This is just a naked/textbook argument from ignorance. From the fact that we do not presently have a non-theistic explanation for some X, it does not follow that it therefore has a theistic explanation. — Seppo
My initial encounter with computers was a graduate math course in numerical analysis taken in 1962. We wrote short programs, turned them in to someone behind a window where IBM cards would be punched, and finally after a day or so, run through a machine the size of a large room. Then we would find we had made a mistake, and would repeat the process over several days.
It was not a pleasant experience. — jgill
Its just a bad idea in general to tether one's religious/theological views to scientific facts, since scientific facts are provisional and subject to change. Once we extend our scientific picture past the earliest stages of the Big Bang, where will the theist insert god next? The inflaton field? That's the problem with gods-of-the-gaps: gaps have a tendency to get closed. — Seppo
So, is what you just said true in that it is the case regardless of whether I agree or not, or whether anyone else knows it or not? Are you describing your world bubble (subjectivity) or the world outside your bubble where everyone else exists (objectivity)? — Harry Hindu
If what you see is different than what others are describing that they see, how do you know that you're both talking about the same thing? You'd run the risk of talking past each other — Harry Hindu
cosmologists seem to be more or less in agreement that the Big Bang "singularity" is merely an artifact of general relativity breaking down when gravitation becomes significant on the quantum scale: it does not represent anything real or physical. Candidate theories of quantum gravity like loop quantum gravity and string/superstring/M-theory remove this singularity (as well as the gravitational singularity in black holes). — Seppo
Its just a bad idea in general to tether one's religious/theological views to scientific facts, since scientific facts are provisional and subject to change. Once we extend our scientific picture past the earliest stages of the Big Bang, where will the theist insert god next? The inflaton field? That's the problem with gods-of-the-gaps: gaps have a tendency to get closed. — Seppo
I think this means either God ceased to exist at the moment of creation, or God created herself — Real Gone Cat
There is what is the case independent of theory (think of what was the case before humans evolved to make theories about what was the case before their existence) and then there is the case of me asserting my theory. Truth is the relationship between what my theory states and what is, or was, the case independent of my theory. — Harry Hindu
Combining the sentences isn't what makes them make sense, or meaningful. What makes them meaningful is whether or not what they refer to is the case or not. — Harry Hindu
Are you arguing just to be contrary? — Real Gone Cat
Of course those. They are the only two you mention. And subsequently dismiss. So list what explanations you do find compelling. — Real Gone Cat
[Not the OOO God (absolute deity), but the ooo god (relative deity)] — Agent Smith
You do not actually think those are valid alternatives — Real Gone Cat
And I caution my philosophy-minded friends to be careful invoking quantum physics. Its an abstraction (i.e., mind-generated construct) — Real Gone Cat
I understand your frustration, I feel it too, we cant answer your question yet but that feeling of frustration is a driver that makes us continue to seek an answer. So far, if Cosmology is correct, we do understand the 'How,' back to the inflationary moment. We have no idea about the ultimate why? YET! — universeness
I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago. — karl stone
Finally, a solution to the Great Filter — pfirefry
No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct! — karl stone
Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future. — karl stone
Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. — karl stone
Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place — DA671
No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come. — DA671
Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. — karl stone
They won't struggle to secure human existence, firstly because they themselves are mortal - so who cares, and second, because they view existence as a chore! — karl stone
They won't look beyond their own sad selves, recognise a responsibility to truth, and act to secure a prosperous sustainable future - nor see beyond, to the concievably cosmic potential of human intelleigence. They'll lie, cheat and steal unto oblivion; finding vindication in being entirely worthy of non existence! — karl stone
They might! You're misrepresenting my position. — Agent Smith
If there is an Inside and an Outside to existence, then physicalism holds (or at least dualism does). It doesn't matter what form the Outside takes - whether it be atoms, or points, or the mind of God. These are just different names for a thing we can never truly know, but acknowledge must be. The only alternative is solipsism. — Real Gone Cat
And in any case, the atheist isn't judging a being (divine or otherwise), but a concept or proposition: the concept of God/proposition that he exists — Seppo
Matter is now defined by ideal mathematical Points — Gnomon
But that is all that it is. — god must be atheist
The philosophical question is not where Mind resides, but what is Mind? If it's not a material object, then it's immaterial — Gnomon
Of course, on the macro level of reality, those patterns are always associated with physical things. But on the quantum scale that common-sense association breaks down. — Gnomon
In the menatime, we can continue on your claim "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity". What do you mean by this? a speed? an increase in mass? or a distance — god must be atheist