by Perry 160 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The universe had a beginning. You can't change that.
Beginnings have causes. You can't change that either.
Oh oh oh, I get it now. As long as the statement "The universe had a beginning" is accepted in science, you will say "Beginnings have causes, therefore God."
If science proved the universe had no beginning, but was always there, you would say "If something has no beginning, then this makes it easier to understand that God can have no beginning."
Perry takes the "God" road no matter what.
P: "--Since our space/time universe was caused, the cause is outside of space & time, a valid point, if you include the intended laws and energy, and it is spacetime bsw.
-P:--otherwise its own cause would precede it, placing it back in the space time universe,-- you lost us there, why, how do you think the cause would have to loop back through time into the universe?
P:--it is still yet to create... an illogical impossibility. --So, the whole notion of what is "natural" is placed beyond our space/time universe--" -- what is natural has to be within nature, nurtured in the big bang. What is before. or outside the beginning has to be ex-natural. or?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
The Question that won't go away.
There's something deeply mysterious at the heart of existence.
Ludwig Wittgenstein [...] wrote, in typically cryptic fashion, "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
And something from nothing isn't magic? At least with magic you start with a magician. Materialists start with literally nothing. Why isn't this happening now?
We don't know that it was something from nothing, we can only observe our physical universe and come up with models of how the universe formed. Many scientist say that time didn't even exist until the big bang, that the physical and chemical laws that govern the universe didn't exist yet. While that may sound magical it is based on something. The idea of personal God who is outside of our physical universe but still controlling matters isn't based on anything observable. It is a combination of speculation and faith, not evidence. It is my opinion that there will never be a time when man will be able to have all the answers. That's okay we don't need to have them. Saying "I don't know" is better than just making something up.
Just saw Perry's post on "fine tuning". Worst argument ever?
Using the words "fine tuning" is misleading loaded language.
If the cosmological constants have tight tolerances (what is actually being described), so what?
Tight tolerances are proof that tight tolerances exist. NOTHING ELSE. Is Perry a real Christian or a troll?
Here's my new answer from Buddhism about the beginning of the universe-
One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Master and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.
I appreciate that great minds are looking into the beginning (and the people Perry quotes from). But the arguments are never ending. The only reason I participate with Perry is because Perry wants to be convinced, hence his continous preoccupation.
There's something deeply mysterious at the heart of existence.
WOW!!, Enjoyed that expression. Thanks sbf. You are a profound poster.
The beginning of the Universe can be explained by simple, high school level mathematics without the use of a deity.
A deity is completely unnecessary and it typically wouldn't matter if it was there however the laws of nature have no room for it therefore it cannot exist.
If you fail to educate yourself and choose the easy way out, you make yourself sound like a moron. There is no magic in the explanations, no need to invent stuff that doesn't already exist and can't be proven. If you fail to understand Krauss' "nothing" you fail at basic understanding of the English language.
The Christian deities (which most of you subscribe to) can be proven not to exist since it would break all our tested laws if they did, you can make up any number of imaginary creatures but unless you can stuff them in a formula that works, you fail. And if you claim Zgofd is the cosmological constant, your God is tiny and inconsequential to us and will soon be replaced.
Perry. If your posts show anything it is that you really don’t have much, or don’t wish to posses much understanding of the topic of the universe.
To make deductions about the universe using an ancient book has always proved to be fraught with error. For thousands of years it seemed very good logic to observe the geocentric aspect of earth in relation to the universe. Hipparchus and Ptolemy both worked out very sophisticated mathematics in order to reconcile the universe to a geocentric model. This all fits very nicely into the biblical references that imply the earth is the centre of the universe. So, logically speaking, it had to be true…?
No! But you can’t blame mankind for being wrong. After all, what would a geocentric universe look like from earth? It would look very similar to the Heliocentric universe that we live in.
When the discovery was made, science soon adapted to the new theory of the heliocentric model. Religion didn’t adapt to the truth at all but arrogantly continued to erroneously teach that the earth is the centre of the universe. Why? Because they claimed their book told them so.
Perry, in a similar vein, you claim that the universe is only 6000 years old because an old book says that it is. You try to get around the scientific theory that the universe is nearer to 14 billion years old by citing your old book, claiming that a god would violate his own integral laws of physics to stretch out the universe to 14 billion light years.
It’s hard to take such a suggestion seriously, but thought it would be fun to examine such a claim. The first question would be ‘why would God have the need to stretch anything out in the first place?’ If the universe is only 6000 years old, why aren’t the most distant objects only 6000 light years away? What would be the problem with that?
But here are a few problems with that hypothesis. How is light getting to us now from the edge of the universe 14 billion light years away? If the answer to that is that light also stretched with the universe, then why does this not show up with the charting of red-shift? The fact is we just wouldn’t be able to see the distant objects in the universe because the light wouldn’t have come anywhere near to reaching earth, even if god did stretch out the universe to its observable boundaries now. Light over 6000 years old still would not have reached us because light speed is a constant.
The hypothesis of the universe being stretched would also be an anomaly with what we see happening in the universe as we speak. For example, when a star explodes, the first we know about it is an intense wave of photons that emit from such a phenomenon. The next thing to be detected from an exploding star is the neutrinos that follow on after, at near light speed. The fact that photons reach the earth a considerable time before the onrush of neutrinos indicates how far away in space these exploding stars are from us. If the universe had been stretched, then there would be no such delay of the arrival of these two particles.
There is no evidence at all for this ludicrous claim.
Now I’m sure you will say that your god can do anything, even removing the evidence from space so that the stretching of the universe was undetectable. The question would be ‘why would god remove the evidence of stretching the universe but at the same time he would leave the evidence of a universe that is expanding?’
The fact is that what you claim the bible says is provably refutable and utter nonsense. Like how the Catholic Church dealt with the evidence of Galileo, you are purposely working against what is truth because of what you think an ancient book says. How foolish the Catholic Church were…
Welcome to the forum Giles Gray.
Excellent maiden post.
