God

[SirNitram]

sorry, I clicked submit instead of preview

my questions are as follows (for anyone to pick up)

1. Evidence/Proof/Thinking behined time+space beginning at the big bang

2. Mechanism for the big bang producing time+space+ all other dimensions

I suppose if these two are answered adequately then the question of what came "before" the big bang becomes meaningless...

1.
Short answer? The math works. Want to see it for yourself? Take astrophysics classes for a few years. Honestly. I'm sure as fuck not qualified to handle that level of stuff, but then again, I really doubt you've got the needed knowledge to contest it.

2.
Unknown at this time. Such a mechanism is not needed to know that the only way to math works is that all eleven or more dimensions unfurl at that time. We don't need to know how it exactly happened to know it did.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But by that logic, supernaturalness (not a word, I know) could be used to explain any damned thing you want it to. If we believe that there's any such thing as supernatural, we may as well fall back into believing that lightning and diseas are caused by God, and not static discharge and wierd little things that want to kill us. Lol. If we believe that anything is outside of physical laws and outside of logic, then we fall into a trap of using it to explain anything we don't immediately understand. I don't see the point in what you're saying. You were trying to make the point that claiming existance outside of space and time wasn't unreasonable, and I explained why it was, and all you did was said that it's all explained by being 'supernatural.' Is this supernaturalness an evasion?

I really want to yank my hair out. :lol: You're absolutely right. Being supernatural could be used to wrongly explain anything we don't understand. I do not deny it, and this is why I find trying to project any sort of logical fallacy on a supernatural being to be so silly. At this point I'm willing to live with just that. I did have a few other implications from the get go, but I don't have the energy to argue them to the never ending end.

I always miss the trolls, it seems. And you, whatever else you are, are a troll. The only logical conclusion we can derive regarding a supernatural invisible sky wizard, using rational observations of the real world, is that the invisible sky wizard doesn't exist. Don't like it, then please, go back under the cross-shaped rock that you crawled out from under.

And there isn't a "never ending end" for trolls who engage in sophistry and Wall of Ignorance "I'M RIGHT AND UR WRONG LOLOLOLOMGWTF!!!!11" tactics. There is usually a well-defined end for such trolls, and it comes with a neat Galvatron picture.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I thought one of the fundamental laws of physics are that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed and/or transfered - given this wouldn't everything we see around us not have a "first cause" so to speak.

I also don't understand why people say spacetime itself started with the big bang. Why could spacetime both have existed forever before the BB and forever after it?

I thought the big bang was just an explosion of matter, where is the proof that at it's event time+space was created?

A) Time and space are properties of our universe. They did not exist before the Big Bang. We cannot observe the universe before the Big Bang, and we can't even observe the first 300,000 years of the history of the universe because it was opaque to radiation. Attempting to describe what might've come "before" the Big Bang is entirely meaningless, as time didn't exist before then.

B) Except for minor variations in the density and distribution of matter in the early universe, our observations of distant (and extremely) old galaxies, as well as the cosmic microwave background, fit very nicely with current Big Bang theories.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Can you at least describe how sentience is even possible without time? No form of realization can exist at all with no change, and self-realization is a large part of sentience.

Of course not. If a god exists and created the universe, there are a billion things I can't explain. It's just being "supernatural" acounts for this.

Occam, he's a blade man, man. He's gonna cut you deep, man! He's got this badass Razor, see?

You lose, because your "explanation" doesn't explain anything, by your own admission.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Isn't this 'arigo' asshat the same one who bitched and complained at length in Testing because his registration didn't get approved within the day of its submission?

[Zero]

I must admit, many of you appear to have missed what arigo was actually saying. He didn't say that there is a god, or even that it's possible, he simply said that there was no paradox if god exists outside of time and space. Many of you have come in and talked about how believing in something when there's no evidence is stupid, but he didn't say that there is a God, he simply said that there's no logical paradox. I would suggest that much of what's been said in reguards to Arigo is a form of me-tooing. None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

my questions are as follows (for anyone to pick up)

1. Evidence/Proof/Thinking behined time+space beginning at the big bang

2. Mechanism for the big bang producing time+space+ all other dimensions

I suppose if these two are answered adequately then the question of what came "before" the big bang becomes meaningless...

As for these questions, I may be very wrong. I'm a 16 year old kid, not a PHd in physics or anything of the sort.

The evidence we have for the big bang is typically remnants of the first couple of thousands of years of expansion, involving abundancy of hydrogen, duterium, and tritium, and also involving the background radiation of the universe. It all has something to do with the heats involved in our early universe, but I don't claim to understand it all. Before the expansion had begun, we know that all of the mass in the universe being condensed into one spot would be a singularity, as the gravity would be so strong that such a thing would be truly infinitely dense. It's radius would, effectively, be zero. Because of these density issues, space-time itself would be curved infintely tight around the singularity, so the effective radius of the universe would also be zero. If there is only one point to measure from, then you can't say there there's such thing as length, width, or deptht, as the distance from any one point in the universe to any other is zero. It's been shown (not by me, I still probably am wrong, or missing something) that space and time are effectively the same, so time as well would be curved until all points in time were one. This is the singularity at the beginning of the universe. I don't claim to understand how the expansion occured, or why, but I think it's an adequite reasoning of why before the expansion began, the universe was dimensionless.

[wolveraptor]

If the Big Bang was simply an explosion of matter, and not an expanding of space time, then we'd be able to identify the central point of the universe where it happened. Also, galaxies would not appear to rush away from us, as they do now. We'd be rushing away from that central point as fast as they were. You might try to explain this by saying that we are teh center of the universe, and that ever was flung away from us. But then, how could a galaxy at the spot where all matter was flung outward. However, if we take the Big Bang as an expansion of space-time, then we can use the balloon experiment.

1. Place small dots on an uninflated balloon.

2. Begin to blow it up.

3. You will observe that all the dots move away from each other, but it is the balloon's fabric that is stretching, not the dots that are moving. From the persepctive of a fly standing on the dot, all the other dots appear to be moving away from him.

This best explains all the observed phenomena.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I must admit, many of you appear to have missed what arigo was actually saying. He didn't say that there is a god, or even that it's possible, he simply said that there was no paradox if god exists outside of time and space. Many of you have come in and talked about how believing in something when there's no evidence is stupid, but he didn't say that there is a God, he simply said that there's no logical paradox. I would suggest that much of what's been said in reguards to Arigo is a form of me-tooing. None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

We don't observe phenomena that only be described as being caused extra-universal forces. We also don't observe phenomena that would be consistent with energy, gravity, or other forms of "communication" leaving the universe. The universe is a closed-system. This means that any agent acting from "outside" the universe cannot act on its components, since there isn't any meaningful way of conveying extra-universal information into the universe. This means that the notion of an extra-universal god that can act on elements withing the universe is pure folly, at best.

[wolveraptor]

Furthermore, if God regularly acted upon the universe, it would no longer be a closed system, and entropy would be screwed up. We would be able to see the effects of this, since it would stand out so much from the pattern of the rest of the universe.

[SirNitram]

None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist? Does that not penetrate your skull? If he wants to do more than spam, he must present evidence in his favor, not whine that no one else can disprove his theory.

[arigo]

None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist? Does that not penetrate your skull? If he wants to do more than spam, he must present evidence in his favor, not whine that no one else can disprove his theory.

What theory do you speak of? I have been arguing that, in accordance with some theist's definition of a god that is outside this universe, you can not make a non-sophistcal argument against it. You don't even understand my argument. What most are doing in this thread is nothing more than anti-theist wanking, or not understanding my argument and then insulting me. The irony of it is you call me the troll.

[SirNitram]

None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist? Does that not penetrate your skull? If he wants to do more than spam, he must present evidence in his favor, not whine that no one else can disprove his theory.

What theory do you speak of? I have been arguing that, in accordance with some theist's definition of a god that is outside this universe, you can not make a non-sophistcal argument against it. You don't even understand my argument. What most are doing in this thread is nothing more than anti-theist wanking, or not understanding my argument and then insulting me. The irony of it is you call me the troll.

Your argument is non-logical, you incredible retard. You were the one whining in this thread about seeing value in logical arguments, but you've discarded it. You've also consistantly posted nothing but rhetorical bullshit.

You don't have an argument, kid. You simply say no one can disprove existance outside the universe. Anyone who finishes a fucking first year community college class can grok that you cannot disprove anything's existance hence the burden is always on those claiming something exists.

You're just an asstard attempting a screech about how we're evil non-theists.

[arigo]

You were the one whining in this thread about seeing value in logical arguments, but you've discarded it. You've also consistantly posted nothing but rhetorical bullshit.

I made my point quite logically clear. You can't superimpose paradoxes into a statement.

You don't have an argument, kid. You simply say no one can disprove existance outside the universe. Anyone who finishes a fucking first year community college class can grok that you cannot disprove anything's existance hence the burden is always on those claiming something exists.

You're such a retard. First of all, this point is not needed in my argument, you're just horribly stuck on it. Secondly, while burder of proof is on the proof of the positive, it doesn't default to proof of the negative. This is all very elementary and boring.

You're just an asstard attempting a screech about how we're evil non-theists.

I already said I wasn't a theist you moron.

[SirNitram]

You were the one whining in this thread about seeing value in logical arguments, but you've discarded it. You've also consistantly posted nothing but rhetorical bullshit.

I made my point quite logically clear. You can't superimpose paradoxes into a statement.

You can't have a being without time or space, either. What's your addled point, kiddo?

You don't have an argument, kid. You simply say no one can disprove existance outside the universe. Anyone who finishes a fucking first year community college class can grok that you cannot disprove anything's existance hence the burden is always on those claiming something exists.

You're such a retard. First of all, this point is not needed in my argument, you're just horribly stuck on it. Secondly, while burder of proof is on the proof of the positive, it doesn't default to proof of the negative. This is all very elementary and boring.

That is also the way logic works. Get bent kid; you have no argument.

You're just an asstard attempting a screech about how we're evil non-theists.

I already said I wasn't a theist you moron.

Yea, as usual, you can't reply to what's being said, you just twist like crazy. You very clearly screech and howl about just this:

nothing more than anti-theist wanking

Are you going to provide a real discussion, kid, or continue your bullshit?

[arigo]

You can't have a being without time or space, either. What's your addled point, kiddo?

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of english. A god is a supernatural being. Let me pull out my dictionary and define supernatural for you: "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material"

Yea, as usual, you can't reply to what's being said, you just twist like crazy. You very clearly screech and howl about just this:

You implied that my beliefs were at stake you idiot.

[SirNitram]

You can't have a being without time or space, either. What's your addled point, kiddo?

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of english. A god is a supernatural being. Let me pull out my dictionary and define supernatural for you: "Not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material"

A God is not a supernatural being. Since natural law encompasses everything, nothing can exist outside it. Even folded in dimensions are subject to their own law.

You are using a dishonest definition in an attempt to worm out of logic, while at the same time screeching and stamping your little booties about how no one's playing by logic. Hint: We are.

The logical principle of Parsimony renders your entire argument as bullshit. Don't let the banstick get stuck too far up your ass.

Yea, as usual, you can't reply to what's being said, you just twist like crazy. You very clearly screech and howl about just this:

You implied that my beliefs were at stake you idiot.[/quote]

No, you insipid little child. I said only you were howling and stamping your feet about how we're mean ol' non-theists. Maybe if you'd stop lying you'd be able to recignize this.

[arigo]

A God is not a supernatural being. Since natural law encompasses everything, nothing can exist outside it. Even folded in dimensions are subject to their own law.

God - 1. Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

Dear lord.

You are using a dishonest definition in an attempt to worm out of logic, while at the same time screeching and stamping your little booties about how no one's playing by logic. Hint: We are.

It was the first definition in my fucking dictionary you idiot. I'm done with this.

[SirNitram]

A God is not a supernatural being. Since natural law encompasses everything, nothing can exist outside it. Even folded in dimensions are subject to their own law.

God - 1. Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

Dear lord.

Semantical bullshit. This definition clearly refers to the magical nature of the being. But hey, continue lying.

You are using a dishonest definition in an attempt to worm out of logic, while at the same time screeching and stamping your little booties about how no one's playing by logic. Hint: We are.

It was the first definition in my fucking dictionary you idiot. I'm done with this.

Yes, you are. You have revealed yourself as a semantics-whoring kiddie, with no knowledge of logic. Parsimony, a first-year concept, neuters your bullshit screeching. Run along now.

[arigo]

Semantical bullshit. This definition clearly refers to the magical nature of the being. But hey, continue lying.

I'm using "semantical bullshit" while sticking to direct and first definitions in a god damn dicitionary. Surely I'm being the semantic whore when you choose to manipulate definitions to fit your asinine viewpoints. You are very good at being ironic you dumbshit. I'm so done with you. Have fun putting in some inane last word and feeling the victor, kid.

[SirNitram]

Semantical bullshit. This definition clearly refers to the magical nature of the being. But hey, continue lying.

I'm using "semantical bullshit" while sticking to direct and first definitions in a god damn dicitionary. Surely I'm being the semantic whore when you choose to manipulate definitions to fit your asinine viewpoints. You are very good at being ironic you dumbshit. I'm so done with you. Have fun putting in some inane last word and feeling the victor, kid.

That is the definition of semantics, child. You can screech and stamp your feet some more if you'd like, but it really changes nothing. I'm not out for the last word; it means nothing to an adult. I am right; the logical principle of parsimony, the necessity of proving something's existance, and the meaning of 'semantics whoring' all fall neatly into place.

[Wicked Pilot]

Would all the deist whores in here please provide some kind of evidence of gods in other universes. If not, could you all provide at least some reason why we should waste bandwidth discussing such useless topics.

[SirNitram]

Would all the deist whores in here please provide some kind of evidence of gods in other universes. If not, could you all provide at least some reason why we should waste bandwidth discussing such useless topics.

Uh, Deist reporting, but why would I claim there's gods of other universes, when God is incorporated into this one, exactly?

[Wicked Pilot]

Uh, Deist reporting, but why would I claim there's gods of other universes, when God is incorporated into this one, exactly?

If you're not claiming that gods, or anything for that matter, exist outside the universe, then I'm not talking to you.

[arigo]

If you're not claiming that gods, or anything for that matter, exist outside the universe, then I'm not talking to you.

I don't believe anyone here has.

[Zero]

None of you have explained why his argument is wrong, or why there is no paradox.

Do you not understand that the basics of logic demand that nothing can be proven to not exist? Does that not penetrate your skull? If he wants to do more than spam, he must present evidence in his favor, not whine that no one else can disprove his theory.

He never claimed that there was a God, all he said was that there is no paradox in the claim that God exists outside of the observable universe. You're the one being a fucktard here. You're just sitting here trying to bash theism. You haven't even attacked what he's actually said. You've attacked him, claiming he's a theist, when he's stated numerous times that he isn't. You're the one being stupid here.

I don't claim there's a God either. There's no hidden motive for me. You just seem to be saying what's popular to say here, which is to state that if there's no evidence for something, it's stupid to believe it exists. This is true. If you claim I can't fit this into my skull, then you're just going on as an ignorant fucktard so you can feel special. I also understood his argument that claiming the existance is outside of space and time isn't a paradox. It still isn't logical, but it isn't self-contradictory, either. Get this shit right, you fucking moron.