CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator

[JimBowie1958]

What created the original creator?

OK, grasp the fact that, when something does not exist in the flow of time, there is NO 'BEFORE'.

Where does the flow of time not exist?

Outside of our universe, in a place abstracted as 'Eternity', whence came the Big Bang.

Many people have a problem with the idea of 'somewhere' that time does not exist.

But we know that our space/time universe has not always existed; ultimately one must start with Eternity.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JoeMoma, et al,

There is an associated between "Space and Time;" and there is an association between "Mass and Energy."

Where does the flow of time not exist?

(COMMENT)

Time is a human construct that gives standard measure between "events" and meaning to the word "change." One Example: At absolute 0º where there is no energy and no motion; therefore no movement of any subatomic particles → there is no time.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoeMoma]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JoeMoma, et al,

There is an associated between "Space and Time;" and there is an association between "Mass and Energy."

Where does the flow of time not exist?

(COMMENT)

Time is a human construct that gives standard measure between "events" and meaning to the word "change." One Example: At absolute 0º where there is no energy and no motion; therefore no movement of any subatomic particles → there is no time.

Most Respectfully,
R

Time is a human construct? So humans pre-existed time since humans constructed time?

There is no time at a temp of absolute 0? You went to a different physics class than I went to.

 

[JoeMoma]

What created the original creator?

OK, grasp the fact that, when something does not exist in the flow of time, there is NO 'BEFORE'.

Where does the flow of time not exist?

Outside of our universe, in a place abstracted as 'Eternity', whence came the Big Bang.

Many people have a problem with the idea of 'somewhere' that time does not exist.

But we know that our space/time universe has not always existed; ultimately one must start with Eternity.

So you are saying that outside of our universe is a place which we will call Eternity which has no flow of time. There is no concept of one thing occurring before another. There is no sequence of events.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

Is there such a thing as eternity?

What created the original creator?

OK, grasp the fact that, when something does not exist in the flow of time, there is NO 'BEFORE'.

Where does the flow of time not exist?

Outside of our universe, in a place abstracted as 'Eternity', whence came the Big Bang.

Many people have a problem with the idea of 'somewhere' that time does not exist.

But we know that our space/time universe has not always existed; ultimately one must start with Eternity.

(QUESTION)

Eternity is an element included in the set of Infinity.

Why would you say this? {"space/time universe has not always existed"} Well, we can probably say that as energy condence into matter (first particles), gravity began to emerge with the fabric of space. This is theoretical.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JoeMoma, et al,

IF the universe is ∞ THEN that has implications.

Time is a human construct? So humans pre-existed time since humans constructed time?

There is no time at a temp of absolute 0? You went to a different physics class than I went to.

(COMMENT)

Human invented the definition of time and it is a convenience that human use to explain things.

Now I know you probably don't have the time to listen to my rambling. So, I copied - cut'n'pasted a couple excerpts from Steven Hawking's and his Book.

• The Beginning of Time

The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time.
- - -
The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
- - -
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
- - -
There doesn't seem any way to explain this radiation in the Steady State theory. (The CMB)
- - -
The first theorems were designed to show that time came to an end, inside a black hole, formed by the collapse of a star.
- - -
I, therefore, want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity.

The singularity squeezes every drop of energy from anything falling into it. No energy, no movement. no time between the events in a blackhole.

Similarly, the reverse has a similar product: Energy at temperatures that are beyond the range of mass/particles of any sort to coalesce. So, if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, then there was a period between the energy buildup and the expulsion of the energy (Big Bang).

Consider "Dark Energy." At what frequency can you detect "Dark Enery?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

Is there such a thing as eternity?

Outside of our universe, in a place abstracted as 'Eternity', whence came the Big Bang.

Many people have a problem with the idea of 'somewhere' that time does not exist.

But we know that our space/time universe has not always existed; ultimately one must start with Eternity.

(QUESTION)

Eternity is an element included in the set of Infinity.

Why would you say this? {"space/time universe has not always existed"} Well, we can probably say that as energy condence into matter (first particles), gravity began to emerge with the fabric of space. This is theoretical.

Most Respectfully,
R

Follow my reasoning here.

1. We all know that you cannot count from any finite number to 'infinity' (however you want to define it), as there is no final terminal condition or final number.

2. The absolute value of the difference between X and Y is the same as the difference between -x and -y. There is the same amount of delta between a million dollar debt and spending away a million dollars. They simply reversed to each other. I cant remember what property this is called, but it is not really important.

3. It is as impossible to count down from positive infinity to a finite number as it is to go from a finite number to a positive infinite count.

4. Coming to a finite point in time from an infinite span of time is a violation of conclusion number 3.

Thus we cannot have an infinitely old universe as that would require us to have come from an infinite period to the finite segment of time of some amount or place.

It is as impossible as 'counting to infinity'.

Does that illustration help?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

Yes, I follow your logic. But it is important to remember that "positive infinity" because it is not a number.

Follow my reasoning here.

(COMMENT)

Between the numbers 1 and 2, there are 8 fractional numbers of subdivisions value 1/8. In the difference between 2 and 3, there are 8 fractional numbers of subdivisions value 1/8.

But, between the numbers 1 and 3, there are 16 subdivisions with the value 1/8, 2 x 8.


Infinity is a characteristic. Between the numbers 1 and 2, there is an infinite number of subdivisions. In the difference between 2 and 3, there is an infinite number of subdivisions.

But, between the numbers 1 and 3, there is an infinite number of subdivisions, not 2 x Infinity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

RE: CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator
⁜→ JimBowie1958, et al,

Yes, I follow your logic. But it is important to remember that "positive infinity" because it is not a number.

Follow my reasoning here.

(COMMENT)

Between the numbers 1 and 2, there are 8 fractional numbers of subdivisions value 1/8. In the difference between 2 and 3, there are 8 fractional numbers of subdivisions value 1/8.

But, between the numbers 1 and 3, there are 16 subdivisions with the value 1/8, 2 x 8.


Infinity is a characteristic. Between the numbers 1 and 2, there is an infinite number of subdivisions. In the difference between 2 and 3, there is an infinite number of subdivisions.

But, between the numbers 1 and 3, there is an infinite number of subdivisions, not 2 x Infinity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, there are different sizes of infinity and though you have to dig into Cantors system a bit to deduce some things, there are characteristics of which we know without going into the weeds too much.

One cannot count to an infinite quantity because there is no last number to end the count.

Similarly, one cannot count FROM an infinite quantity because there is no initial point from which to begin the count..

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you are saying that outside of our universe is a place which we will call Eternity which has no flow of time. There is no concept of one thing occurring before another. There is no sequence of events.

Yep, that is pretty much what I am saying, though I would not say that everything outside of our universe is outside the the flow of time.

 

[evenflow1969]

And you think mere chance allowed for the very specific circumstances which were and are required to allow humans to in existence as such creative beings?

Yeah, an atheist, using this sort of logic which is borderline stupidity, would never get up and leave a rigged poker game because no set of odds regarding the unlikelihood of the dealers hands would convince them he is designing his deal, lol.

Seven Royal Flushes in a row? No Problemo! Shit happens!

Mean while those with a brain are pulling out their 45 and not so kindly asking for their money back! What we see around us can not happen by accident. There was time when I too quetioned the existance of a creator and found faith in one from a strange place. Sal Rothstein said some thing that started me thinking about the odds of it all. That all being said I do not buy into any of mans religion whole heartedly.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And you think mere chance allowed for the very specific circumstances which were and are required to allow humans to in existence as such creative beings?

Yeah, an atheist, using this sort of logic which is borderline stupidity, would never get up and leave a rigged poker game because no set of odds regarding the unlikelihood of the dealers hands would convince them he is designing his deal, lol.

Seven Royal Flushes in a row? No Problemo! Shit happens!

Mean while those with a brain are pulling out their 45 and not so kindly asking for their money back! What we see around us can not happen by accident. There was time when I too quetioned the existance of a creator and found faith in one from a strange place. Sal Rothstein said some thing that started me thinking about the odds of it all. That all being said I do not buy into any of mans religion whole heartedly.

That's where I am. you can both disagree with man's religion and acknowledge that our existence isn't happenstance, someone or something was behind it.

 

[abu afak]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

None of those is "secular Evidence" of a creator.
None for a soul. (baffling claim/'logic'!)
None for a "Fine tuned universe."
There is NO secular evidence for a creator.. of course.
God/etc depend on supernatural or fallacious debate.

Many of yours are Abstract variants of "God of the Gaps".
If we don't have an explanation (YET)... "Goddidit".
Didn't work for Fire, Lightning, or Fertility 'gods' either.

God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps
(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle."

"God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
[......]​

`

 

[JimBowie1958]

None of those is "secular Evidence" of a creator.

Yes, it is, it all is.

None for a soul. (baffling claim)

No, it is evidence of a soul.

None for a "Fine tuned universe."

Lol, sure there is, which is why we have the Anthropic Principle, as well as a Fine Tuned Universe.

There is NO secular evidence for a creator.. of course.

No, of course there is. That you do not grasp the significance of it proves nothing about the evidence itself.

God/etc depend on supernatural or fallacious debate.

No, it doesn't, not at all.

Many of yours are Abstract variants of "God of the Gaps".
If we don't have an explanation (YET)... "Goddidit".
Didn't work for Fire, Lightning, or Fertility 'gods' either.

You atheists are like the proverbial man who only has a hammer, and thus all problems are nails.

The Infinite Regression Fallacy is not a variation of the God of the Gaps, nor is Cantors Continuum or observations of design in the universe. Those are not gaps in knowledge, dude.

God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps
(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle."

"God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
[......]​

`

So is the Big Bang a God of the Gaps theory?

roflmao

 

[abu afak]

...
.....
......
So is the Big Bang a God of the Gaps theory?

roflmao

100% ABUSE of the Multiquote function with a series of mere blips/"Nos".
(Due to a loss on all points)

And no, there's plenty of hard/SECULAR EVIDENCE for Big Bang Theory.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

5. Observational Evidence

• 5.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
• 5.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
• 5.3 Abundance of primordial elements
• 5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
• 5.5 Primordial gas clouds
• 5.6 Other lines of evidence
• 5.7 Future observations

Game Over
It never takes more than two posts.
`

 

[JimBowie1958]

100% ABUSE of the Multiquote function with a series of mere blips/"Nos".
(Due to a loss on all points)

I simply responded to your gratuitous assertions in kind, and brought a few clarifying facts to the table which is more than it deserved.

And no, there's plenty of hard EVIDENCE for Big Bang Theory.
`

And yet it was inspired by a Priest seeking to express the Creation Event in terms of Einsteins Theory of Relativity.

roflmao