If there is a God...

[ding]

Were the matter and energy that make up who you are today created when space and time were created?

Maybe. I don't claim to know what happened at the beginning of space and time (assuming they have a beginning; assuming that word even applies). Whether they were or not in no way changes that the matter I am made up of is not me when it is not connected in a particular way. I am not simply my individual parts, but the sum of them.

There is no maybe about it. It is called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of matter and energy. Since that time matter and energy have merely changed form.

You do understand that you are part of space and time, right?

So with 100% accuracy can you tell me if any part of space and time is conscious and has intelligence? The answer is yes, BTW.

So, I go back to if a universe that was governed by rules created intelligence wouldn't it make sense that intelligence was behind the rules? Especially since rules are a sign of intelligence and it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence?

Rules, at least in the context of this conversation (in the context of the way reality functions) are not a sign of intelligence. They are simply a way to describe how reality works.

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

Again, even if these things are all true, and the energy that is me now were around at the beginning of the universe, so what? That does not mean that *I* was around then, merely the material that makes up me was there. Without being put together a particular way, it is not me.

I don't think you can parse the argument like that. Rules are a sign of intelligence especially when those rules lead to intelligence and our own experiences tells us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Then use a word other than rules, if that word is an issue for you. If I call them laws, does that avoid the implication of intelligence? If I call them the structures of reality, would that avoid the implication of intelligence?

The Laws of Nature are rules that govern nature. Science is the study of nature to discover and understand how nature works (the rules) and is used to make predictions concerning nature (using the rules).

 

[MaryL]

The heat death of the universe (entropy), quantum entanglement, so called parity of particles, those weird connections we all have, if god is in there, he/she likes ambiguity.

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe. I don't claim to know what happened at the beginning of space and time (assuming they have a beginning; assuming that word even applies). Whether they were or not in no way changes that the matter I am made up of is not me when it is not connected in a particular way. I am not simply my individual parts, but the sum of them.

There is no maybe about it. It is called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of matter and energy. Since that time matter and energy have merely changed form.

You do understand that you are part of space and time, right?

So with 100% accuracy can you tell me if any part of space and time is conscious and has intelligence? The answer is yes, BTW.

So, I go back to if a universe that was governed by rules created intelligence wouldn't it make sense that intelligence was behind the rules? Especially since rules are a sign of intelligence and it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence?

Rules, at least in the context of this conversation (in the context of the way reality functions) are not a sign of intelligence. They are simply a way to describe how reality works.

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

Again, even if these things are all true, and the energy that is me now were around at the beginning of the universe, so what? That does not mean that *I* was around then, merely the material that makes up me was there. Without being put together a particular way, it is not me.

I don't think you can parse the argument like that. Rules are a sign of intelligence especially when those rules lead to intelligence and our own experiences tells us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Then use a word other than rules, if that word is an issue for you. If I call them laws, does that avoid the implication of intelligence? If I call them the structures of reality, would that avoid the implication of intelligence?

The Laws of Nature are rules that govern nature. Science is the study of nature to discover and understand how nature works (the rules) and is used to make predictions concerning nature (using the rules).

How nature works does not inherently mean intelligence. A universe created by chance would have rules governing how it worked, just as a universe created by an intelligence would (although the rules might not be the same, of course). Having rules that govern how the universe works basically means the universe is not entirely chaotic. Once again, you seem to be indicating that any sort of order requires intelligence.

 

[Montrovant]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

 

[Taz]

Because god can’t make humans who can make a proper fridge? Amirite or AMIRITE?

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

 

[Indeependent]

Let’s reverse engineer history.
Tell me the first generation where Othodox Judaism as we know it started.

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

 

[ding]

There is no maybe about it. It is called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of matter and energy. Since that time matter and energy have merely changed form.

You do understand that you are part of space and time, right?

So with 100% accuracy can you tell me if any part of space and time is conscious and has intelligence? The answer is yes, BTW.

So, I go back to if a universe that was governed by rules created intelligence wouldn't it make sense that intelligence was behind the rules? Especially since rules are a sign of intelligence and it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence?

Rules, at least in the context of this conversation (in the context of the way reality functions) are not a sign of intelligence. They are simply a way to describe how reality works.

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

Again, even if these things are all true, and the energy that is me now were around at the beginning of the universe, so what? That does not mean that *I* was around then, merely the material that makes up me was there. Without being put together a particular way, it is not me.

I don't think you can parse the argument like that. Rules are a sign of intelligence especially when those rules lead to intelligence and our own experiences tells us that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Then use a word other than rules, if that word is an issue for you. If I call them laws, does that avoid the implication of intelligence? If I call them the structures of reality, would that avoid the implication of intelligence?

The Laws of Nature are rules that govern nature. Science is the study of nature to discover and understand how nature works (the rules) and is used to make predictions concerning nature (using the rules).

How nature works does not inherently mean intelligence. A universe created by chance would have rules governing how it worked, just as a universe created by an intelligence would (although the rules might not be the same, of course). Having rules that govern how the universe works basically means the universe is not entirely chaotic. Once again, you seem to be indicating that any sort of order requires intelligence.

Not exactly. I am saying that rules which produce intelligence as its product require intelligence. That the emergence of intelligence was not chance but predestined by the Laws of Nature (i.e. rules). That intelligence is the realization of intention. So this is not any kind of order but a very specific kind of order.

 

[Taz]

Was it also the first time someone pinched a penny?

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

If there is a god and it purposely made dingbat, well, then GOD HELPS US NOT!!!!!

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

 

[ding]

Not knowing how (or if) the universe began, I cannot say with any surety that the matter and energy which make me up today were created when space and time were created. It assumes that space and time were created, and that the matter and energy that make me up could not exist before space and time were created, and that the universe is a closed system.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

My point is not to promote any idea about the beginning of the universe, but merely to point out that my ignorance (and, most likely, humanity's ignorance) leaves open the possibility that our current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. It means that while it may seem likely that the matter and energy which of which I am made were created at the beginning of the universe, that might not be the case. I try not to make declarative statements about these sorts of questions, although I do fail in that from time to time.

You could say the exact same thing about the origin of intelligence. That your ignorance leaves open the possibility that your current understanding is flawed in some way, perhaps a fundamental way. Which means that while it may seem likely that intelligence was a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, that might not be the case. That intelligence, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of time and space, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

My point here is that if you profess ignorance about things you have good reason to believe in - such as the universe having a beginning and the Laws of Nature - why aren't you professing ignorance about things you have less certainty about?

 

[Indeependent]

Are you game or are you a confired atheist rather than the agnostic you claim to be?
In other words, are you a liar?

Maybe my purpose is to help you. I sure hope not.

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

 

[ding]

Taz, you are full of shit. You know exactly why you are here and what you are doing.

 

[Taz]

Your purpose is to show that no solid proof of your god exist. Job well done.

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

 

[Indeependent]

You are now an established liar.
You will be treated as such.

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

Tell me, waste of semen, how does someone prove something?
Not by blurting out a verse.
If you interacted like this in college, the professor would kick you out of the first class and give you an F.

 

[ding]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

 

[Taz]

What did I lie about?

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

Tell me, waste of semen, how does someone prove something?
Not by blurting out a verse.
If you interacted like this in college, the professor would kick you out of the first class and give you an F.

I wouldn't go to Clown College of the Torah in the first place.

So all you have is verses to prove your god. In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!! AND YOU ADMIT IT!!!!!

 

[Indeependent]

Wanting to know.
You seem to be satisfied with sound bites; that’s not the hallmark of someone who wants to know.
You better do some introspection.

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

Tell me, waste of semen, how does someone prove something?
Not by blurting out a verse.
If you interacted like this in college, the professor would kick you out of the first class and give you an F.

I wouldn't go to Clown College of the Torah in the first place.

So all you have is verses to prove your god. In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!! AND YOU ADMIT IT!!!!!

You fail.
What’s your degree in again?
Lazy Asshole?
I will wait a week before I put you on ignore just in case you make one thoughtful post anywhere on these Threads.

 

[Taz]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

 

[Taz]

I want to know why seemingly reasonably intelligent people believe in something as baseless as god. I came here searching for believers with a solid foundation, and it turns out that you all know you're living in a fantasy world but don't care and pretend to enjoy it, until someone starts asking the tough questions, and then every last one of you gets bent out of shape. Just like you.

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

Tell me, waste of semen, how does someone prove something?
Not by blurting out a verse.
If you interacted like this in college, the professor would kick you out of the first class and give you an F.

I wouldn't go to Clown College of the Torah in the first place.

So all you have is verses to prove your god. In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!! AND YOU ADMIT IT!!!!!

You fail.
What’s your degree in again?
Lazy Asshole?
I will wait a week before I put you on ignore just in case you make one thoughtful post anywhere on these Threads.

Putting me on ignore would only prove that I'm right. Go for it. You can't handle the truth!!

You can only prove your god by reciting stuff from a book. PRICELESS!!!!!

 

[Indeependent]

You refuse to do the historical research required.
When you grow up, get back to me.

You can either prove god or you can't. You can't. Now you're asking me to prove it to myself. Because YOU can't prove god?

Tell me, waste of semen, how does someone prove something?
Not by blurting out a verse.
If you interacted like this in college, the professor would kick you out of the first class and give you an F.

I wouldn't go to Clown College of the Torah in the first place.

So all you have is verses to prove your god. In other words, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!! AND YOU ADMIT IT!!!!!

You fail.
What’s your degree in again?
Lazy Asshole?
I will wait a week before I put you on ignore just in case you make one thoughtful post anywhere on these Threads.

Putting me on ignore would only prove that I'm right. Go for it. You can't handle the truth!!

You can only prove your god by reciting stuff from a book. PRICELESS!!!!!

Putting you on Ignore means you’re a useless asshole.
I’ve been here for over 3 years and don’t have a reputation for being a snarky, useless asshole like you.

 

[ding]

You can either prove god or you can't.

To my standards? Yes.

To your standards? No. There is no proof you will accept. You aren't here for that.

Ya, but you lack critical thinking and have really, really low standards for proof. We all know that.

I see it the other way around, Taz. Especially since you practice critical theory.