God and religion are very different subjects. If origins cannot be accounted for scientifically one has to face the implications of that, nothing whatsoever to do with "religion".

Not going there, way off topic.

 

Not going there, way off topic.

No it isn't. You want to discuss the nature of the universe, but draw the line when it comes to how it's presence can be explained? How is that off topic? Can you suggest how the presence of the universe, matter, fields, laws came to exist? Why is it off topic? Can determinism account for the presence of determinism? This is on topic, just because science has limitations doesn't make the questions go away!

 

No it isn't. You want to discuss the nature of the universe, but draw the line when it comes to how it's presence can be explained? How is that off topic? Can you suggest how the presence of the universe, matter, fields, laws came to exist? Why is it off topic? Can determinism account for the presence of determinism? This is on topic, just because science has limitations doesn't make the questions go away!

Please stop.

 

Please stop.

Very well I'll stop discussing metaphysics with you, but don't enter into a discussion if the implications make you intellectually uncomfortable.

 

Very well I'll stop discussing metaphysics with you, but don't enter into a discussion if the implications make you intellectually uncomfortable.

Thank you. Things were going fine with this discussion until you took it off topic with this boring, repetitious and IMO useless subject. You want to enter into a discussion that I (and most here) don't want.

 

Thank you. Things were going fine with this discussion until you took it off topic with this boring, repetitious and IMO useless subject. You want to enter into a discussion that I (and most here) don't want.

You said you didn't want to discuss it, then you start making ad hominem attacks, make your mind up, do you want to discuss metaphysics or don't you?

 

You said you didn't want to discuss it, then you start making ad hominem attacks, make your mind up, do you want to discuss metaphysics or don't you?

I'll entertain your point but I think you are on thin ice. Restate your case to me and I'll form a counterargument.

 

I'll entertain your point but I think you are on thin ice. Restate your case to me and I'll form a counterargument.

The case in question is the problem that exists when we face questions about nature that cannot be answered by nature. The universe seems to be rationally intelligible, yet to what can we attribute that? We can't account for rational intelligibility on the basis of rational intelligibility.

We can't explain how laws of nature arose, how can a deterministic universe come to exist? It soon becomes obvious that if we rely on science, then there are questions that cannot be answered scientifically. If we must speculate on non deterministic agencies, effects not governed by laws, then what of it? why all the fuss?

One principle more than any other has guided me my whole life, always retain an open mind, Galileo understood this but dogmatic powers governing society back then did not and that mind set prevails today, even among so called "scientists".

 

Why not say it out loud: GodDidIt! But then the question becomes how did God come into existence? So you have taken a problem with our knowledge of something that we know exists, and turned it into a problem with knowledge of something that we don't know exists.

 

Why not say it out loud: GodDidIt! But then the question becomes how did God come into existence? So you have taken a problem with our knowledge of something that we know exists, and turned it into a problem with knowledge of something that we don't know exists.

Well if you do want to discuss origins the please don't paraphrase me, quote my actual words, not your interpretation of them.

I cited Lennox, an Oxford University mathematician, because he's debated successfully against people like Krauss and Atkins, people who insist that everything can in principle be explained by science, the nature of the universe raises related metaphysical questions.

Unfortunately there are some who like to restrict the scope of such discussions, just like the dogmatics who gagged Galileo, they want to silence anyone who dares to question the efficacy of science, they immediately characterize skeptics as "religious" as an attempt to discredit their views, much time has passed since the time of Galileo but human nature is much the same.

 

Well if you do want to discuss origins the please don't paraphrase me, quote my actual words, not your interpretation of them

Well, my point applies even if the answer is not GodDidIt. I do not say science cannot answer this question, I say that nothing can answer it without the pre-existence of something else, leading to the same regression.

 

Well, my point applies even if the answer is not GodDidIt. I do not say science cannot answer this question, I say that nothing can answer it without the pre-existence of something else, leading to the same regression.

That might be true, but science is itself an exercise in reductionism, infinite regression yet I don't hear any objections to that!

 

You are arguing against a straw man if you think I am saying science is complete. Science is, and always will be an approximation of how the universe behaves.

 

Boring a sloth is an accomplishment.

 

View attachment 316676

Boring a sloth is an accomplishment.

Exactly what's why I declined to waste my time on it.

 

Why not say it out loud: GodDidIt! But then the question becomes how did God come into existence? So you have taken a problem with our knowledge of something that we know exists, and turned it into a problem with knowledge of something that we don't know exists.

Hi,

I think it is better to refer to that sort of entity as a higher form of life. The reason I say this is for a couple or more reasons.
First, the word "God" provokes all kinds of thoughts from those who are religious to those that are purely not religious, and subtle mocks such as that one which serve no real purpose regardless of the accuracy of the claims. These thoughts will be in conflict right off the bat and it will never end. That means there is no one definition for that word which in itself is a problem even without getting into the true or false discussions.

Then, if we remove that word from the vocabulary we can start to talk about the universe if it happened to be designed by some advanced intelligence (or not), which is believed by many scientists now. This rather than the other, would be called science, or at least the pursuit of science. This means we do not have to involve religion.
This really grounds the discussions into more realistic ideals which cannot be dismissed unless we care to reject the very science we seek to understand. In other words, we cannot argue that science is real and science is not real at the same time, and this would now have nothing to do with a single entity of some sort.

What you say after that is certainly true, we have a problem that involves something that we do not know exists, as like a higher intelligence, but then we don't know how big the universe is either so we already started driving down that road long before this. Yes, it is also true that it may not help to invoke another idea with a lack of proof into a discussion that already has a lack of proof, but it may. The main idea, I happen to think, is talk about everything until we find some sign of reason hidden in there somewhere.

Also, subtle mocks will usually only invoke emotional responses and it's better to keep emotions out of it and go with pure logic.

Back to the original thoughts, I think the question of how big the universe is will probably not be answered anytime soon, unfortunately. Maybe the real question should be, "Will it ever be answered".

 

View attachment 316676

Boring a sloth is an accomplishment.

I hate to point this out, but I do not think that helps solve the issue, just make it proceed more slowly

 

View attachment 316676

Boring a sloth is an accomplishment.

Perhaps the discussion goes over your head, you've likely never understood why you choose to believe the things you do.

 

Hi,

I think it is better to refer to that sort of entity as a higher form of life. The reason I say this is for a couple or more reasons.
First, the word "God" provokes all kinds of thoughts from those who are religious to those that are purely not religious, and subtle mocks such as that one which serve no real purpose regardless of the accuracy of the claims. These thoughts will be in conflict right off the bat and it will never end. That means there is no one definition for that word which in itself is a problem even without getting into the true or false discussions.

Then, if we remove that word from the vocabulary we can start to talk about the universe if it happened to be designed by some advanced intelligence (or not), which is believed by many scientists now. This rather than the other, would be called science, or at least the pursuit of science. This means we do not have to involve religion.
This really grounds the discussions into more realistic ideals which cannot be dismissed unless we care to reject the very science we seek to understand. In other words, we cannot argue that science is real and science is not real at the same time, and this would now have nothing to do with a single entity of some sort.

What you say after that is certainly true, we have a problem that involves something that we do not know exists, as like a higher intelligence, but then we don't know how big the universe is either so we already started driving down that road long before this. Yes, it is also true that it may not help to invoke another idea with a lack of proof into a discussion that already has a lack of proof, but it may. The main idea, I happen to think, is talk about everything until we find some sign of reason hidden in there somewhere.

Also, subtle mocks will usually only invoke emotional responses and it's better to keep emotions out of it and go with pure logic.

Back to the original thoughts, I think the question of how big the universe is will probably not be answered anytime soon, unfortunately. Maybe the real question should be, "Will it ever be answered".

You raise many excellent points here. Of utmost relevance is as you say, the eagerness to discredit non materialism by labelling it "religion", a great way to suppress free thinking. Its comical too how atheists behave much the same as fanatical religious advocates, blanket dismissals of dissenting views, an insistence that the origins of matter, fields and laws is matter, fields and laws, absurdities.

 

The discussion shows a tendency to get way off topic and raise tempers.

Please get back to the original topic and continue to be considerate of each other.