “physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms”. The decrease in entropy so clearly observed in the resulting crystals should be enough to make you reassess your flawed hypothesis (like a true scientist). Or you could consider the formation of snowflakes, or lightening, or tornados, weather in general; or wave formations; or fractals (this should be obvious to a mathematician like yourself); or the formation of stars from random clouds of hydrogen gas; or the rings of Saturn, or the natural grading of pebbles on a beach; or photosynthesis, reproduction and, of course, evolution.

Or you could even take a quick look the current apologetics spewing from leading creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis. Even they now accept that this ludicrous argument is untenable and have put it on their list of arguments to avoid – as if knowledge is a battle of words, rather than the collective discovery of truths. d'oh!

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I can only suggest you might want to read these "musings" more carefully and give it a better thought. That's really the key point. It's key to all the rest.

As I said, I don’t really have any patience for fantasy and that includes pseudo-intellectual gibberish, arbitrary assumptions and bluff. But you’ve talked about logic and mathematics, and tried to put a scientific spin on your philosophy, so I’m happy to have another look. Let’s go from the very first line of the example you chose:

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Say, in mathematics you define a space. To make it simple, let's talk about 2-dimensional Euclidian space. The definition consists of only few simple statements.

And this simple definition immediately gives rise to an indefinite number of properties of an indefinite number of all possible objects in that space.

No it doesn’t. Possibilities might be exceedingly large – depending on however much you’re going to twist standard definitions – but not indefinite.

Indefinite
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits
c. Uncertain; undecided

Euclidean geometry is very clearly defined, has very precise limits, and is clearly understood (and has been for thousands of years). Your premise is flawed; until you clear that up, there’s little point continuing.

But I will anyway.

Observations of reality cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Contrary to your assertion, it is too limited and too narrowly defined. Riemann, among others, gave us more accurate mathematical descriptions of reality. Einstein put the final nail in the coffin of Euclidian space (as an accurate mathematical description of reality). And it’s well understood that even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has clearly defined limits. This is why I mentioned String and M Theory, Calabi–Yau manifolds etc.

Your argument doesn’t hold, not even with the example you chose, nor any other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it.

The physical universe comprises everything material, tangible and empirically observable; all natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences -- in contrast to any spiritual or supernatural essence.

If your assertion of a reality ‘beyond the physical universe and time’ were a fact it wouldn’t, by definition, be ‘beyond’ the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. Falsifiable facts are not just ‘realized’.

You should have led with this assertion of ‘supernatural fact’ (an oxymoron) and insisted that others just simply take your word for it and saved us all a lot of time. This is personal Faith, nothing more. You could have left out the pseudo-intellectual waffle and flawed science.


.


Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 5:37:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Sorry, by "indefinite" I meant "infinite". That's a linguistic mistake, but I admit it does confuse.

I am not sure I can edit my post at this stage, let me see.

I would expect a knowledgeable person to be able to recognize that mistake though.

P.S. No, I can't edit that post, so this is what it should read like:

The key to understanding this is to realize that the time itself only aplies to the physical universe. It is part of its design. But there is other reality where time does not exist and does not apply to.

Say, in mathematics you define a space. To make it simple, let's talk about 2-dimensional Euclidian space. The definition consists of only few simple statements.

And this simple definition immediately gives rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space.

All those properties derive from the definition via formal logic. There is no time lag between the cause (definition) and the consequnce (the infinite number of properties). There is no time in that space. It is eternal. It is just there, ideally accurate and timeless. And yet it is real. Mathematicians can operate with that reality, contemplate its various objects and properties, and while doing this they all are somehow talking about the same thing. There is only one accuarate answer to any specific question. And that accurate answer, once it is found, is identical for all the human beings considering the issue. So the accurate solution (say, some object's property) exists as a stand-alone reality, existing independently of humans who think about it.

Other definitions automatically result in other infinite arrays of objects and their properties... That Great Ideal Reality encompasses all possible definitions and all the infinite mass of facts that result from those. That ideal Reality is firm and timeless. Such "earthly" concepts as "creation", "origin", "beginning and end" do not apply there. Such concepts only seem necessary to us bacause we are used to percieving time as indespensible part of existance. But this is simply not true, as demonstrated above.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 6:17:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Will,

To what extent Euclidian space or any other mathematical model accurately describes the physical reality is another issue.

The Euclidian space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of that. That's the key and fairly simple idea that, however, somehow doesn't seem to get across.

And math is only an example. Other ideas are, of course, there, too. Myriads of them. It is only that since math deals with the most basic building blocks of that ideal world, mathematical objects can be directly compared and analysed. Whereas such complex ideas as, for example, "good" or "evil" or other such things represent complex compounds. Which, unlike math objects, can also differ from person to person. And humans are usually unable to consciously decompose those complex ideas into basic elements, so they cannot be analysed and/or compared.
will
Posted: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:08:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Sorry, by "indefinite" I meant "infinite". That's a linguistic mistake, but I admit it does confuse.

I would expect a knowledgeable person to be able to recognize that mistake though.

Yikes!
At best ‘indefinite’ and ‘infinite’ are near synonyms and your mistake changes nothing. In actuality changing it to infinite is far worse; while indefinite implies a vague but bounded unknown, infinite means having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.

2-dimensional Euclidean space, the example you chose to illustrate your argument, most certainly does NOT ‘immediately give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space’.

What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true – conveniently including your desire for a particular supernatural deity.
Well, yes, in a way you are correct… but what a fantastically jaded philosophy that is. And again, you could have said as much without all the bluff. It’s just the same vacuous theistic argument that states that because God is supernatural – by definition beyond the physical world – material laws of nature and reasoning don’t apply when trying to prove His existence. It’s usually followed by the fallacious demand that the onus is on the disbeliever to use material laws of nature and reasoning to prove the negative.

Your problem here is that the same ‘logic’ must also apply to absolutely anything supernatural that one might care to imagine. Your personal supernatural belief is as equally logical (i.e. not at all) as the universe existing only as a fantasy of a rainbow coloured unicorn.

This ‘logic’ of assuming that anything supernatural should be considered fact, because it can’t be disproved, is clearly flawed. It follows that any reasonable qualitative definition causes the supernatural to be qualitatively assessable and therefore introduces an increased possibility of potentially being materially disproved. Following this tortured ‘logic’ the more unimaginable, most supernatural and totally unquantifiable would have a firmer basis for belief than things for which there is a huge body of supporting material evidence – being more qualitatively defined and open to more scrutiny. That’s clearly bollocks.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
To what extent Euclidian space or any other mathematical model accurately describes the physical reality is another issue.

That’s a cop out. You introduced math, you can't now pretend it has no bearing on the discussion of reality. The issue is very much that your belief in your personal God (justified with an appeal to the authority of Euclid) exists as part of our shared physical reality, as does your insistence that god is an inevitable fact (stemmed from a flawed premise), as is your strawman distortion of Thermodynamics and rejection of scientific knowledge that accurately describes reality (and incidently finds absolutely no evidence for the existence of yours or any other gods)

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
The Euclidian space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of that.

What? Euclidean space, once it is defined, exists regardless and independently of physical reality? I don’t think so Speak to the hand

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
That's the key and fairly simple idea...

That you’ve expressed in a very complicated manner, by trying to hijack the credibility of science, mathematics and formal logic.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
...that, however, somehow doesn't seem to get across.

Has it ever occurred to you that the problem you have getting this ‘simple idea’ across is because it doesn’t make any sense? Think

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And math is only an example. Other ideas are, of course, there, too. Myriads of them. It is only that since math deals with the most basic building blocks of that ideal world, mathematical objects can be directly compared and analysed. Whereas such complex ideas as, for example, "good" or "evil" or other such things represent complex compounds. Which, unlike math objects, can also differ from person to person. And humans are usually unable to consciously decompose those complex ideas into basic elements, so they cannot be analysed and/or compared.

Case in point.


.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2018 8:14:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

2-dimensional Euclidean space, the example you chose to illustrate your argument, most certainly does NOT ‘immediately give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space’.


Oops... Certainly the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!

I don't believe you don't understand this. You sound as a very well educated person. You wouldn't have been able to make it to your first degree if you didn't.


will wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true ...


d'oh! What?
"Possibilities"... "Imagine"... What are you even talking about?

You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem Angel This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

Some of the properties of objects in Euclidian space have already been discovered by humans. Others are yet to be found. But the space and all that's in it is there anyway regardless of what humans do.
will
Posted: Friday, August 10, 2018 4:24:25 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
So having jettisoned every other element of your original argument, you still want to persist with this? d'oh!

The two sections that make up the bulk of your last post directly contradict each other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!


Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical [sic] to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

So non- parallel lines, perpendicular to a third, is one example of a property that is NOT possible within your defined space, and a sphere is an example of an object that is NOT possible within your defined space. Just those two examples, those two exceptions, make the number of properties and number of possible objects finite.

Two exceptions is enough to disprove the rule; but one could actually include pretty much all of reality from quantum mechanics to the entire mass of the universe, most of which falls outside of the very clearly defined and very precise limits of Euclidean geometry.

These clearly defined and very precise limits are why non-Euclidean geometry has existed since the early 1800’s. These clearly defined and very precise limits are why we need Einstein's theory of general relativity, that, despite being one of the most accurate mathematical tools we currently possess, still has clear limits.

I wrote:
What you seem to be saying is that if one defines things as broadly as one wishes, an infinite number of possibilities can be imagined to be true ...

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
What?
"Possibilities"... "Imagine"... What are you even talking about?

I’m talking about your original hypothesis. At this stage I can understand why you might want to discuss something different, but the fact remains that you stated, in various ways that defining things leads to infinite / indefinite possibilities. For example:

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Other definitions automatically result in other indefinite arrays of objects and their properties... That Great Ideal Reality encompasses all possible definitions and all the indefinite mass of facts that result from those

Emphasis added.
From this you somehow extrapolated that “we must realize the the physical universe is not all.” and “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact”, and of course the existence of supernatural entities. There is no objective, empirical evidence for any of these assertions, they are products of subjective imagination.

I’m getting bored of this, I’ve called your bluff, you need to offer something new if you plan to continue with your extraordinary claims.


.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 11, 2018 12:26:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,312
Neurons: 47,697
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Wiil wrote: Yet apparently you have no problem with imagining a god – that would logically need to be even more unbelievably complex than the complex universe it creates – somehow emerging without a creative process involved. Infinite regression; turtles all the way down.

Before you say ‘But God doesn’t...’, can I point out that special pleading is a logical fallacy.

My point was that Big Bang Theory – or any current scientific theory of merit – does not state that the universe “somehow originated itself from nothing”, but, apparently, that is the exact premise from which your personal philosophy springs: An unbelievably complex God must have sprung from nothing to create our complex universe, because complex things can’t possibly spring from nothing.

And still nothing in your answer explains why these miraculous gods – somehow able to circumvent the paradox of infinite regress – should be so intimately and prescriptively interested in the foreskins of infants or who is eating shellfish… and all the other nonsense in the seemingly endless stream of religious doctrine – always conveniently revealed via mere mortals.



Exactly. Who created God?

Jesus may have been a good man who lived, or a compilation of what they thought a good man should be. But the only proof that he was the son of a god, came to mortals in dreams. Yeah, that's right. Dreams!

Any god that allows what happens on this earth cannot be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, AND benevolent. It's impossible.

Besides, when certain people are not shrivelled up in a bolt of lightning, it makes belief in a god very strenuous. Whistle

Edited - the actual quote is: It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning. -Bill Watterson, comic strip artist


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:01:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

The two sections that make up the bulk of your last post directly contradict each other.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
the definition does give rise to an infinite number of properties of an infinite number of all possible objects in that space!


Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
You define the space. From that definition it follows by formal logic that two lines perpendical [sic] to a third one must be parallel to each other. There is no "chance" or "possibility" to come up with a different result, no matter how many times you try and which way you approach this problem This is what math is about. It's a strict world. Ideally accurate and static.

So non- parallel lines, perpendicular to a third, is one example of a property that is NOT possible within your defined space, and a sphere is an example of an object that is NOT possible within your defined space. Just those two examples, those two exceptions, make the number of properties and number of possible objects finite.


What a nonsense.

There exist infinite number of prime integers. But this does not mean that any integer is a prime one.

There exist infinite number of objects in the Euclidian space and infinite number of their properties. But, of course, only right ones are there, not just any statement you make up.

I am getting bored, too. By this time I am pretty sure you must be getting it quite alright, but for some reason you choose to troll the idea. And a terrible suspicion has stiken me that maybe the policy of deliberate lies about physical life has now been extended to lying to people about math, too. Because the truth is near. One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 5:04:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 980
Neurons: 479,212
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.


You could even say our knowledge and understanding of it all is evolving.
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:09:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,468
Neurons: 27,420
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
The question has been answered.

"Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
"


Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.


"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Absinthius
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 4:25:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 370
Neurons: 23,951
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
leonAzul wrote:


Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.

That is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma.

A third option is much more likely: The book is made up, making both other options equally irrelevant.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:24:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
What a nonsense.

There exist infinite number of prime integers. But this does not mean that any integer is a prime one.

Or to put it another way...

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
There exist infinite number of objects in the Euclidian space and infinite number of their properties. But, of course, only right ones are there, not just any statement you make up.

Ah! So the two examples I gave (and the countless others) are the just the ‘wrong type’ of properties and objects and are not part of the ‘infinite number of...’, but of course, supernatural beings and the ‘known fact’ of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ are objects and properties that are logically part of the infinite number of possibilities that stem from your example. Think

Now I see, that makes perfect sense. My bad. Anxious

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I am getting bored, too. By this time I am pretty sure you must be getting it quite alright, but for some reason you choose to troll the idea. And a terrible suspicion has stiken me that maybe the policy of deliberate lies about physical life has now been extended to lying to people about math, too. Because the truth is near. One or two more efforts, and humans will find accuarte answers to many questions that have historically been puzzling and dividing people. And of course this is what this plague of liars and conflict instigators is rightly afraid of to death.

Wow!.. Just wow.

I gave you several opportunities to discuss your hypothesis, philosophy, mathematics or science like a grown up. You chose this route. Shame on you


.
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:30:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
The above demonstrates just how dangerous Faith is as a methodology. On the surface it’s often benign and genial enough, with talk of logic, reasoning and even a hint of empiricism. But one only need scratch the surface to expose the illusion; what remains is nothing but assertion, wishful thinking and even the rejection of whole chunks of collective human knowledge – in this case our collective explanation of reality is apparently a conspiracy perpetrated by a ‘plague of liars and conflict instigators’. This is exactly the same methodology that motives extremists, regardless of religious creed.

leonAzul wrote:
Either Jesus came and went, or Matthew is a lying sack of shit.

If Jesus did ‘return’, would it even matter?
Fact is there have been numerous prophets and divine messengers over the last two thousand years – from Muhammad to Joseph Smith – and theists routinely just pick and chose as theologically expedient. Even if God were to reveal Herself to the entirety of humanity, I reckon most theists would still chose, conditioned as they are, to stick with their own personal ‘truth’. Especially if She came with a message of equality, peace and tolerance, thus depriving them their doomsday fantasies and their status (and salvation) as the ‘chosen few’. Pray


It’s like the old story about two friends who find a box. The first friend, a non-theist, looks inside the box and says “It’s a jigsaw puzzle. Let’s put it together to see what it is.”

Immediately the other friend, a theist, replies “There’s no need. My parents have a jigsaw, so I already know what it is. It’s a ginger kitten, playing with a ball of purple wool, in front of a cosy log fire.”

The non-theist, who has emptied the pieces onto the table, says “I don’t think it is. These bits are clearly sky and these look like they might be a river.”

“No,” the theist insists, “the blue bits are designed that way to test your faith and the other bits are an evil trick to deceive you. Just take my word for it. It’s a kitten.”

This goes back and forth, while the non-theist continues to put piece after piece together. Finally the puzzle is complete, apart from one missing piece, and the non-theist concludes “There, it’s The Hay Wain by John Constable.”

Unmoved, the theist replies “Nope. It’s definitely a kitten. And unless you can find that missing piece, you can’t prove it’s not.” and walks off victoriously.


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 12:51:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,312
Neurons: 47,697
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Love the kitten story, Will. So apropos.

Edited - thought I should add an admonishment Whistle She/He to be equal. Whistle Whistle

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 2:50:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
As I said, "Each person should be free to make up their own minds, with the understanding that there will always be people who will choose to believe in gods and religions."


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:07:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
The freedom to ones personal beliefs is not the issue. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, but no one is entitled to their own personal facts.

.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 4:37:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
will wrote:
The freedom to ones personal beliefs is not the issue. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, but no one is entitled to their own personal facts.

.


I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers. That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results. The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:07:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
FounDit wrote:
I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

I’ve covered this fairly extensively already. It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation.

Likewise, if Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ were a known fact, as he claimed, it wouldn’t by definition be beyond the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. There is currently absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion.

FounDit wrote:
So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers.

There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.

There are several hypotheses regarding the true nature of the universe; only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) claims to ‘know’ with absolute certitude: theism.
And only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) uses that certitude to demand the divine right to impose specific forms of morality on the wider society, but that’s perhaps a discussion for another time.

Over the millennia the exact same ‘god of the gaps’ argument has been applied to any unknown at the limit of understanding: gods have variously resided ‘beyond the mountain’, ‘above the clouds’, ‘across the seas’, ‘beyond the stars’… humanity has just about run out of gaps. The entirety of human existence is littered with failed god hypotheses, that have become untenable in the light of the constantly improving collective understanding of reality. The only difference between Gods and myths is time.

FounDit wrote:
That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs. Although many theists claim that two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, I doubt any would actually be prepared to give up the scientific advances that affords them their current standard of life.

FounDit wrote:
The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.

Firstly, facts are not purely subjective and not all opinions are equal. I'm aware from other discussions with you that this is something of a sticking point, but most often it's very clear. When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claims thermodynamics disproves evolution he is simply wrong; it is not an equally valid conclusion.

Secondly, I’m not an enemy of Kirill Vorobyov – even though my basic understanding of science apparently makes me part of a plague of liars Shhh . He is perfectly welcome to his personal beliefs. But if he (or anyone) wants to use the credibility of science, mathematics and logic, to support a claim in a public forum, then they are required to conform to a higher, more rigorous, standard than Faith.

It is naive to think that personal supernatural beliefs (different conclusions to empirical observations) do not filter through society and have a profound effect on us all. We don’t simply except the different conclusions of extremists, why should we accept the same methodology for the more moderate?


.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:02:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I think that depends on one's perspective. Kirill stated that "There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time...".

There can be no doubt that the Universe is expanding into ... something, even if that something is an empty space — an empty space that exists somewhere — and an empty space that we have no knowledge of as to its extent, or properties, such as boundaries if any, or what may lie on the other side of any such boundaries.

I’ve covered this fairly extensively already. It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation.
Now we're just playing word games. My definition of Universe is "All spacetime, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. (TFD)"

That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc. Your Youtube video does the same word play by using ants, balloons and raisin bread, but doesn't deal with the "outside" all of those are expanding into.

Likewise, if Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ were a known fact, as he claimed, it wouldn’t by definition be beyond the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. There is currently absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion.
Again a matter of definition. If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test. An ameoba, if it could know science and testing, would have an idea of its Universe and what it contains, but could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".

FounDit wrote:
So I think that fact is what was being proposed. However, how that space came to be, or any other aspects of it remain in the realm of pure faith, i.e., belief in the face of no evidence. I asked if he believed in a Creator, and as I read it, he affirmed that belief. For him, the facts he sees justifies his faith. So it is with all believers.

There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.
True, but that is precisely the nature of faith, and it is at that point that all arguments must end. Those who wish to believe will continue to do so, because that is what faith is, belief without evidence.

There are several hypotheses regarding the true nature of the universe; only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) claims to ‘know’ with absolute certitude: theism.
And only one hypothesis (of innumerable variety) uses that certitude to demand the divine right to impose specific forms of morality on the wider society, but that’s perhaps a discussion for another time.

Over the millennia the exact same ‘god of the gaps’ argument has been applied to any unknown at the limit of understanding: gods have variously resided ‘beyond the mountain’, ‘above the clouds’, ‘across the seas’, ‘beyond the stars’… humanity has just about run out of gaps. The entirety of human existence is littered with failed god hypotheses, that have become untenable in the light of the constantly improving collective understanding of reality. The only difference between Gods and myths is time.

FounDit wrote:
That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs.
I know of no one who advocates such a position; even believers do not insist on that. Although many theists claim that two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, I doubt any would actually be prepared to give up the scientific advances that affords them their current standard of life.
I agree, but the strategy should be to avoid excesses, as I mentioned earlier, and that by both sides. If it was wrong to claim two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, it is just as wrong to claim that today's current state of scientific ignorance and knowledge should take precedence over all else also. In a free society, both schools of thought must be permitted to exist.

FounDit wrote:
The facts lead you and me to one conclusion, and to others, a different conclusion. There really is no need to become enemies over a difference in opinion.

Firstly, facts are not purely subjective and not all opinions are equal. I'm aware from other discussions with you that this is something of a sticking point, but most often it's very clear. Then you have misunderstood me. I do not say all opinions are equal. I say all people have a right to hold a different opinion, and simply because it is different, doesn't make it a wrong, or invalid, opinion.When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claims thermodynamics disproves evolution he is simply wrong; it is not an equally valid conclusion.

Secondly, I’m not an enemy of Kirill Vorobyov – even though my basic understanding of science apparently makes me part of a plague of liars Shhh . He is perfectly welcome to his personal beliefs. But if he (or anyone) wants to use the credibility of science, mathematics and logic, to support a claim in a public forum, then they are required to conform to a higher, more rigorous, standard than Faith.
Not so. Since none of us know for a fact how the Universe came into being, and none of us know what, if anything, lies "outside" of it, or even if there is and "outside", we are all still learning. Some choose to believe without evidence in a creator. Others choose not to believe such. He may not argue scientific facts, but he certainly can choose to believe.

It is naive to think that personal supernatural beliefs (different conclusions to empirical observations) do not filter through society and have a profound effect on us all. We don’t simply except the different conclusions of extremists, why should we accept the same methodology for the more moderate?
Because that is the standard for living in a free society.

.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 6:37:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 500
Neurons: 2,603
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

I’ve covered this fairly extensively already. It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation.

Likewise, if Kirill Vorobyov’s assertion of ‘a reality beyond the physical universe and time’ were a known fact, as he claimed, it wouldn’t by definition be beyond the physical universe. It would be part of the physical universe, like every other empirical fact. There is currently absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion.



Will et al.,
Suppose you're solving a geometry problem (yes, let it be again in the Euclidian space, a simple problem that children are given in middle school).

Say, the conditions of the problem define a triangle. You must find one of that triangle's properties (say, an angle). If you know how to solve you'll follow some logical route and find that angle.

Somebody else on the other side of the planet is solving the same problem independently of you. And he or she will come up with exactly the same figure as you will. Because there exists in the Euclidian space only one triangle that meets the conditions. And properties of that triangle are cast in something that is much firmer than stone. Because the Euclidian space is governed by pure logic. No time. No dependence on one's location in the physical space when thinking about it. Nothing but the formal logic, and that formal logic connects the elements and constituent parts of that space into something unbreakable.

Now my question to you - where is that triangle in the physical world? It's nowhere. It is not part of the physical world. It exists beyond physical space, and beyond time, too. 100 million years ago the same geometry problem had exactly the same accurate solution, and it will have exactly that same accurate solution in 100 million years from now.

So it is not part of the physical universe, and yet, it is real. You and that other guy, and millions of other people who have solved or will be solving this problem, are looking at the same thing. That triangle is not just part of your or those other people's imagination. Otherwise, how would you all come up with the same and only correct answer?

This is the ideal reality, governed by LOGIC only, and it does exist. And we sense it, by the way, too, when we contemplate various ideal things, like that triangle, as a small example. This ideal reality is not part of the physical universe, because it is nowehere in the physical universe. And physical time does not apply to it, either.

The above is the only point that I assert. All the rest, I said, were speculations and my thoughts. How did the physical universe come to exist? - I don't know, I tend to think it's a creation, but excatly how I don't know. Most of assertions that you ascribed to me and then fought with in your posts I never made, if you read my posts more carefully.
will
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:49:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
FounDit wrote:
Now we're just playing word games. My definition of Universe is "All spacetime, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

I’ve already similarly defined the physical universe as ‘everything material, tangible and empirically observable; all natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences’. I see nothing wrong with either definition, no word games involved.

FounDit wrote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test.

Indeed. That is how science works, it deals with what we can see and test, to compile the most current and most accurate descriptions of reality. And science does not claim to have ‘knowledge’ of things for which there is no evidence – things we can’t see or test-- things like gods and rainbow coloured unicorns.

FounDit wrote:
An ameoba, if it could know science and testing, would have an idea of its Universe and what it contains, but could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".

Which actually makes my point. Let us say a small bowl of water is the amoeba's idea of its universe. If that bowl fill and spills out onto the floor, the amoeba's universe is now a large puddle. The universe has not expanded into ‘something’ separate to the physical universe (where amoeba gods and unicorns may or may not reside), it’s just the amoeba's sphere of knowledge, regarding what constitutes ‘all matter’ that has grown.

The people who wrote the Bible concluded the entire universe comprised of the ‘firmament’ (containing a few thousand visible stars), the Earth and the Sun, because [SPOILER ALERT] they were ignorant to the reality beyond their not-at-all-omniscient knowledge.

Incidently, if ‘arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive result’ we would still believe this. If Galileo had not argued science, for fear of offending the Catholic Church we would still believe the Sun revolved around the Earth – as indeed a quarter of Americans apparently do. Imagine what might happen if these people were allowed to vote... oh,wait. d'oh!

Of course we now know the universe is a whole lot more. The space-time, matter, energy, solar systems, all stars and galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, radiation, dark matter etc. that you mention (as a definition) above, is not ‘something’ the universe has expanded in to, it is part of the universe, and always has been though we might have historically not been aware of the fact.

I wrote:
There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.

FounDit wrote:
True, but that is precisely the nature of faith, and it is at that point that all arguments must end. Those who wish to believe will continue to do so, because that is what faith is, belief without evidence.

Hmm... but Faith rarely does end there, does it? Theists frequently take the gaps in scientific knowledge to conclude that, because science fails to disprove God, it is valid to state specific supernatural claims – and ‘divine’ moral standards – as incontrovertible facts. By extension it becomes necessary to misrepresent and denigrate areas of science between the gaps, exactly as Kirill Vorobyov did here. Theism is littered with attempts to force an end to scientific arguments in favour of Faith (for example, Galileo) and continues in earnest today.

I wrote:
I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs.

FounDit wrote:
I know of no one who advocates such a position; even believers do not insist on that.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results". However, the Taliban and the Discovery Institute, to name just two, absolutely do advocate such a position.

If you simply mean there is no point using logic, reason, science and empiricism on certain people, who will stick to their personal supernatural fantasies at all costs, then I agree, in many cases, although not all cases. Also, I personally think that accurate descriptions of reality are fantastically interesting, undeniably useful for humanity as a whole, and always worth promoting.

FounDit wrote:
If it was wrong to claim two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, it is just as wrong to claim that today's current state of scientific ignorance and knowledge should take precedence over all else also.

None of my posts in this thread (or anywhere) claim the current state of scientific ignorance should take precedence over anything, that’s simply something you have imagined. My discussion with Kirill Vorobyov was in defence of empirically established scientific knowledge such as evolution, thermodynamics, mathematics and cosmology. In fact my first post was simply to point out that Big Bang Theory says nothing about 'before' the Planck era. I fully accept scientific ignorance where it exists, I've rejected the 'god of the gaps' argument throughout. He chose not to defend his pseudo-scientific assertions when I challenged him and I pretty much left the science at that.
He did chose to describe empirically established knowledge as a conspiracy perpetrated by a plague of liars and conflict instigators, who are afraid to death of the truth of a specific supernatural deity being revealed. I pointed out what a risible argument that was.

FounDit wrote:
In a free society, both schools of thought must be permitted to exist.

I agree, with the understanding that not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
I say all people have a right to hold a different opinion, and simply because it is different, doesn't make it a wrong, or invalid, opinion.

In general I’ve never denied anyone their right to any belief, however nonsensical
I repeat: When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claimed thermodynamics disproves evolution he was simply wrong. His right to believe a flawed opinion has nothing to do with it. He is not wrong simply because it’s a ‘different’ opinion; he is wrong because the empirically established facts show that he is wrong. Not all opinions are equal and not all opinions are valid.

In reality there are plenty of ‘different opinions’ that we collectively judge to be both wrong and invalid. It’s naive to think opinions exist in a vacuum, separate from each other and from actions.

FounDit wrote:
Since none of us know for a fact how the Universe came into being, and none of us know what, if anything, lies "outside" of it, or even if there is and "outside", we are all still learning.

The point that I’ve repeatedly made is that one hypothesis (of numerous variety) does claim to know, for a fact, how the universe came into being and, far from still learning, many proponents of that hypothesis actually seek to denigrate human knowledge in an attempt to deny a reality that does not fit that hypothesis (of numerous variety).

FounDit wrote:
Some choose to believe without evidence in a creator. Others choose not to believe such. He may not argue scientific facts, but he certainly can choose to believe.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.


.
will
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 11:02:05 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Most of assertions that you ascribed to me and then fought with in your posts I never made, if you read my posts more carefully.
I am quite content to let other individuals be the judge of that. Personally I say that’s bullshit.

.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:44:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Now we're just playing word games. My definition of Universe is "All spacetime, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

I’ve already similarly defined the physical universe as ‘everything material, tangible and empirically observable; all natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences’. I see nothing wrong with either definition, no word games involved.
But in your earlier post you said,
Quote:

"It makes no sense to say the universe is expanding into ‘something’. The universe, by definition, includes everything. If the universe were expanding into ‘something’, that ‘something’ would be part of the universe. It’s simply not accurate to think of the universe as having an edge or boundary. I can’t be bothered to go over it again, but here is a simple explanation." [End Quote]

I take that to mean that the "something" is a part of the universe, as does, apparently, the fellow in your Youtube video. Therefore, the universe cannot expand into itself. But if the "something" is not part of the universe, then the universe can expand into it. I'll come back to this in your example of the amoeba in the bowl of water.


FounDit wrote:
That Universe is expanding. Logically, it must be expanding into "something" even if that is empty space, otherwise, it would come up against some kind of barrier; or, that space is filled with the same material that fills the space within our Universe — radiation, Dark Matter, etc.

Well that’s not how cosmologist and astrophysicists understand it. That’s not a model that results from physics or quantum mechanics. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal.
Well, until cosmologists and astrophysicists explain it to me so I can understand it, or you do, I can only go with what seems logical to me. Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

FounDit wrote:
If my Universe is all the stuff contained in the TFD definition, then there is an "outside" that it is expanding into. If, however, one includes the area into which the Universe is expanding and calls all of it the Universe, then nothing can be known about it except what we already can see and test.

Indeed. That is how science works, it deals with what we can see and test, to compile the most current and most accurate descriptions of reality. And science does not claim to have ‘knowledge’ of things for which there is no evidence – things we can’t see or test-- things like gods and rainbow coloured unicorns.

FounDit wrote:
An ameoba, if it could know science and testing, would have an idea of its Universe and what it contains, but could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".

Which actually makes my point. Let us say a small bowl of water is the amoeba's idea of its universe. If that bowl fill and spills out onto the floor, the amoeba's universe is now a large puddle. The universe has not expanded into ‘something’ separate to the physical universe (where amoeba gods and unicorns may or may not reside), it’s just the amoeba's sphere of knowledge, regarding what constitutes ‘all matter’ that has grown.
This seems illogical to me. The bowl of water has spilled, so it has, indeed, "expanded" into something outside its previous form. The amoeba is still unaware of what exists in that expanded area, but can now understand that his universe has, indeed, expanded into "something" because it is now larger than before, even if that expansion was into emptiness.

The people who wrote the Bible concluded the entire universe comprised of the ‘firmament’ (containing a few thousand visible stars), the Earth and the Sun, because [SPOILER ALERT] they were ignorant to the reality beyond their not-at-all-omniscient knowledge.

Incidently, if ‘arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive result’ we would still believe this. If Galileo had not argued science, for fear of offending the Catholic Church we would still believe the Sun revolved around the Earth – as indeed a quarter of Americans apparently do. Imagine what might happen if these people were allowed to vote... oh,wait. d'oh!
I didn't make myself clear on this point. I meant to say that arguing science to try to prove to a believer that what they believe is wrong, will not work, produces friction, and ends with no positive results. It will work only if they choose to be somewhat open-minded about it.

Of course we now know the universe is a whole lot more. The space-time, matter, energy, solar systems, all stars and galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, radiation, dark matter etc. that you mention (as a definition) above, is not ‘something’ the universe has expanded in to, it is part of the universe, and always has been though we might have historically not been aware of the fact.
I don't say the things you list are what the universe is expanding into. I said this is what our universe consists of, and what it is expanding into may be nothing but emptiness, or perhaps that emptiness isn't really empty, but consists of stuff like Dark Matter or radiation. I don't know. I merely posit the possibility. But I do see our universe as expanding into "something", whatever that is, and cannot accept the idea that one cannot say that. It makes no sense to me.

I wrote:
There is a vast difference between science stating it has no facts about things for which there is no evidence and theism claiming lack of evidence gives carte blanche to state any supernatural claim as incontrovertible fact.

FounDit wrote:
True, but that is precisely the nature of faith, and it is at that point that all arguments must end. Those who wish to believe will continue to do so, because that is what faith is, belief without evidence.

Hmm... but Faith rarely does end there, does it? Theists frequently take the gaps in scientific knowledge to conclude that, because science fails to disprove God, it is valid to state specific supernatural claims – and ‘divine’ moral standards – as incontrovertible facts. By extension it becomes necessary to misrepresent and denigrate areas of science between the gaps, exactly as Kirill Vorobyov did here. Theism is littered with attempts to force an end to scientific arguments in favour of Faith (for example, Galileo) and continues in earnest today.

I wrote:
I simply cannot understand how anyone can believe that we should not push scientific advancement for fear of offending people’s supernatural beliefs.

FounDit wrote:
I know of no one who advocates such a position; even believers do not insist on that.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by "That's why arguing science only causes friction and produces no positive results". However, the Taliban and the Discovery Institute, to name just two, absolutely do advocate such a position.
Okay. Valid point, as I didn't consider those two groups.

If you simply mean there is no point using logic, reason, science and empiricism on certain people, who will stick to their personal supernatural fantasies at all costs, then I agree, in many cases, although not all cases. Also, I personally think that accurate descriptions of reality are fantastically interesting, undeniably useful for humanity as a whole, and always worth promoting.
That was the point I was trying to make.

FounDit wrote:
If it was wrong to claim two thousand year old superstitions should take precedence over all else, it is just as wrong to claim that today's current state of scientific ignorance and knowledge should take precedence over all else also.

None of my posts in this thread (or anywhere) claim the current state of scientific ignorance should take precedence over anything, that’s simply something you have imagined. But this is so very often the perception. That's why I mention it.
My discussion with Kirill Vorobyov was in defence of empirically established scientific knowledge such as evolution, thermodynamics, mathematics and cosmology. In fact my first post was simply to point out that Big Bang Theory says nothing about 'before' the Planck era. I fully accept scientific ignorance where it exists, I've rejected the 'god of the gaps' argument throughout. He chose not to defend his pseudo-scientific assertions when I challenged him and I pretty much left the science at that.
He did chose to describe empirically established knowledge as a conspiracy perpetrated by a plague of liars and conflict instigators, who are afraid to death of the truth of a specific supernatural deity being revealed. I pointed out what a risible argument that was.
Once that argument was made, it should have been clear that faith was the foundation and no advancement was likely to be made at that point.

FounDit wrote:
In a free society, both schools of thought must be permitted to exist.

I agree, with the understanding that not all opinions are equal.

FounDit wrote:
I say all people have a right to hold a different opinion, and simply because it is different, doesn't make it a wrong, or invalid, opinion.

In general I’ve never denied anyone their right to any belief, however nonsensical
I repeat: When, for example, Kirill Vorobyov claimed thermodynamics disproves evolution he was simply wrong. His right to believe a flawed opinion has nothing to do with it. He is not wrong simply because it’s a ‘different’ opinion; he is wrong because the empirically established facts show that he is wrong. Not all opinions are equal and not all opinions are valid.

In reality there are plenty of ‘different opinions’ that we collectively judge to be both wrong and invalid. It’s naive to think opinions exist in a vacuum, separate from each other and from actions.

FounDit wrote:
Since none of us know for a fact how the Universe came into being, and none of us know what, if anything, lies "outside" of it, or even if there is and "outside", we are all still learning.

The point that I’ve repeatedly made is that one hypothesis (of numerous variety) does claim to know, for a fact, how the universe came into being and, far from still learning, many proponents of that hypothesis actually seek to denigrate human knowledge in an attempt to deny a reality that does not fit that hypothesis (of numerous variety).

FounDit wrote:
Some choose to believe without evidence in a creator. Others choose not to believe such. He may not argue scientific facts, but he certainly can choose to believe.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
And my point was that arguing scientific facts is one thing, but arguing scientific facts to prove that faith isn't rational, or should be abandoned, doesn't accomplish that goal, and this is the appearance that is projected most often in these kinds of discussions. What I was suggesting was to argue the science, but avoid mention of the faith aspects. But if the science is rooted in faith, there is no point in continuing.


.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:18:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,312
Neurons: 47,697
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
This post is not a comment on any previous post, but is a chapter I found value in re-reading many times and would be a good answer to the OP. Sagan was criticized for atheistic views. IMHO, the best theory about the beliefs of others is to take a laissez-faire attitude. Whatever gets one through the night is fine as a personal belief as I've said many times, but freedom of speech, except hate speech, is always supported.

Carl Sagan: The Fine art of Baloney Detection:

In the course of their training, scientists are equipped with a baloney detection kit...Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world—not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

...Gullibility kills.

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-Baloney.pdf

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ - an explanatory summary.

Sagan quotes Huxley and Polybius:

T.H.Huxley: The foundation of morality is to ... give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.

* A more cynical formulation by the Roman historian Polybius: Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death.
As do others today, religiously and politically.
:::::

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate

This article explains how a better word than expanding is stretching, like raisins in rising dough. Read, if interested, the answer to the boundary question and why scientists go with Will's explanations.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 4:36:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
Hope,

From your link, Dave Rothstein , a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell appears to agree with me, or I should say, I agree with him on this part:

Quote: “So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into.”

He offers two scenarios, but says his favorite example is the loaf of raisin bread. Will also used the analogy of a loaf of raisin bread to describe how the universe “stretches”.

But astronomers say the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years. How would that be possible since the author says galaxies remain in the same position relative to one another throughout the universe as it “stretches”? That’s contradictory.

For Andromeda to collide with the Milky Way, galaxies would have to not only move as the universe expands, but also move within the universe, as has been proven, since scientists have already observed collisions between galaxies.

So if the universe is “expanding”, and objects move within the universe, rather than “stretching”, the universe must be expanding, as seems to be the case since galaxies can collide with one another, and therefore, expanding into “something”. What that is, we cannot yet know, but it appears to me that this is the best explanation for what is happening until we have more information.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:39:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
FounDit wrote:
I take that to mean that the "something" is a part of the universe, as does, apparently, the fellow in your Youtube video. Therefore, the universe cannot expand into itself. But if the "something" is not part of the universe, then the universe can expand into it.

FounDit wrote:
Well, until cosmologists and astrophysicists explain it to me so I can understand it, or you do, I can only go with what seems logical to me.

I’ll give it a shot but, if not games, perhaps this might be a problem of language after all, coupled with the inherent difficultly of imagining things on scales and in dimensions our brains are ill equipped to cope with.

When the universe is described as having a size, that is not because it has an observed physical limit in the sense of an edge, with stuff inside and stuff outside. For a start there is a physical maximum limit to what we can physically observe, due to the limited distance any ‘information’ can travel at maximum possible speed (speed of light) in a given time (age of universe). The observable universe is currently calculated at around 13.8 billion light-years in every direction. This would be the “everything material, tangible and empirically observable” in the definition of universe I referenced.

But this is not to say the universe is a sphere 28 billion light-years in diameter – not least because that would assume the Earth lies at the exact centre, which is statistically very, very, unlikely – nor that there is either nothing or ‘something’ separate from the universe beyond that.

There are several well supported theories that conclude the universe is much ‘more’ than we are physically able to observe, but it’s still considered the universe because it can be deduced from the stuff the laws of physics does allow us to observe. This would be the “all natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” in the definition of universe I referenced.

In short, it’s all ‘the universe’; from the stuff the laws of physics allows us to observe and all the stuff the observable universe allows us to deduce with a high degree of confidence.

And when the universe is described as expanding, that does not mean ‘blowing apart’ (as ‘big bang’ would seem to suggest) in the form of a sphere – the shock wave and shrapnel, if you will – expanding in size from a central point.
You need to visualise every point moving apart proportionally to every other, with no static central point; the usual analogy is the surface of a balloon, because it’s easily visualised, but this is a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional concept. It’s difficult not to instinctively visualise the space around the balloon (as well as inside the balloon); in our three-dimensional universe you would need a forth spatial dimension to reach these points. Although extra spatial dimensions are theoretically possible, there has currently been no observation of such. This could be because we simply don’t have the ability to ‘experience’ more than three spatial dimensions, or it could be they simply don’t exist.

Three-dimensional geometry is workable in every day life, because of the scales we routinely encounter. Einstein put time on an equal footing and this is workable on very large scales. The best theoretical models that unify the very large and the quantum level require 11 (more or less) dimensions… still, if it can be observed, or reasonably deduced from observations, it’s all part of the universe.

FounDit wrote:
Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

This is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Suffice to say, every single aspect of your daily life is made possible by a scientific method that bears no resemblance to that paragraph.

FounDit wrote:
This seems illogical to me. The bowl of water has spilled, so it has, indeed, "expanded" into something outside its previous form. The amoeba is still unaware of what exists in that expanded area, but can now understand that his universe has, indeed, expanded into "something" because it is now larger than before, even if that expansion was into emptiness.

To be fair, I was just trying to expand on your already dodgy amoeba analogy, in which you did state the amoeba “could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".. The caveat I’ve underlined establishes the fact that the universe – as we know – encompasses more than the amoeba's sphere of knowledge. But, yes, it’s a bad analogy.

FounDit wrote:
I didn't make myself clear on this point. I meant to say that arguing science to try to prove to a believer that what they believe is wrong, will not work, produces friction, and ends with no positive results. It will work only if they choose to be somewhat open-minded about it.

I completely agree. Once someone has committed to the lazy comfort of pious Faith, I don’t think anything is likely to convince them otherwise. But I believe pointing that out can be productive in other ways, not least to those that are somewhat open minded.

I wrote:
None of my posts in this thread (or anywhere) claim the current state of scientific ignorance should take precedence over anything, that’s simply something you have imagined.

FounDit wrote:
But this is so very often the perception. That's why I mention it.

Well, I can’t really do much about your flawed perceptions about what I think or say. So instead of mentioning it, perhaps it would be better if you just adjusted your perceptions accordingly.

FounDit wrote:
Once that argument was made, it should have been clear that faith was the foundation and no advancement was likely to be made at that point.


FounDit wrote:
And my point was that arguing scientific facts is one thing, but arguing scientific facts to prove that faith isn't rational, or should be abandoned, doesn't accomplish that goal, and this is the appearance that is projected most often in these kinds of discussions. What I was suggesting was to argue the science, but avoid mention of the faith aspects. But if the science is rooted in faith, there is no point in continuing.

For a start, I don’t really care whether Kirill Vorobyov changes his mind or not, I’m only really interested in establishing the facts. Secondly, as I’ve said before, we collectively use logic and reason to reject the supernatural opinions of extremists, so why not apply the same standard to supernatural opinions while they are still relatively benign?

FounDit wrote:
But astronomers say the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years. How would that be possible since the author says galaxies remain in the same position relative to one another throughout the universe as it “stretches”? That’s contradictory.

Without reading the context, I assume the author is using language to describe the expansion of the universe when he says they remain in the same position relative to one another. Galaxies colliding in an expanding universe is not at all contradictory. It’s quite simply a matter of proximity; the gravitational pull of close bodies is larger than the expansion of the whole, on a considerably larger scale.


.
will
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 7:41:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
Sorry, Hope123, I realise I just replied over you, rather than let you answer your own line. I did this to Lotje1000 in this thread already... very rude. d'oh!


.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:51:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,312
Neurons: 47,697
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
No problem, Will. You are far more versed on this than I am and I'm here to learn. I switched from Physics to Biology in Grade 13. However, since the Milky Way, the sun, and earth are not doing anything any time soon, I am content to wait to find out whether or not the universe is stretching or expanding, just as I'll find out soon enough about gods, the return of Jesus, and any post death life - if that even makes sense. :) I'll probably find out sooner than I would like. Whistle Whistle Whistle

The article on the third link I included did mention about gravity overpowering the pull and affecting some smaller bodies (it has certainly affected mineWhistle ).It also mentioned that it is hard for humans to imagine such huge numbers and spaces, as well as how Einstein's theories about space is different to what we perceive with our senses.


The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 17, 2018 10:59:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,568
Neurons: 50,771
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
I take that to mean that the "something" is a part of the universe, as does, apparently, the fellow in your Youtube video. Therefore, the universe cannot expand into itself. But if the "something" is not part of the universe, then the universe can expand into it.

FounDit wrote:
Well, until cosmologists and astrophysicists explain it to me so I can understand it, or you do, I can only go with what seems logical to me.

I’ll give it a shot but, if not games, perhaps this might be a problem of language after all, coupled with the inherent difficultly of imagining things on scales and in dimensions our brains are ill equipped to cope with.

When the universe is described as having a size, that is not because it has an observed physical limit in the sense of an edge, with stuff inside and stuff outside. For a start there is a physical maximum limit to what we can physically observe, due to the limited distance any ‘information’ can travel at maximum possible speed (speed of light) in a given time (age of universe). The observable universe is currently calculated at around 13.8 billion light-years in every direction. This would be the “everything material, tangible and empirically observable” in the definition of universe I referenced.
Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you are simply saying the size of the universe is really only what we can "see"; that we can "see" only 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, and have no idea what may be beyond that.


And when the universe is described as expanding, that does not mean ‘blowing apart’ (as ‘big bang’ would seem to suggest) in the form of a sphere – the shock wave and shrapnel, if you will – expanding in size from a central point.
You need to visualise every point moving apart proportionally to every other, with no static central point; Except for those points that may be in close proximity to one another and thus colliding at times?
the usual analogy is the surface of a balloon, because it’s easily visualised, but this is a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional concept. It’s difficult not to instinctively visualise the space around the balloon (as well as inside the balloon); in our three-dimensional universe you would need a forth spatial dimension to reach these points. Although extra spatial dimensions are theoretically possible, there has currently been no observation of such. This could be because we simply don’t have the ability to ‘experience’ more than three spatial dimensions, or it could be they simply don’t exist.

Three-dimensional geometry is workable in every day life, because of the scales we routinely encounter. Einstein put time on an equal footing and this is workable on very large scales. The best theoretical models that unify the very large and the quantum level require 11 (more or less) dimensions… still, if it can be observed, or reasonably deduced from observations, it’s all part of the universe.

FounDit wrote:
Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

This is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Suffice to say, every single aspect of your daily life is made possible by a scientific method that bears no resemblance to that paragraph.
So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be? Have you told them about this? I ask because I read constantly about scientists creating models to explain things. So I have to wonder what part of that is inane.

FounDit wrote:
This seems illogical to me. The bowl of water has spilled, so it has, indeed, "expanded" into something outside its previous form. The amoeba is still unaware of what exists in that expanded area, but can now understand that his universe has, indeed, expanded into "something" because it is now larger than before, even if that expansion was into emptiness.

To be fair, I was just trying to expand on your already dodgy amoeba analogy, in which you did state the amoeba “could have no idea of what exists "outside" of it's knowledge sphere, even though we know there is an "outside".. The caveat I’ve underlined establishes the fact that the universe – as we know – encompasses more than the amoeba's sphere of knowledge. But, yes, it’s a bad analogy.
Okay. The above mentioned definition of the 13.8 billion light-year "observable universe" obviates this analogy.

FounDit wrote:
I didn't make myself clear on this point. I meant to say that arguing science to try to prove to a believer that what they believe is wrong, will not work, produces friction, and ends with no positive results. It will work only if they choose to be somewhat open-minded about it.

I completely agree. Once someone has committed to the lazy comfort of pious Faith, I don’t think anything is likely to convince them otherwise. But I believe pointing that out can be productive in other ways, not least to those that are somewhat open minded.
But pointing out to them their "lazy comfort of pious Faith" is exactly the kind of language I think is unnecessary, and damages any future chance, or possibility, for an opening for persuasion.

I wrote:
None of my posts in this thread (or anywhere) claim the current state of scientific ignorance should take precedence over anything, that’s simply something you have imagined.

FounDit wrote:
But this is so very often the perception. That's why I mention it.

Well, I can’t really do much about your flawed perceptions about what I think or say. So instead of mentioning it, perhaps it would be better if you just adjusted your perceptions accordingly.
Once again, you misunderstand me. What I was referencing is the effort of many who rely on science to denigrate and deliberately offend those who believe. That is the perception of many believers, and evidence indicates they are not wrong.

FounDit wrote:
Once that argument was made, it should have been clear that faith was the foundation and no advancement was likely to be made at that point.


FounDit wrote:
And my point was that arguing scientific facts is one thing, but arguing scientific facts to prove that faith isn't rational, or should be abandoned, doesn't accomplish that goal, and this is the appearance that is projected most often in these kinds of discussions. What I was suggesting was to argue the science, but avoid mention of the faith aspects. But if the science is rooted in faith, there is no point in continuing.

For a start, I don’t really care whether Kirill Vorobyov changes his mind or not, I’m only really interested in establishing the facts. Secondly, as I’ve said before, we collectively use logic and reason to reject the supernatural opinions of extremists, so why not apply the same standard to supernatural opinions while they are still relatively benign?
Precisely because they are benign. How can one hope to ever persuade if offense is the first act out of the gate?

FounDit wrote:
But astronomers say the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way in about 4 billion years. How would that be possible since the author says galaxies remain in the same position relative to one another throughout the universe as it “stretches”? That’s contradictory.

Without reading the context, I assume the author is using language to describe the expansion of the universe when he says they remain in the same position relative to one another. Galaxies colliding in an expanding universe is not at all contradictory. It’s quite simply a matter of proximity; the gravitational pull of close bodies is larger than the expansion of the whole, on a considerably larger scale.

So then, "every point [isn't] moving apart proportionally to every other". This seems to be contradictory. I'm having some difficulty envisioning every point moving away from every other point proportionally, while at the same time colliding with other points. Is there a model for that? Oh, wait, we don't do models, do we?...d'oh!

.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Saturday, August 18, 2018 8:46:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,133
Neurons: 4,655
FounDit wrote:
Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you are simply saying the size of the universe is really only what we can "see"; that we can "see" only 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, and have no idea what may be beyond that.

No. Not quite.
The observable universe is nominally 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, simply because that is the maximum distance light (at the speed of light) could have travelled in the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. It’s not quite as simple as that, but that’s a near enough illustrative explanation.

Although we don’t currently have the technology to ‘see’ beyond that distance, it does not follow that we ‘have no idea what may be beyond that’.

To the authors of the Bible the observable universe was considerably smaller, due to the technological limits of the time and no real scientific method, but they still had an idea of what lay beyond – in hindsight a very poor idea, yet still it persists. Brick wall

At the start of the 20th century the observable universe consisted pretty much only our Milky Way galaxy, but hypotheses (ideas) existed about what may be beyond that. The scientific method confirmed or rejected the validity of each.

Likewise today, our technology enables us to ‘see’ ‘information’ as distant as the Big Bang – most distant ‘light’ equates to furthest back in time – and the laws of physics, applied to what we can ‘see’, enables us to make accurate predictions about what we can’t. The scientific method tests or rejects the validity of those predictions.

I wrote:
You need to visualise every point moving apart proportionally to every other, with no static central point;

FounDit wrote:
Except for those points that may be in close proximity to one another and thus colliding at times?

Correct.

FounDit wrote:
So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be? Have you told them about this? I ask because I read constantly about scientists creating models to explain things. So I have to wonder what part of that is inane.

I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are. I have no idea what picture you have in your head and I’m not prepared to get into a protracted debate to try find out. I’ve witnessed your argument against climate models, and look where that led you. Your misunderstanding of how science works is a belief without evidence; I’ll take you advice and conclude it’s pointless to use logic and reason to convince you otherwise. Whistle

If you have the integrity, it would be quite simple for you to find out for yourself how inaccurate your statement was. I’ve attached links to each specifically inane or inaccurate section to get you going.


FounDit wrote:
Okay. The above mentioned definition of the 13.8 billion light-year "observable universe" obviates this analogy.

As a biologist I’m reluctant to simply dismiss the poor old amoeba… What I was getting at was that the bowl is analogous to the 20th century concept of the observable universe and the puddle was to the current observable universe.

FounDit wrote:
But pointing out to them their "lazy comfort of pious Faith" is exactly the kind of language I think is unnecessary, and damages any future chance, or possibility, for an opening for persuasion.

FounDit wrote:
Once again, you misunderstand me. What I was referencing is the effort of many who rely on science to denigrate and deliberately offend those who believe. That is the perception of many believers, and evidence indicates they are not wrong.

It’s horses for courses. I can’t control the point at which people chose to take offence. For some the mere mention of evolution is enough to get them foaming at the mouth and wishing an eternity of pain and torment on you and your loved ones.

I genuinely believe that, if you look back over all my posts, you will see that while the debate is ‘honest’ I try to be as polite, helpful and forgiving as possible. But I have no patience for dishonesty, I consider it a waste of my time and effort… and very offendsive. Boo hoo!

In this thread for example, Kirill Vorobyov claimed, in defence of a Creator, that “… physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution…" and similar along those lines. Both Lotje1000 and I politely challenged him on this. He actively chose to completely ignore those challenges and re-state the same thing in response to you. That is dishonest, and a waste of mine and Lotje1000’s time. It’s not that he should have admitted he was wrong or that we were right; he should have either provided a counter argument, or explained his argument, or simply not repeated the same until he had taken time to better understand the issue.

I wrote:
… as I’ve said before, we collectively use logic and reason to reject the supernatural opinions of extremists, so why not apply the same standard to supernatural opinions while they are still relatively benign?

FounDit wrote:
Precisely because they are benign. How can one hope to ever persuade if offense is the first act out of the gate?

If you can show me a clear line between benign supernatural beliefs and the non-benign effects that supernatural beliefs have on humanity as a whole, then I will treat each accordingly. And how can we hope to ever persuade if we don’t use logic and reason?

I don’t believe I’ve ever used offence as the ‘first act out of the gate’.

FounDit wrote:
So then, "every point [isn't] moving apart proportionally to every other". This seems to be contradictory. I'm having some difficulty envisioning every point moving away from every other point proportionally, while at the same time colliding with other points. Is there a model for that?

I’ve explained this already. And yes, there is a model, as well as numerous hypotheses, theories and laws that apply.

FounDit wrote:
Oh, wait, we don't do models, do we?...

Cheeky! Not talking


.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.