The Religion Discussion Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

*sigh* ok, apparently, you need me to actually spell it out.

Well, you know right off the bat there must be a first cause,

Not necessarily. You just finished braying about 'linear time' a few pages ago, and should reflect on that now.
Even if there is a 'first cause', there are near-infinite possibilities for what it might be, or why. I'm sure it's just an old dude that wanted to burn ants with a magnifying glass tho. (But then... where'd He come from? whoooooooooah)

that this cause exists outside time and space,

Whatever that means, it sounds great. Rock on.

and it is all-powerful, since it has the power to create the entire universe and time and space.

Non-sequitor. Gravity is "powerful". So is the Strong Nuclear Force. That does not mean that they're God holding all the atoms together, while watching your life choices. No intelligence is required.

That's bad news bears for Team Atheism. It's why they invented their own unprovable God they named Mulitiverse.

As opposed to the old unprovable God? What's the diff?

[Speaker to Animals]

*sigh* ok, apparently, you need me to actually spell it out.

Well, you know right off the bat there must be a first cause,

Not necessarily. You just finished braying about 'linear time' a few pages ago, and should reflect on that now.
Even if there is a 'first cause', there are near-infinite possibilities for what it might be, or why. I'm sure it's just an old dude that wanted to burn ants with a magnifying glass tho. (But then... where'd He come from? whoooooooooah)

that this cause exists outside time and space,

Whatever that means, it sounds great. Rock on.
Whatever caused the universe's creation by definition has to exist outside time and space. Derp.

and it is all-powerful, since it has the power to create the entire universe and time and space.

Non-sequitor. Gravity is "powerful". So is the Strong Nuclear Force. That does not mean that they're God holding all the atoms together, while watching your life choices. No intelligence is required.

Straw man or just the ramblings of a child's mind. Every definition of power in the material sense is defined by the product of the first cause. So it's at least more powerful than anything else.

That's bad news bears for Team Atheism. It's why they invented their own unprovable God they named Mulitiverse.

As opposed to the old unprovable God? What's the diff?

We can show that there is more reason to assume some form of creator outside of time and space than to assume the atheism. Indeed, atheism becomes the LEAST likely option.

Ooh. I think the little man just threw in the towel.


Make an argument to respond to. That wasn't one.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Seriously, forget religion and just focus on atheism itself. The only way you can reconcile it with the scientific evidence today is by postulating unprovable multiverses and whatnot. Which is not actually a scientific hypothesis since it cannot be tested. But just accepting it as the religious proposition that it is, one can show that it's both internally contradictory (you cannot mathematically have time without a beginning because of Hilbert's Paradox) and it is itself a rejection of the fundamental premise of atheism in that the proposition represents both a leap of unprovable faith and at that a terribly disguised version of God.

There are tests providing evidence of other-dimensional space happening right now. Easiest one would be Quantum Theory. Unless our physical laws simply stop applying at some certain size.

[Speaker to Animals]

Seriously, forget religion and just focus on atheism itself. The only way you can reconcile it with the scientific evidence today is by postulating unprovable multiverses and whatnot. Which is not actually a scientific hypothesis since it cannot be tested. But just accepting it as the religious proposition that it is, one can show that it's both internally contradictory (you cannot mathematically have time without a beginning because of Hilbert's Paradox) and it is itself a rejection of the fundamental premise of atheism in that the proposition represents both a leap of unprovable faith and at that a terribly disguised version of God.

There are tests providing evidence of other-dimensional space happening right now. Easiest one would be Quantum Theory. Unless our physical laws simply stop applying at some certain size.

Nope.

It depends upon what you mean by multiverse. You can go by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics in which every possible quantum state corresponds to a real universe, but that doesn't get out of the problem of a beginning of time and space. You just have a beginning of the multiverse to deal with now.

No, to actually skirt around this problem, you have to postulate an almost Hindu conception of existence in which an infinite number of universes, all with different physical laws and constants, emerge and die out, and there exists no beginning or end. That kind of multiverse is not provable by any experiment we know of today. Constantly publishing papers to that effect amounts more to applied metaphysics than actual physics. It's why the Europeans are so far ahead of us in physics. They still have guys doing real science, like the LHC.

[Speaker to Animals]

Also, interestingly enough, the standard interpretation of quantum physics aligns pretty well with Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy, especially with regards to act and potency. That's one of those weird markers that tell us we were on the right track the whole time.

[K@th]

It comes down to first cause.

Some say, "I don't know."

Others say, "because god."

God is not proof of god, because what caused god? Does god have a god?

Please, don't answer, it will just sound like blathering to me.

It always boils down to first cause. Always.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Seriously, forget religion and just focus on atheism itself. The only way you can reconcile it with the scientific evidence today is by postulating unprovable multiverses and whatnot. Which is not actually a scientific hypothesis since it cannot be tested. But just accepting it as the religious proposition that it is, one can show that it's both internally contradictory (you cannot mathematically have time without a beginning because of Hilbert's Paradox) and it is itself a rejection of the fundamental premise of atheism in that the proposition represents both a leap of unprovable faith and at that a terribly disguised version of God.

There are tests providing evidence of other-dimensional space happening right now. Easiest one would be Quantum Theory. Unless our physical laws simply stop applying at some certain size.

Nope.

It depends upon what you mean by multiverse. You can go by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics in which every possible quantum state corresponds to a real universe, but that doesn't get out of the problem of a beginning of time and space. You just have a beginning of the multiverse to deal with now.

No, to actually skirt around this problem, you have to postulate an almost Hindu conception of existence in which an infinite number of universes, all with different physical laws and constants, emerge and die out, and there exists no beginning or end. That kind of multiverse is not provable by any experiment we know of today. Constantly publishing papers to that effect amounts more to applied metaphysics than actual physics. It's why the Europeans are so far ahead of us in physics. They still have guys doing real science, like the LHC.

Einstein = Metaphysics.
- Speaker To Animals, 2017, current timeline

[Fife]

How many Planck time units have elapsed since the Big Bang?

Do any of you reckon that is a big number?

The A. Squares of the world, spinning around and waving their stick arms around are sort of amusing, at least.

[K@th]

How many Planck time units have elapsed since the Big Bang?

Do any of you reckon that is a big number?

The A. Squares of the world, spinning around and waving their stick arms around are sort of amusing, at least.

Would you kindly translate this to English? TYVM;.

[Speaker to Animals]

There are tests providing evidence of other-dimensional space happening right now. Easiest one would be Quantum Theory. Unless our physical laws simply stop applying at some certain size.

Nope.

It depends upon what you mean by multiverse. You can go by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics in which every possible quantum state corresponds to a real universe, but that doesn't get out of the problem of a beginning of time and space. You just have a beginning of the multiverse to deal with now.

No, to actually skirt around this problem, you have to postulate an almost Hindu conception of existence in which an infinite number of universes, all with different physical laws and constants, emerge and die out, and there exists no beginning or end. That kind of multiverse is not provable by any experiment we know of today. Constantly publishing papers to that effect amounts more to applied metaphysics than actual physics. It's why the Europeans are so far ahead of us in physics. They still have guys doing real science, like the LHC.

Einstein = Metaphysics.
- Speaker To Animals, 2017, current timeline

Huh? Resorting to massive fallacies again. Einstein was the real thing.

Publishing papers on string theory, however.. that's not really science unless you make falsifiable claims that we can actually test in a scientific experiment.. What falsifiable claims does string theory make that can be tested in a scientific experiment?