The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:40 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:23 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am


No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.
Screw Hawking. That nit could not accept the real fundamentals behind reality. Get your mind out of the butts of authority figures, or get off this thread. I'm looking for the handful of people capable of thinking for themselves. -GL
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.
Good! I want you and other camp followers to go with authority figures. Please do so, but have the courtesy to keep your authority-figure inspired bullshit off my threads. Thank you.
GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:07 am

Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:45 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:23 am
Ginkgo wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:04 am


No one really knows what came before the Big Bang. Hawking tells us that the events before the Big Bang have no observational consequence.Events before the Big Bang are not defined so we cannot measure them.
Screw Hawking. That nit could not accept the real fundamentals behind reality. Get your mind out of the butts of authority figures, or get off this thread. I'm looking for the handful of people capable of thinking for themselves. -GL
I rather go with a renowned PhD than a BSc with a self published book.
Good! I want you and other camp followers to go with authority figures. Please do so, but have the courtesy to keep your authority-figure inspired bullshit off my threads. Thank you.
GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:13 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:19 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:37 am

Scott,
Actually, my concerns come as much from the philosophical level as from the technical/implementation level. Atomic physics is goofy, but that is the consequence of other problems that would be silly to try to explain on this forum. My issue is with cosmology.

It is not a function of any scientific paradigms that I know of--- rather, those paradigms are a function of an erroneous cosmology.

I've been working up to a point where I might explain that, so I'll give it a shot here.

The current silly cosmology is functionally identical to the religious notion that the universe was created by a single omnipotent entity. One thing at the beginning containing all the knowledge necessary to create a universe, and ultimately quasi-intelligent life.

Yet the universe in which we live is, at the level of basic physics, a cause-effect place. Two things, each with opposite forces, must interact before a physical event can take place. How does a single entity, in the absence of opposing forces, create such a universe?

I simply propose that our cause/effect universe could only have arisen as the consequence of two opposing forces.

Of course there's more to it.

Greylorn
Yes, I agree on your point. I think it is political because on logical grounds alone, the Big Bang theory is based upon the very 'singularity' concept that requires knowing something prior to it with empirical justification or has to fall back to a 'Steady State' type model. Many today have cheated by placing a question mark in the gap between that singularity, added inflation theory, among many other suspect behaviors. It HAS to be political and I believe it is about preserving a minimal religious question or doubt that science is not permitted to touch. A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself.
Scott,
Discussing the respective contributions of politics vs. religion vs. general agreement systems is off point and a waste of time. Get on point, please, or get off this thread. Discuss the points of the OP, not your personal bullshit. Thank you.
GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:22 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:34 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:19 pm
A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself.
You are correct: a steady-state model, if proved true, would cast doubt on the necessity of God for creation. And then whether He exists or not would become a more-or-less moot point, because he'd be even more remote and uninvolved than the "god" of the Deists. He might still exist, but we'd have to ask, "For what, so far as we are concerned?" Fair enough.

But question, then, is not "What is somebody's motivation for resisting the steady-state model," since that's merely ad hominem. (It begs the question, because even if their motives were all bad, they could still be right.) The question can only be, "Is the steady-state model of the universe rationally and scientifically sustainable?"

I would argue it's not; and because of mathematics and science, not by way of any agenda I might have as a Theist.
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any viewtopic.php?f=16&t=26001&start=75 discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor. When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.

Given we have the evidence that space expands, we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.

The Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.

For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally. But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe. For either options, this is non-observable in principle. Thus the theories of type-1 are non-scientific for violating the rule of empirical evidence of its existence. At that point alone, the Big Bang model is both logically AND scientifically invalidated at the get go.

For the Steady State types, "steady" refers to the presumption of time and space to remain 'steady' with respect to each other via observable standards. It initiates the principle that all things in time and space have the same physics held steady. We at least cannot speak of altered physics unless we abandon faith in our local sense of observations. If, for instance, I cannot see things go faster than the speed of light locally, than even IF physics at other times of the past had such realities, we cannot borrow from what we cannot observe or it is not science we are practicing.

Since time and space are in sync with one another, any appearance of it converging is identical to the problem of perception of parallel lines converging to a point at a distance. Thus the logic doesn't rule out Steady State theory AND allows for both the apparent point to have space and time distinctly before OR after, should only space or time distinctly 'ends' there.

Thus, the Big Bang theory HAS to be political.
If you gave up on whatever importance you've attached to your personal beliefs about the irrelevant and unchangeable causes behind various theories, you might come up with useful insights instead of this babble, none of it relevant to the OP. -GL

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:14 pm
Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor.
I suggest it doesn't. Even if right, the BB theory is not really an answer to the question of final causes. It allows a prior question: "What was the cause of the BB?" This puts us on an infinite-regress pattern of causes.

We can simplify the field very easily. There are only two options: either the universe itself had a cause, or it had none. If it's the former, time is linear. If it's the latter, only a cyclical model of time will eliminate the original singularity.

So the problem simplifies as: "Is time linear or cyclical?"
When the supposed 'final nail to the coffin' of the Steady State theory was based on a mere interpretation of the Cosmic Background Radiation as 'supporting' the Big Bang model with the added assertion that the Steady State model simply had no explanation for it, this KIND of reasoning suffices to raise suspicion.


I'm not sure why. An infinite-cyclical model does not accord with observable science -- like, as you say, the Red Shift Effect (or even basic entropy). All proposed models for an infinite universe are merely mathematical-conceptual proposals of empirically-unverifiable character. Thus the rejection of the cyclical models seems very reasonable to me. I don't think we need to suppose any great and dark conspiracy behind that.
Given we have the evidence that space expands,
That's another "given" that argues against any circular model.
...we have only one of two possible general classes of theories to explain the observation as trusted: (1) Those theories interpreting a actual Singularity in space-time or (2) Those theories expressing only the appearance such that the apparent 'singularity' is an approaching limit via our perspective.
You'll have to explain that second one to me. I'm not sure I'm understanding you there.
The Big Bang model falls in the first type (contrary to how many today re-interpret this by stealing some factors of the second class types). The second class are those, such as a Steady State model that treats both components of space and time to require converging IN SYNC with any 'origins'.

For the first class, you require a presumption that both space and time begin at that point literally.
Yes, all linear models would require a start-point.
But for that to be true requires at least either space beyond that point to exist OR time beyond that point to exist, or both, which then simply defaults to assuming an infinite universe.

Well I think, no, actually. If "space" and "time" had any origin, it was simultaneous, and at the moment of the start of the universe, along with "matter." For this would be the way it would work: "matter" (i.e. substances of at least two different kinds) would appear, and at the same time the distance ("space") between those (at least) two distinct particles, and also an interval between the two (i.e. "time") The whole triad would appear at precisely the same instant: and there would be no possibility of speaking of "matter," let alone "space" or "time" having existed prior to that Singularity.
For either options, this is non-observable in principle.
And "in fact," as well. There were neither human observers nor instruments at that moment. So we are thrown on the strategy of projecting backward from present facts, or we're all in the dark.
Thus the theories of type-1 are non-scientific for violating the rule of empirical evidence of its existence. At that point alone, the Big Bang model is both logically AND scientifically invalidated at the get go.
Well, as I say, the BB is not the Singularity. They have to be distinct events, since even BB theorists believe there were entities like hydrogen, carbon and quark-gluon plasma floating around in a previously-existing universe, so that the BB had some substance with which to work. Nobody actually thinks the BB catalyzed or "invented" itself.

The BB had to happen much later than the Singularity. And about that, there's no rational dispute. So even if we dismiss the BB, that does not help us eliminate the necessity of the Singularity.
For the Steady State types, "steady" refers to the presumption of time and space to remain 'steady' with respect to each other via observable standards. It initiates the principle that all things in time and space have the same physics held steady.
You'll have to parse that out a bit for me in detail. Certain matter and energy haven't "stayed steady" in any observable way. Time hasn't "stayed steady" either. And entropy...well, the one thing that's NOT is "steady," except relatively, at the rate the decline happens.
We at least cannot speak of altered physics unless we abandon faith in our local sense of observations. If, for instance, I cannot see things go faster than the speed of light locally, than even IF physics at other times of the past had such realities, we cannot borrow from what we cannot observe or it is not science we are practicing.
Okay, but you need to recognize that this is entirely suppositional, not proved. IF we assume that what we see now is the only way things could ever possibly be, then your further hypothesis might be safe. But what actual reason have we for thinking that the way this universe is is the only way a really-existing thing could ever be? What's our empirical proof that the empirical is all there is and has ever been? (You see the circularity of that, I'm sure.)
Since time and space are in sync with one another,
Well, yes, but only because they are interdependent concepts, not because they are (anthropomorphically or otherwise) "working together."
...any appearance of it converging is identical to the problem of perception of parallel lines converging to a point at a distance. Thus the logic doesn't rule out Steady State theory AND allows for both the apparent point to have space and time distinctly before OR after, should only space or time distinctly 'ends' there.
You've lost me there. Can you help me out? I don't get that reasoning yet.
Thus, the Big Bang theory HAS to be political.
Why is that the necessary conclusion? As I say, the BB isn't a description of ultimate origins -- the Singularity concept is, and in a linear timescale. So I can't see what "political" implications it has for anyone to back the BB as if it were the final answer. And I really don't think anybody (at least, not anybody who understands the issues) is backing it that way. But you may know different people than I do.

However, I don't think it HAS to be political at all. It could well be that whoever is backing it is doing so because they're a) misunderstanding it, b) not knowing any alternatives, c) listening to somebody else who told them to believe it, or d) just confused. I doubt there's any co-ordinated political effort to foist a BB-Singularity confusion on the general public, even if that may happen sometimes.
I.C. and Scott,
The pair of you are perfectly matched. You share the same insights into cosmological physics as do other students of pop-sci TV. Please get the fcuk off this thread.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:51 pm
That's the point. If causality doesn't exist, if it's all just circumstantial, then there is no reason for science to have any predictive success: for were that true, it could not describe either what causes a phenomenon, nor could it give us reason to believe that phenomenon would ever predictively recur. And that would be true for all phenomena, from the simple to the very complex...so science would then not be able to tell us anything.

But it does.
Coincidence is a reason.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:31 pm
Why doesn't THAT satisfy you? What is wrong with it?
Because until one understands the reasons for it, it looks merely arbitrary....
Step one is to understand the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes
Your conception of "understanding" is circular.

If "God did it" is the cause and reason for the universe why is that not 'understanding'? Why is that not a valid origin?
Why are you happy to ignore God's origin question?

Belinda
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Belinda » Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:27 pm

Immanuel Can, I am not a good illustration of eternal order. When I copy David Hume and claim that all we can inductively know is constant conjunction of events I 'm making an epistemological , not an ontological, claim .

From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know.

We cannot know, yet you apparently have faith that there be eternal order. I respect that belief. However a claim that eternal order has been revealed to men is not credible and it's not a respectable belief when it morphs into a claim that only one of those sets of revelations is true.

Many people prefer one mythology over all the rest. This is respectable. What cannot be respectable is the claim that any mythology is historically true.

Religions are basically art forms not sciences.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:43 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:34 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:31 pm
Why doesn't THAT satisfy you? What is wrong with it?
Because until one understands the reasons for it, it looks merely arbitrary....
Step one is to understand the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes
Your conception of "understanding" is circular.
No. It merely entails that one understands not only the proposed conclusion, but the premises that make that conclusion compelling. Otherwise, you leave your conversation partners with a conclusion but no reason to think it's true.
Why are you happy to ignore God's origin question?
I'm not. Have we now established to everyone's satisfaction the unavoidable necessity of a First Cause? If we have, then we're on to step 2. If not, we're still in need of seeing step 1, and have to go over the First Cause arguments again.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:43 pm
No. It merely entails that one understands not only the proposed conclusion, but the premises that make that conclusion compelling. Otherwise, you leave your conversation partners with a conclusion but no reason to think it's true.
No. You are conflating consensus/agreement between interlocutors with understanding.

You either understand the universe or you don't.Whether you can communicate your understanding to another person is a separate issue.

So explain to all of us what is your bar for "understandinging". What conditions need to be met before you cay say "I understand the universe".
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:43 pm
I'm not. Have we now established to everyone's satisfaction the unavoidable necessity of a First Cause? If we have, then we're on to step 2. If not, we're still in need of seeing step 1, and have to go over the First Cause arguments again.
IF you establish first-cause then you have also established the necessity of uncaused causes.

The notion of "origin" demands an uncaused First Cause. Are you seriously unable to grasp this?
Last edited by Logik on Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:52 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:48 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:27 pm
Immanuel Can, I am not a good illustration of eternal order. When I copy David Hume and claim that all we can inductively know is constant conjunction of events I 'm making an epistemological , not an ontological, claim .
I am aware of Hume's argument. But I think we have good reasons not to find it compelling here. See below.
From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know.
Since you refer to epistemology, we'll have to establish what you mean by "know" in the above sentence. Do you mean "know" experientially, deductively, absolutely, probabilistically, or precisely what?

Because depending on your choice of the options, your claim could be sustainable in some respect, or obviously not.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:47 pm
You either understand the universe or you don't.
You're an epistemological absolutist?
IF you establish first-cause then you have also established the necessity of uncaused causes.
Yes, but only of one. There would have to be one necessary First Cause, and afterward, every other cause-and-effect relationship in the chain could -- and indeed would have to be -- contingent. That would create a universe that would be governed by cause-and-effect contingent events, but also account for the observable existence of the causal chain itself. Really, it would answer everything about that question.

However, the problem for skeptics of that position is that they cannot explain the existence of the causal chain. In fact, they have to deny that causality works at all.

Ironic, since they hope by their arguments to "cause" somebody to change his or her mind.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm
You're an epistemological absolutist?
Irrelevant. Even if I am not an absolutist "understanding" is on a spectrum. You can understand "more" and understand "less".

In a relativistic framework I'll just ask you a different question: What is "maximum understanding" ?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm
Ironic, since they hope by their arguments to "cause" somebody to change his or her mind.
Is that your reason for arguing ? To change other people's minds. Not your own ? :)
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm
Yes, but only of one..... Really, it would answer everything about that question.
Then back to my original question: What is wrong with "God" as a first cause and as an answer to the question of origin?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8142
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:05 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm
You're an epistemological absolutist?
... "understanding" is on a spectrum. You can understand "more" and understand "less".
Then you're not. But then, your last claim, "you either understand the universe or you don't," is not true.

I agree.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:54 pm
Ironic, since they hope by their arguments to "cause" somebody to change his or her mind.
Is that your reason for arguing ? To change other people's minds. Not your own ? :)
I wasn't talking about myself. I change my mind all the time, actually. It's called "learning," and everybody does it -- well, except those who shut down conversation completely, as Greylorn seems to prefer to do.
Then back to my original question: What is wrong with "God" as a first cause and as an answer to the question of origin?
Nothing's "wrong" with it. The only thing wrong is to leap to it without understanding why it's necessary.

That's part of the definition of being "indoctrinated": it means to believe something for which you are aware you do not possess adequate reasons. And I would never recommend doing that.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:05 pm
Then you're not. But then, your last claim, "you either understand the universe or you don't," is not true.

I agree.
It's not a claim. I am creating a context in which I can ask you a question that you can make sense of.

I'll just reword my question so my intention as to the information I am looking for is clear:

Absolutist perspective: Either you understand the universe or you don't
Relativist perspective: Either you maximally understand the universe or you don't.

If you deem yourself an absolutist then define "understanding".
if you deem yourself a relativist then define "maximum understanding"

Either way - I am trying to understand what the concept of "understanding" means to you.
What "understanding" means to me is: What I cannot create - I do not understand.

And so "maximum understanding" requires perfect replication.

I am not sure what you are agreeing with because I haven't (intended) to make any claims.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: osgart and 5 guests