If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 95

First Previous

Page

117

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#941

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
you've actually been pretty dismissive of other people's ideas. I didnt see what faults you found and even if you did, it wouldn't have bothered me. They all find faults with me, i'm just a faulty kinda guy.😆. Seriously, for you to turn around and say its all blind speculation is pretty condescending after a certain point, especially if someone knows the underlying science pretty well. So here's the deal- you want aggressive vigorous debate, we can have it. You want apple pie, that' too is fine. No one should whine after that.

I have termed speculations as speculations, and the person who posted that agreed with me. This thread was supposed to deal with the fact that we can't prove God's existence with current knowledge. That's it, nothing less, nothing more.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
the question about time travel. Rather than answer it or say you dont know which one can respect for intellectual honesty, you start deciding what is relevant and what is not.

It is peculation too, and I have admitted it. Of course we don't know whether it is possible, currently. And we have been discussing that. You call discussing, ignoring?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
Yes, people do that to evade the problem. But it doesnt solve the problem.

There is no evading. Things mean the same. 1 meter on the ct axis represents the time light takes to travel in 1m. It is still measuring time with the help of conversion factor. Like someone saying I am just a 15 minutes ride from your home. You are telling distance in time's units and the conversion is implied for a fixed factor e.g. 60km/h.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
exactly. Thank you. That's what i have been saying all along. Does not make sense. ie. nonsense.😆 Now notice we can measure velocity in the distance axes, there is no such meaningful quantity in the time dimension like you yourself have just concluded. If there's still a block, think of it this way- if we start talking about time travel, we should be able to specify the speed at which we are travelling in time. Self-referential as we just concluded.

The question itself does not make sense, does not necessarily mean that it is a fault with the math. For example, asking what is the color of number 2 doesn't make sense, it does not mean that we don't understand what color or number 2 are. Again, velocity is the change in displacement with respect to time. There is no displacement while moving through space so velocity doesn't make sense. But still, for spacetime four-velocity has been coined. And as I said, we are travelling in time in future. Otherwise we won't be moving in future.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#942

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
you are right if we assume that spacetime is an abstract non-existent mathematical construct. But if you assume that it is physically existent, then you have to have motion in time which can be shown to be a meaningless quantity. It is on this basis that I was saying that something can be a great math model in predicting various things but it might not have a physical counterpart. Hope you see where i was coming from.

First, I agree that time travel is speculative with no current evidence. I thought it was obvious so didn't feel the need to mention this before.

But, even if it was possible, your question will still make no sense. You measure time elapsed when moving through space. Moving through time is like going for 2012 to 2000. There is no rate of change or elapse, because you are actually moving through the dimension of time. You can use it to reference a motion in space, but measuring something with itself makes no sense. It's like asking what the rate of displacement is when the displacement is 10m. Or doing dS/dS. The question is meaningless but it doesn't mean through can't move through space.

I can see you are trying to say time travel is a speculative thing. I agree and others will agree too. But I think the questions you are using to show it are not correct.

Edited by Freethinker112 - 11 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#943

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
cool. No problem- i'm tired of bringing it up too :), but I was doing it to pour cold water on some of the "science" we were using to dismiss other ideas. Anyway, I think we all know deep down that we cant prove existence of God in a scientific sense. And it would actually be great to hear what you have to say.

I am sorry, but what exactly are you trying to show here? It has been stated multiple times that the science currently is not perfect. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to research more. It does not explain everything. That's why we improve it. But it is the best understanding we have got till now and it does predicts many things accurately. And somebody opposing it or suggesting new hypothesis has ti provide and improvement i.e. explain the things it already does AND explain some more. Speculation is fine. But unless you can prove it, it is just an speculation. Scientists researching these things don't claim that they are true unless they find it. Speculation is necessary. To expand science, we first need to speculate what might be. Progress is not possible withing the realms, we expand boundary. But just that doesn't cut it. We have to verify those speculations otherwise they are meaningless. I don't have problem with people speculating. But instead of just repeating God for thousands of years, try to find him or something. Otherwise discard your hypothesis.

Speculation is good and fun, but that's what not this topic was about. It was for people claiming fora fact that they know God exists. And my point was that in view of current knowledge, we can't prove the existence of God. Just that, nothing less, nothing more. I think others will agree with this conclusion.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#944

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Sure, thanks! It should be a simple question of unifying the central concepts of QM and GR, identifying the shape of the universe, explaining dark matter, dark energy and dark flow, finding why the universe had such a low entropy in the past, bridging the gaps between macro, meso and micro scales, resolving the mind-body dichotomy, unraveling the hard problem of consciousness, getting to the bottom of singularity and revealing the first cause.

I am on it.

Seems simple enough. I reckon you won't be needing any help, will you? 😉 😆

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

Sparkler

Posted: 11 years ago

#945

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Blimey ! 😆

Surface of the earth has no boundary cause earth's surface itself is earth's boundary .. 😆 ..Your logic sounded as balmy as someone asking ..What is the boundary of a boundary ? .. 😆

Your problem right now is you are thinking too far deep...Getting to the depths that don't exist ..Thus making the simplest of the things sound like rocket science 😆

No, that is the simplest explanation there is. Walking on the surface of Earth, you will never encounter an end. Walk in any direction, you will never reach a boundary. But still the surface are of Earth is finite not infinite. That is the 2D analogy. Which fits for 3D too but is difficult to visualize. But it's the same thing, you will never encounter an end. If you could theoretically move long enough in straight direction, you will be back where you started, just like on Earth. But, just like Earth's surface are, space doesn't need to be infinite. It may or may not be.

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#946

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

No, that is the simplest explanation there is. Walking on the surface of Earth, you will never encounter an end. Walk in any direction, you will never reach a boundary. But still the surface are of Earth is finite not infinite. That is the 2D analogy. Which fits for 3D too but is difficult to visualize. But it's the same thing, you will never encounter an end. If you could theoretically move long enough in straight direction, you will be back where you started, just like on Earth. But, just like Earth's surface are, space doesn't need to be infinite. It may or may not be.

This depends on whether the density of the universe is greater than the critical density or less than the critical density. If greater, then we have a universe that is closed and positively curved like a sphere. If less, we have a flat universe. By all indications (WMAP) we have a flat universe.

But it doesn't mean it will remain flat forever. If gravity wins over the momentum of expansion, we will go back to "square one".

I am rooting for gravity.

Quote

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#947

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

No, that is the simplest explanation there is. Walking on the surface of Earth, you will never encounter an end. Walk in any direction, you will never reach a boundary. But still the surface are of Earth is finite not infinite. That is the 2D analogy. Which fits for 3D too but is difficult to visualize. But it's the same thing, you will never encounter an end. If you could theoretically move long enough in straight direction, you will be back where you started, just like on Earth. But, just like Earth's surface are, space doesn't need to be infinite. It may or may not be.

Free 😛

Hahaha . ...Awww ... The END is when ...One starts walking from point A on the earth's surface .. ...along the equator ...and ENDS up reaching point A again ... So that doesn't suggest infinity .. Unless you keep walking forever and never reach point A again ... 😆

We don't know if that can happen in space .. ...We might need to keep waking forever to know that ...😆

...And if we reach point A even there ..That ll mean the Universe ain't infinite ...But again we would wonder what exists beyond that ...Which means either blank space ..or another full fledged UNIVERSE...with celestial bodies ..So in either case ..it becomes infinite ..😛

What cranky stuff we are on about in the quest of finding the God ..😆 When we can't find many things that he created ..Infinite things to say the least ..

Vintu 😛

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#948

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine
Hahaha . ...Awww ... The END is when ...One starts walking from point A on the earth's surface .. ...along the equator ...and ENDS up reaching point A again ... So that doesn't suggest infinity .. Unless you keep walking forever and never reach point A again ... 😆

We don't know if that can happen in space .. ...We might need to keep waking forever to know that ...😆

Like i said, it depends on the curvature of space which in turn is determined by the density...

Only for the positive curvature, would two parallel lines converge. For the negative curvature, two parallel lines would diverge.

What we have is most likely a flat universe, per WMAP. Parallel lines are indeed parallel and large triangles have 180 degrees. Here the spatial extent is infinite. with no boundaries.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine
...And if we reach point A even there ..That ll mean the Universe ain't infinite ...But again we would wonder what exists beyond that ...

That we will. It's in our nature.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine
Which means either blank space ..or another full fledged UNIVERSE...with celestial bodies ..

OK, you have to stop inventing terms. Like blank space!

Edited by K.Universe. - 11 years ago

Quote

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#949

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Like i said, it depends on the curvature of space which in turn is determined by the density...

Only for the positive curvature, would two parallel lines converge. For the negative curvature, two parallel lines would diverge.

What we have is most likely a flat universe, per WMAP. Parallel lines are indeed parallel and large triangles have 180 degrees. Here the spatial extent is infinite. with no boundaries.

True that ... 😛 The context here though was ..Freethinker thought exactly the opposite ..Since the earth's surface is spherical he wailed that we would keep going round and round that meaning it's infinite ...which is untrue as the starting point would be re visited once a circle is complete ..

Again .. with two or many lines are drawn ..if we fix two points like the South and North pole to draw the lines ...The Longitudes I mean ..they can't be called parallel lines ..

Also the latitudes NEVER converge ..and they are parallel ..

Now a Flat universe model must resort to special relativity ... we must take Special relativity which is assumptive as the Dense material and Gravitational forces exist throughout the universe...and the light too is curved as it passes through strong gravitational fields. The lensing of course. I believe if it might depend on the eccentricity ..a Parabolic picture comes to my sloshed mind ..and Omitting gravity doesn't sound like a appealing idea.

That we will. It's in our nature.

Fairy nuff !

OK, you have to stop inventing terms. Like blank space!

Well ...The universe is infinite ..So the terminologies must be adhered to ..But If it doesn't happen to be that way..ie: Curved Then it has an end ...and then newer terminologies and expressions might be needed ...Which is what exactly I have done if we consider a possibility of a finite universe... Then a Blank Space ...By Blank I meant ..Space / The Separating Gap between this universe and another one ....A Separation that doesn't relate to both the universes ...And the terminologies peculiar to universe's characteristics don't apply to that... Hence the term Blank space ... 😉

Hic !

Vintu 😛

Edited by Vintage.Wine - 11 years ago

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@CuckooCutter7

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#950

Originally posted by: Freethinker112
I am sorry, but what exactly are you trying to show here? It has been stated multiple times that the science currently is not perfect. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to research more. It does not explain everything. That's why we improve it. But it is the best understanding we have got till now and it does predicts many things accurately. And somebody opposing it or suggesting new hypothesis has ti provide and improvement i.e. explain the things it already does AND explain some more. Speculation is fine. But unless you can prove it, it is just an speculation. Scientists researching these things don't claim that they are true unless they find it. Speculation is necessary. To expand science, we first need to speculate what might be. Progress is not possible withing the realms, we expand boundary. But just that doesn't cut it. We have to verify those speculations otherwise they are meaningless. I don't have problem with people speculating. But instead of just repeating God for thousands of years, try to find him or something. Otherwise discard your hypothesis.

Speculation is good and fun, but that's what not this topic was about. It was for people claiming fora fact that they know God exists. And my point was that in view of current knowledge, we can't prove the existence of God. Just that, nothing less, nothing more. I think others will agree with this conclusion.

did you really need to open this thread to show that there is no scientific proof for existence of God? 😆 really what were you hoping to accomplish? Find out whether anyone had succeeded in finding scientific proof while the rest of the world was taking a nap?😆

now since we are all agreed there's no such proof, and since i think it might be worthwhile to explore even speculative ideas, could we suggest you either have this thread closed (in which case someone else can open a thread with fewer constraints), or you stop repeating the same "blind speculation" and "no scientific proof" mantras?.😆

Quote

1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 ... 117

Top