What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Blake]

Ok, just maybe I have a little, but it's hard not to with all the non-sense being spewed out.

Well, at least you read it and tried to understand it. I don't think it's something you get on the 1st shot w/out seeking guidance from others that "supposedly" understand it. Do you feel you have a relationship with God? If you did, maybe that's a good place to focus on.

No, I feel I have no relationship with God. I tried really hard to talk to him, but just couldn't get him to talk back.

Do you feel it's possible for a primitive person with no access to the Bible to find salvation?

[all_heart]

No, I feel I have no relationship with God. I tried really hard to talk to him, but just couldn't get him to talk back.

Do you feel it's possible for a primitive person with no access to the Bible to find salvation?

You mean like ancient cultures with no people to tell them about God etc..?

[silverblk mystix]

If you are truly enlightened, then you could show us all the path to get there.

It would be awesome.

All anyone can show you is another theory...another concept....

Reality must be experienced on your own...you have to take your own medicine...no one can take it for you.

Has it ever struck you that , language-for example, is only a way to cut-up reality and try to explain it?

...and different languages cut-up reality differently?

So, when one tries to explain or describe reality to someone else...something is always lost. So even if some enlightened person tried to "enlighten" you...it would never be close to what reality is. You would never experience what he or she did...you would only have a clue...and your concepts,conditioning and programming would all get in the way of you understanding the message or meaning of the reality that was described to you.

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

[all_heart]

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

Only to those who've never experienced God, love, joy etc... but even then you can try to explain it. There is always a chance that somebody might be able to understand it. Some of these things could also be drug induced.. if you could only ask Jimi Hendrix..

[Blake]

You mean like ancient cultures with no people to tell them about God etc..?

I mean like some of the 100+ uncontacted primitive tribes that exist today.

[Blake]

All anyone can show you is another theory...another concept....

Reality must be experienced on your own...you have to take your own medicine...no one can take it for you.

Has it ever struck you that , language-for example, is only a way to cut-up reality and try to explain it?

...and different languages cut-up reality differently?

So, when one tries to explain or describe reality to someone else...something is always lost. So even if some enlightened person tried to "enlighten" you...it would never be close to what reality is. You would never experience what he or she did...you would only have a clue...and your concepts,conditioning and programming would all get in the way of you understanding the message or meaning of the reality that was described to you.

Speaking of god, love, joy, awakening, peace or whatever name you want to call it ...is pretty much a losing game...because no one really knows what these things are.

You can speak of the opposites though....you can discuss fear, illusions, wrong notions of happiness etc...

Are you truly enlightened?

[all_heart]

I mean like some of the 100+ uncontacted primitive tribes that exist today.

Great question. It would certainly seem unfair for them not to receive salvation considering they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior before they died. Perhaps they will be judged by another set of criteria, such as their actions and the contents of their character.

[pgardn]

We actually don't know all we need to know about time in order to state where it comes from. It isn't a human construct as we can observe the past, present, and future around the universe simultaneously. Review that spacetime article I posted in this contribution.

BL

I see nothing in the article or your example that refutes that time is NOT a human construct.

Maybe we have diff. definitions of what time is. Reread my succinct definition. It may not be broad enough, but this is what it comes down to for me based on the latest series of events including those that have taken place in this discussion. Which includes reading the article and your example.

[DMC]

Seriously?!

I think tmtcsc (and I) knows dam well what he believes and how he derives it. There is no need to keep pestering for more explanation. Faith and Beliefs is just something that others can't, won't or wish not to understand.

Ever heard of epistemology? No, it's not when they cut your taint. Go check it out.

[all_heart]

Ever heard of epistemology? No, it's not when they cut your taint. Go check it out.

Ehh... it sounds like a fluff humanities class taught by a grad student..

[Chase_the_Bass]

Yikes, five pages of this? Do you people have lives?

[Blue-Lightning]

Elsa, you walked into the plausibility realm all on your own.

There is nothing that is completely certain, but we do accept certainty when we pass certain mathematical threshholds. I'm sorry if you do not operate that way.

That your belief isn't religious doesn't automatically make it scientific nor true.
You don't get to define science or the scientific method. However, when you chose that path, you subjected yourself to it.

Just out of curiosity, what credentials do you have? What is your education level? I feel that you aren't knowledgable enough to understand what I've been writing or comprehend it at a level that allows you to judge its merits. Perhaps that is the problem. I've asked you repeatedly to copy and paste errors you've referenced, provide alternatives, etc, but you seem unable to do so.

You still don't know if the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to the big bang. You never did.

Yes. There is no reason that the first law of thermodynamics would not apply to the big bang. There is no reason at all. Do you have any reason?

In the micro and pico seconds after the big bang, it's difficult to say what's going on in physics because of the level of heat, radiation, velocity, and proximity of energy. But at that point, the energy already exists.

You already admitted, mutiple times, you're guessing (already quoted). And you did it all on your own

There have been non-essential points on which I have conjectured, and I've noted when I've done so. As to the main points (first law of thermodynamics, impossibility of an infinite past), I have not conjectured, and you have never copy and pasted a time in which I have. On non-essential points, it is true that I am not omniscient, as no other person is, and thus do extend a guess when I'm not attempting to prove that point.

I think it's funny how you want to pick and choose when laws should be respected and when they can be dismissed.

Copy and paste when you feel I have done that.

Why couldn't it be? What if it was some sort of a "fraternal" twin type of universe, created by the same process or mechanism at nearly the same time. Or what if something is "feeding" the "parent" process resulting in very similar universes?

Do you think it's possible that a universe could evolve over several trillion years, where laws that were in effect in the beginning could have also evolved and are now quite different?

Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning - we can do this because we can view the past via light from distant places, and we can do so through red shift that shows a constant perpetuity of quantum-level phenomenon.

I see nothing in the article or your example that refutes that time is NOT a human construct.

Maybe we have diff. definitions of what time is. Reread my succinct definition. It may not be broad enough, but this is what it comes down to for me based on the latest series of events including those that have taken place in this discussion. Which includes reading the article and your example.

Your succinct definition is not sufficient. Both time and space are interwoven, interacting with one another. Time is the fourth dimension of our universe. It is not a human construct as it existed before humans, and will exist after humans if we cease to exist.

BL

BL

[Blake]

Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.

Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / en ies may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.

The idea that phenomenon become laws once we claim them to be laws, and are not simply laws we finally began to grasp is the arrogant part.

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option.

The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.

However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws.

If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen).

You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?

Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics.

And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge.

The answer to that question is that the creator must be outside our universe in order to be outside the first law of thermodynamics. Now since time is a part of our universe, we can't be sure that it exists outside of it, and if it does what it's like. So, there may not be a "past" for the creator to have. Then again their may be.

The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated.
......Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

Have fun,

BL

The universe can't exist without some kind of creator (first law of thermodyanics, mathematical impossibility of an infinite past while in the present).....

Saying that a god can't or doesn't exist is mathematical ignorance.

Have fun,

BL

Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning

a big bang of failure, imo.

[pgardn]

Your succinct definition is not sufficient. Both time and space are interwoven, interacting with one another. Time is the fourth dimension of our universe. It is not a human construct as it existed before humans, and will exist after humans if we cease to exist.

BL

BL

Space is also a human construct. If nothing exists, there is no space, it has no meaning. Speaking of objects outside of our universe has no meaning. A human construct is an idea. Space and time are ideas. We invented them. Whether we are here to witness them is irrelevant.

Also you do not understand simultaneity. Go back to basic physics and think about inertial frames of reference and the speed of light. I have a feeling you are just kinda tossing stuff around now.

[Blue-Lightning]

Well, Blake finally quoted me in places he thinks I've been contradictory, so let's take a look at each one:

Matter and energy that exists in another universe (if they exist there) would not be subject to the laws within this universe.

Everything that is within our universe is subject to the laws we observe in this same universe. We don't know what exists outside of our universe, or how it works. The rules outside of the universe might be similar to our rules, they might not be, but they wouldn't be subject to the same rules.

Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Within our universe (the only place we know matter and energy exist), this is true.

Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / en ies may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.

Our universe has time, and it cannot go infinitely in the reverse. Other universes may or may not have time. Thus they could be timeless, whereas our's cannot.

The idea that phenomenon become laws once we claim them to be laws, and are not simply laws we finally began to grasp is the arrogant part.

This is succinct and self-explanatory.

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option.

This is true unless someone can provide another option (nobody has of yet).

The reason we can know it followed certain brief laws is that it followed a pattern or movement (expansion). Patterns mean there are physical laws guiding actions... if it had been completely random you wouldn't see a universe expanding evenly in all directions as we see now.

This is also true, succinct, and self-explanatory.

However, as I said, it followed a structured pattern and that means laws.

Same.

If you take away laws (including the ones we don't understand), then you would either see completely random action (didn't happen) or a cosmic error (didn't happen).

Still true.

You understand that there are laws we will invent in the future, and laws that we would hypothesize if we had the ability to test them. Whether we are aware of the governances or not, we know their were natural processes that occurred in a logical manner.

Yes - there are laws which we currently describe, laws which we will describe, and laws which we may never be able to describe. They still exist, even if we have yet to conceptualize them. As an example, gravity existed before there was an official law of gravity on the books.

As for the lawlessness, it's unlikely it was lawless, but it was most likely under different laws since it was under tremendously different constraints.

Yes - it is beyond unlikely that the universe suddenly broke down into completely random actions during the seconds after the big bang.

Poke a hole in the argument then. What evidence is there that all matter in the universe self-generated against the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm still waiting for that.

Another yawn. You postulated that if a creator did exist that he would be transferring energies from somewhere else in order to create our universe, and thus break the first law of thermodynamics.

It was postulated, it was an incorrect postulation, I did show why.

And the comment about energy transfers is jibberish... it isn't science, it's just pretend knowledge.

Yes. This was in reference to the idea that energy, matter, space, and time can somehow transmogrify into one another. They are distinctly different, though energy is the source for atomic differentiation.

The answer to that question is that the creator must be outside our universe in order to be outside the first law of thermodynamics. Now since time is a part of our universe, we can't be sure that it exists outside of it, and if it does what it's like. So, there may not be a "past" for the creator to have. Then again their may be.

This is true. Laws that exist in our universe do not necessarily exist outside of it. Any en y outside of our universe may not follow patterns such as what we see in our universe.

The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means the universe cannot be self-generated.
......Therefore, since the universe cannot be self-generated, and since it can't have existed forever, that leaves us with one option. The universe was created by an outside source. What do we call something that creates? We call it a creator. Now whether the creator is YHWH or made of pasta is up to your own faith to decide (or lack thereof)... but the fact that it exists(ed) is undeniable.

That's beautiful logic.

The universe can't exist without some kind of creator (first law of thermodyanics, mathematical impossibility of an infinite past while in the present).....

Saying that a god can't or doesn't exist is mathematical ignorance.

Again true - the universe was created by something. By definition, something that creates is a creator.

Some things are possible but improbable. So while we can't say for sure what is outside of our universe, we can say that the laws of our universe have stayed constant since the beginning

This is true.

a big bang of failure, imo.

When you say things like this without articulating why, it makes it appear you are unable to either understand information or communicate your understanding.

Space is also a human construct. If nothing exists, there is no space, it has no meaning. Speaking of objects outside of our universe has no meaning. A human construct is an idea. Space and time are ideas. We invented them. Whether we are here to witness them is irrelevant.

This may be your philosophical position, but it isn't science. Space is available distance between two objects. Time is the flowing series of cause and effect. They existed before us, they exist after us, we therefore did not invent them. Whatever ancestors existed before us recognized them - even my cat recognizes the flow of cause and effect, as do any other sentinent beings. Thus, it is not a human construct. This is the kind of statement which deserves to be ridiculed if it is presented at a collegiate level, after the presenter is shown to be wrong.

Also you do not understand simultaneity. Go back to basic physics and think about inertial frames of reference and the speed of light. I have a feeling you are just kinda tossing stuff around now.

Simultaneity is actually one of the reasons we see future, present, and past all at the same time. It's the underpinning of the theory of relativity - I understand it quite well. I've been discussing it in part at different times in this thread, though I've not had the need until now to speak about it specifically. It should also be noted that all humans actually witness the past and never the present as the brain takes time to process the present, meaning humans experience what actually happened microseconds later... and the brain actually makes adjustments to trick us into thinking we are right on time.

So no, I'm not just tossing stuff around. I'm volleying with ease.

Have fun,

BL

[ElNono]

Post #558 in this thread...

Frankly, I already know the answer: you don't know. Let's see how long it takes you to get there.

215 posts later....

There is nothing that is completely certain

ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0





You can put that nice round juicy turd on twitter right next to your faux-intellectual can of whoop ass...

"intellectual"
"mathematical thresholds" on the inflaton
googling to find arXiv
Elsa asking for qualifications

[ElNono]

More coming!

[Blake]

When you say things like this without articulating why, it makes it appear you are unable to either understand information or communicate your understanding.

Or I think there's nothing left to say except that you have been a failure in this thread.

[Ross Parrot]

I remember in an interview with Pop, he said he read 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. I wonder how Dave feels about that.

[pgardn]

Simultaneity is actually one of the reasons we see future, present, and past all at the same time. It's the underpinning of the theory of relativity - I understand it quite well. I've been discussing it in part at different times in this thread, though I've not had the need until now to speak about it specifically. It should also be noted that all humans actually witness the past and never the present as the brain takes time to process the present, meaning humans experience what actually happened microseconds later... and the brain actually makes adjustments to trick us into thinking we are right on time.

So no, I'm not just tossing stuff around. I'm volleying with ease.

Have fun,

BL

Of course it takes "time" to process information. It is no trick, we clearly understand and thoroughly realize this is happening. We have even done some measurements of diff types of biological reaction times.

This has absolutely no relevance to what I have stated. Time and space are human constructs and the idea of simultaneity is a consequence that leads to some very wrong assumptions. This is very basic relativity. Again, do you understand how inertial frames of reference and the speed of light make the idea of simultaneity useless in understanding phenomena, for example, that occur at very great distances?

[will_spurs]

How come I didn't a reply to my post kicking BL's ass about "finite time" ?

[Blue-Lightning]

Of course it takes "time" to process information. It is no trick, we clearly understand and thoroughly realize this is happening. We have even done some measurements of diff types of biological reaction times.

This has absolutely no relevance to what I have stated. Time and space are human constructs and the idea of simultaneity is a consequence that leads to some very wrong assumptions. This is very basic relativity. Again, do you understand how inertial frames of reference and the speed of light make the idea of simultaneity useless in understanding phenomena, for example, that occur at very great distances?

I do understand that, and the tomfoolery of the brain was simply an anecdote. I've been discussing the differences in time throughout the thread (see also: simultaneity). Go back through and review all the times I discussed the issue.

As for will_spurs, feel free to quote your post and I'll be happy to respond to it (if I haven't already).

BL

[tmtcsc]

I remember in an interview with Pop, he said he read 'God Is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens. I wonder how Dave feels about that.

Pop goes against the grain when it comes to politics and being retired military. He's borderline liberal and I wouldn't put it past him to be atheist.

However ! And its a BIG however, I watch Bill Maher's show even though its caustic and I bought The God Delusion to see where the opposing views are coming from.

Nothing I've read or listened to or watched online would change my belief in God as the creator of our existence. I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs. The HOW regarding the science behind the beginnings of the Universe and the mysteries being uncovered are fascinating.

I am very pro-science and even believe in Evolution. I just happen to believe that our origins are a direct result of God.

[silverblk mystix]

Pop goes against the grain when it comes to politics and being retired military. He's borderline liberal and I wouldn't put it past him to be atheist.

However ! And its a BIG however, I watch Bill Maher's show even though its caustic and I bought The God Delusion to see where the opposing views are coming from.

Nothing I've read or listened to or watched online would change my belief in God as the creator of our existence. I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs. The HOW regarding the science behind the beginnings of the Universe and the mysteries being uncovered are fascinating.

I am very pro-science and even believe in Evolution. I just happen to believe that our origins are a direct result of God.

I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs...

Pretty much says it all right there...

Truth cannot be sighted once you have made a conclusion...once you concluded that your beliefs were facts (instead of just beliefs)...then you stopped seeing.

Truth is to see...

[tmtcsc]

I cannot be persuaded against my beliefs...

Pretty much says it all right there...

Yes, it does.

Truth cannot be sighted once you have made a conclusion...once you concluded that your beliefs were facts (instead of just beliefs)...then you stopped seeing.

Truth is to see...

Unless the conclusion is accepted as truth. Science is incapable of making the case for or against the existence of God. That's a FACT. Philosophy is nothing more than mental gymnastics that leave more questions than answers. It's fun for a while and then the bigger Premise gets lost in all the side discussions. If a God is perfect and always right than he is incapable of making imperfect beings...blah blah blah.