In a parallel universe

[Ursa Majoris]

(1) I'm not saying we have an answer, my point is the answer cannot be found as it is infinite.

 

 

All this mentioning of "the infinite" simply indicates to me that yer stoned on some really good Josh Gordon, maaaaaaan. The giggles will be next, then the munchies.

[Grits and Shins]

As our understanding of the universe has grown, the evidence points less and less in that direction but it is possible that one or more gods are just chilling for a bit, trying to arrive at the party fashionably late, so to speak.

 

 

Yes I understand that your leap of faith is the one based in science (which is no less or more of a leap of faith than the one required by those that believe in God) and you believe everything is quantifiable, eventually.

 

However, there is nothing to support your statement that "evidence points less and less in that direction" ... or did I miss it when somebody proved God doesn't exist or proved that the Big Bang happened? Just because you are firm in your belief that science will eventually explain everything and fully believe that evidence is pointing more and more in the direction that there is no God does not make it so.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[Thews40]

Is the logical foundation for belief any different? We must simply take it on faith that one or more gods exist. Since it can never be proven, by your argument that logic is also flawed.

 

It's been stated earlier that it's a leap of faith in either direction. The question is really which set of evidence (or lack thereof) comes closest to providing an answer. That is strictly a question for the individual. For the sake of keeping this thread going, I won't delve any farther into it than that.

 

Agree that either argument requires a leap of faith. Based on this, you keep referring to the evidence. The real evidence is that we exist, and the question is how we came to be. Agree also that it's an individual decision, and it's why I question the logic. I cannot prove either argument more valid with evidence, so it goes back to what the individual believes. The finite vs. infinite is tired, because I've said it a thousand times, but this is critical in the logical base for why I believe what I do. I can't perceive infinite thoughts (who made God), so I concede the answer cannot be derived. My logic is based on this, as it is a human limitation. If the counter argument is also based on a leap of faith, then I guess the answer to the origin of matter will someday be revealed to us by science. Ok… I’m not trying to 'prove' you wrong, but point out that I believe science can never answer the question, and therefore the logic in the argument that the answer will come later is the basis for the logical foundation, and is where it's logic is flawed.

[Dr. Love]

i believe this thread is the first time i have ever heard people refer to "believing in metaphysics". metaphysics is more a type of philosophy than anything else, it implies no particular belief system.

 

If you want to pick nits, I'll at least rephrase my part. People who think that metaphysics does a good job of explaining the physical world and why things happen in the physical world are dumb.

[Kid Cid]

Yes I understand that your leap of faith is the one based in science (which is no less or more of a leap of faith than the one required by those that believe in God) and you believe everything is quantifiable, eventually.

 

However, there is nothing to support your statement that "evidence points less and less in that direction" ... or did I miss it when somebody proved God doesn't exist or proved that the Big Bang happened? Just because you are firm in your belief that science will eventually explain everything and fully believe that evidence is pointing more and more in the direction that there is no God does not make it so.

 

 

I point back to what I said earlier. Earlier notions of gods have been disproven. Extrapolating from that evidence, we have less evidence of a god or gods and we have a case of logic for basing an argument against their existence. What we don't have is a growing body of evidence, parallels or even something similar upon which to base the argument for existence of a god or gods. The case "for" shrinks while the case "against" grows. So again, while there is not one single thing that can be pointed at to prove or disprove the absolute truth, the inexorable march of man's understanding of the universe moves in that direction. At worst, those that follow this line of reasoning are guilty of jumping to a conclusion.

[Kid Cid]

Agree that either argument requires a leap of faith. Based on this, you keep referring to the evidence. The real evidence is that we exist, and the question is how we came to be. Agree also that it's an individual decision, and it's why I question the logic. I cannot prove either argument more valid with evidence, so it goes back to what the individual believes. The finite vs. infinite is tired, because I've said it a thousand times, but this is critical in the logical base for why I believe what I do. I can't perceive infinite thoughts (who made God), so I concede the answer cannot be derived. My logic is based on this, as it is a human limitation. If the counter argument is also based on a leap of faith, then I guess the answer to the origin of matter will someday be revealed to us by science. Ok… I’m not trying to 'prove' you wrong, but point out that I believe science can never answer the question, and therefore the logic in the argument that the answer will come later is the basis for the logical foundation, and is where it's logic is flawed.

 

 

Not necessarily. If both arguments require a leap of faith then the probabilities of either being correct are theoretically even. Therefore the truth will be revealed either through science or through the revelation of a god. The funny little twist is that either truth could be revealed through science but only one answer could come from the god or gods.

 

You say that the fundamental concept upon which the question is based (can we grasp the infinite?) is such an impossibility that any logic based upon an answer of "yes" is so fundamentally flawed as to be pointless. I'm not so sure that we are qualified to make that ascertation. We just may not have arrived at the toolset that enables us to do so. Or the toolset may already exist (physics and calculus) but we don't have the key to unlock that particular branch yet. In either case, you've created a self fulfilling argument by placing the proposition in absolute terms such as you have.

[Hugh B Tool]

so in a parallel universe will tequila still make me feel as good as it does now and will coveting my neighbors girlfriend(she is hawt!) when she bends over to wash her car be wrong?

[Thews40]

Not necessarily. If both arguments require a leap of faith then the probabilities of either being correct are theoretically even. Therefore the truth will be revealed either through science or through the revelation of a god. The funny little twist is that either truth could be revealed through science but only one answer could come from the god or gods.

 

You say that the fundamental concept upon which the question is based (can we grasp the infinite?) is such an impossibility that any logic based upon an answer of "yes" is so fundamentally flawed as to be pointless. I'm not so sure that we are qualified to make that ascertation. We just may not have arrived at the toolset that enables us to do so. Or the toolset may already exist (physics and calculus) but we don't have the key to unlock that particular branch yet. In either case, you've created a self fulfilling argument by placing the proposition in absolute terms such as you have.

 

I think where this argument is stalling is attempting to define which argument has a greater probability of being correct. I understand your point, though I don’t agree with it. If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is that based on the evidence we have, your opinion is more correct because its base is on what can be proven with data. The scientific method requires proof of a theory to validate it, and given this thought process, I at least understand the opinion.

 

The point where I don’t believe we agree is on the explanation of the beginning of it all. To theorize the timeline in which it happened, one would have to theorize anti-matter, which is an infinite concept. Science could, in theory, provide an explanation to what happened, so let’s assume for argument’s sake it’s a black hole imploding. We observe a black hole implode in the universe, and in the observation the matter it creates provides a theoretical base for the creation of the universe.

 

In the theoretical observation, you could look at it one of two ways: 1) This is yet another data point that suggests the universe as a whole is changing in patterns that explain how the earth was created, or 2) It’s an interesting observation of how the existing universe works. Assuming this were true, science would have another data point to base an explanation on.

 

In the end, the first black hole sprouting out of nothing in a realm of nothingness is inconceivable, or infinite… there’s no way to observe it. A 4X4 box of anti-matter is space (Dr. Love will prolly disagree), which is finite. Anti-matter cannot be understood with a finite mind, as it’s infinite. Again I revert back to the infinite timeline, so to theorize a concept would require an explanation of the infinite realm of anit-matter.

 

In summation, I understand the wonder of science revealing the mysteries of the existing universe, but it requires it be in the existing universe to be observed. There is no time zero in an infinite thought process, and to prove it with observation would require that we collapse everything and start over; I guess I just see this as pointless.

 

So, I disagree that either argument has more tangible proof to tip the scales. The logic I’m asking about requires that you accept the limitation of the finite mind in an infinite universe. If you believe you can someday theorize an infinite timeline, then I also understand why you’d want to wait until the evidence comes in to analyze it. The crux in this, is that I accept I cannot ever understand it, so my logic is based upon accepting the limitation and the information I have now. If you feel that science will someday theorize a plausible explanation to time zero, I still contend it’s impossible as there is no time zero in infinity.

 

I guess what it all boils down to is why? Why are we here? What’s the purpose? The bleak path of a universe without a God (again only referred to as an entity) would deem my existence as an exercise in futility. If you consider me weak for justifying my existence in an afterlife by believing in God, that’s your opinion and you have a right to it, but I’ll revert back to logic. The real question is which argument makes more logical sense? A belief in an infinite God that created the universe, or a belief that science will someday explain the unexplainable?

[Kid Cid]

I think where this argument is stalling is attempting to define which argument has a greater probability of being correct. I understand your point, though I don’t agree with it. If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is that based on the evidence we have, your opinion is more correct because its base is on what can be proven with data. The scientific method requires proof of a theory to validate it, and given this thought process, I at least understand the opinion.

 

The point where I don’t believe we agree is on the explanation of the beginning of it all. To theorize the timeline in which it happened, one would have to theorize anti-matter, which is an infinite concept. Science could, in theory, provide an explanation to what happened, so let’s assume for argument’s sake it’s a black hole imploding. We observe a black hole implode in the universe, and in the observation the matter it creates provides a theoretical base for the creation of the universe.

 

In the theoretical observation, you could look at it one of two ways: 1) This is yet another data point that suggests the universe as a whole is changing in patterns that explain how the earth was created, or 2) It’s an interesting observation of how the existing universe works. Assuming this were true, science would have another data point to base an explanation on.

 

In the end, the first black hole sprouting out of nothing in a realm of nothingness is inconceivable, or infinite… there’s no way to observe it. A 4X4 box of anti-matter is space (Dr. Love will prolly disagree), which is finite. Anti-matter cannot be understood with a finite mind, as it’s infinite. Again I revert back to the infinite timeline, so to theorize a concept would require an explanation of the infinite realm of anit-matter.

 

In summation, I understand the wonder of science revealing the mysteries of the existing universe, but it requires it be in the existing universe to be observed. There is no time zero in an infinite thought process, and to prove it with observation would require that we collapse everything and start over; I guess I just see this as pointless.

 

So, I disagree that either argument has more tangible proof to tip the scales. The logic I’m asking about requires that you accept the limitation of the finite mind in an infinite universe. If you believe you can someday theorize an infinite timeline, then I also understand why you’d want to wait until the evidence comes in to analyze it. The crux in this, is that I accept I cannot ever understand it, so my logic is based upon accepting the limitation and the information I have now. If you feel that science will someday theorize a plausible explanation to time zero, I still contend it’s impossible as there is no time zero in infinity.

 

I guess what it all boils down to is why? Why are we here? What’s the purpose? The bleak path of a universe without a God (again only referred to as an entity) would deem my existence as an exercise in futility. If you consider me weak for justifying my existence in an afterlife by believing in God, that’s your opinion and you have a right to it, but I’ll revert back to logic. The real question is which argument makes more logical sense? A belief in an infinite God that created the universe, or a belief that science will someday explain the unexplainable?

 

 

I would say that you are limiting yourself by using concepts like anti-matter and black holes. Which given your view point isn't necessarily wrong, it does make what you're saying logically consistent. What I'm saying is that those item's are but pieces to the puzzle and like you said, all of the data hasn't come in yet.

 

The questions in your last paragraph are another kettle of fish altogether. You might as well as why is granite made up of feldspar, quartz, mica, amphiboles and pyroxines. Just by asuming there is a purpose you've placed life in a position where there must be some type of intelligence behind it. A better question is why does there have to be a purpose to it? Your 'exercise in futility' is an awful dark way to look at things. So what if there is no purpose behind life? Does that make it any less worthwhile to be kind to your fellow man?

 

For your last question, since neither position can be absolutely be proved true nor false through logical reasoning alone (science needs physical proof, gods need to reveal themselves), neither makes more logical sense than the other. It is simply a matter of comfort with your personal world view which position you would rather take.

[Thews40]

another data point

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/05/07/s...nova/index.html