Re: Questions for a Theist


Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 15 Feb 2006 05:42:53 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 19:09:26 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 18:37:21 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 14:45:52 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Question 1: Do you believe there was a time the universe did not exist?

The problem here is that you have got (a) got it bass-ackwards to the
extent of creating a strawman, and (b) invented a belief where there
isn't one.
Care to identify the "strawman" and "invented belief"?

"Do you believe there was a time the universe did not exist". You're
projecting. You're inventing a belief where there isn't one.
I believe the big bang theory, that there was a time the universe did

There is no need to "believe" the big bang, which is more than "just a
theory". It is a conclusion based on observation and investigation.

Neither the big bang nor the theory which explains it say there was a
time the universe did not exist.

Your belief that there was, is merely a belief.
Therein may lie our difference. "Merely a belief" suggests, to me, you
see it as unimportant. I see having a belief "system" as essential for
my spiritual wellbeing. It's my choice as is your seeing it as
unimportant your choice. To me, the challenge of choosing is the human

Bull***.

The word "belief" should not be used when there are more accurate
words that carry differences. It is dishonest to reduce everything to
belief.
Sorry. I did not realise you are the intergalactic epicenter of
lexicon. I did a Google "define:belief" search and found a wide range
of definitions within which my usage seems to fit. If you have a
better word I will gladly use it.

And you need to learn the difference between "belief" and "Conclusion
from evidence and investigation".

Your "belief" that there was a time when the universe did not exist,
has no justification. It is merely an belief. Unimportance is your
invention. I said nothing at all about that.

The rest of us stop at the big bang - or rather an almost
infinitessimal fraction of a second after it, known as Planck time. It
stops there. There is no information with which to go back beyond
that. You believe something before that, in the absence of any reason
to do so. It is merely a belief with no backing in reality.
So I am the only person on the planet who wonders at whether there was
anything before the big bang, whether there was a causation?

You may want to explore some physics sites like
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html where you will find
this opening,

"It seems fairly likely that there was a Big Bang. The obvious question
that could be asked to challenge or define the boundaries between
physics and metaphysics is: what came before the Big Bang?"

"Fairly likely?" That doesn't sound irrefutable to me.

....or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm which opens
with...

"A new theory for the origin of the Universe is intriguing astronomers
with the idea that a "Big Splat" preceded the Big Bang."

....or Dr, Michio Kaku at http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm
where he says,

"Relativity was worthless, he realized, when it came to answering the
most embarrassing cosmic question in all of science: What happened
before the Big Bang? Ask any cosmologist this question, and they will
throw up their hands, roll their eyes, and lament, "This may be forever
beyond the reach of science. We just don't know."

Until now, that is.

A remarkable consensus has been developing recently around what is
called "quantum cosmology," where scientists believe that a merger of
the quantum theory and Einstein's relativity may resolve these sticky
theological questions. Theoretical physicists are rushing in where the
angels fear to tread!"

....or visit Dr. Kaku's website (He's the cofounder of the superstring
theory. Does that count as a credential in physics?) at
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/hyper_sci_odyssey.shtml where you will
find this tidy text...

"What Happened Before the Big Bang? One advantage to having a theory
of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest,
long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe,
and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10
dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling
explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which
took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and
galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe
originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in
it...."

What I don't understand is why you project your own need for this
belief onto the rest of us. Or why you imagine anybody needs to make a
choice.
See above links.

There are some speculations which fit current scientific
understanding, including conservation. At the quantum level particles
pop into and out of existence spontaneously. The big bang COULD have
been such an event. At least we know they happen. But nobody insists
or even "believes" this. It is a speculation. And cosmology regards
the universe as a zero sum - matter plus antimatter plus energy plus
anti-energy (gravity) all add up to zero. So conservation of
mass/energy is preserved.

But again, this is speculation. Nobody "believes" it. That's not how
things work.

dilemma. Do I reason the best I can, willing to express myself when
appropriate, or hide my true thinking to avoid conflict. I think the
answer lies in how universal I see my thinking. It's when I try to
persuade others that my beliefs are universal that trouble begins.

That's obvious. You project yourself and your need for a belief
without any justification onto others. On top of which you invent
straw man responses which you restrict to three invalid alternatives.

You don't seem to grasp that the only reason for proposing an
intelligence behind everything, is the presumption of deity that comes
with theistic religion.

Because there is nothing whatsoever that leads to it as a conclusion.
Nor is there any reason to use it as a starting premise.

not exist. Others believe the steady state theory, that universe has

No.
No what? No one believes the steady state theory? Or No, the steady
state theory is not a belief?

Sigh.

The evidence for the big bang put paid to steady state long ago.
Before that there were two competing theories to be tested and
accepted or refuted. Nobody "believed" one over the other. Because
that's not how the real world works. Because belief is a weak and
unjustified, arbitrary reason to decide something. The rest of us rely
on evidence to reach a conclusion - which is not arbitrary.

You need to stop substituting the word "believe" for the words which
carry the differences in meaning. Its use is dishonest because it
implies an equivalence between a justified conclusion from observation
and an unjustified, arbitrary decision to decide something in the
absence of evidence.
You keep calling me a liar. My use of the word 'believe' as 'certainty
without proof' is well established usage, especially when defined as
such.


always existed. There are variations of the two I am told. Some

This was only part of the steady state theory, what was discredited a
long time ago.
Maybe for you but there are some who have now subscribed to that view,
specifically Geoffrey and Margaret Burbridge in the November discover
magazine article at this link.
http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-05/features/two-against-the-big-bang/

So?

Are you now pretending that the big bang didn't happen? That the
universe of space time is not expanding from a singularity?

My point is that the big bang theory is not accepted universally by all
credible scientists which the Burbridges are. Their view may be like
Newton's fascination with alchemy. Could it be like Einstein's special
theory of relativity, which, as I remember it, was greeted with a big
yawn until Max Planck became interested.

And your point is a falsehood.

believe the earth was formed 4.55 Gyrs ago. Others believe it was

Again, that is not a belief but a conclusion.

formed 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Who says these aren't beliefs?

That is a religious belief which has no basis in reality.

Well?

You are turning things which aren't beliefs into belief so you can
pretend the justified conclusion based on observed evidence is
equivalent to an unjustified certainty in the absence of evidence.

If you can't stop doing this you have nothing to say on the subject.

You are reducing things which aren't beliefs and for which there are
better, more accurate words to describe, to pretend they are beliefs
so you can equivocate between a real-world conclusion and an
unjustified belief that is contradicted by reality.

Where is the irrefutable evidence?

For what?
The big bang theory. The theory of evolution. String Theory.
Multiple universes. Additional dimensions. Dark matter (energy).

Big bang - the universal background radiation and its "wrinkles". But
the juggernaut which is science has gone on from that. Hubble has
taken us back in time billions of light years and confirmed what the
theory (the explanation for the fact) predicted.

Evolution - the theory is the researched and well understood
explanation for the observed facts that are labelled "evolution".

String theory - speculation that fits the facts. Currently there is no
way to test it, and nobody claims it happens/happened that way. But
the model fits the facts.

Additional dimensions - speculation.

Dark matter - a label for a "something" that is needed to balance some
of the equations that model the universe.

However none of these are "beliefs". You need to use the correct words
each time rather than one which pretends that conclusions from
observation and evidence, is the same as unjustified certainty in the
absence of evidence.

Which is dishonest and gets in the way of the explanations which you
are ignoring anyway.

Are any of these scientific beliefs? Please note I have not restricted
belief to religion. >

What part of BELIEF IS THE WRONG WORD BECAUSE IT REMOVES THE NUANCES
OF MEANING IN ORDER TO PRETEND AN EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE JUSTIFIED
AND THE UNJUSTIFIED are you still pretending you don't understand?

The quantity of words in you argument do not validate it. This began
as an honest response to Sam's question on theism and I responded with
my opinion. I now find I am a lying (although I don't think so) idiot
(which is certainly true as evidenced by my continuous responses to
your obsessive distrotions of my position).

That said, all the best, GH

.

Loading