Reply With Quote
I think somewhere in the middle between the two courses of actions you mention above is the proper path, the happy median.
Too much, and too little, of anything is not good for you.
What I mean is that the problems you seem to think exist are because you're both in time and trying to remote view the "timeless" on a timeline. Regression is time based, so infinite regression would be until the beginning of time. If you violate that concept, you lose meaning when you say "what happened before that?". There is no before if there is no time.
There is a gap now. At the end of time there will never have been one.But the inverse is true as well. When time ends, it stops. So there's a start that we consider to be 13 Billion years ago, and there's an end we predict will be Billions upon Billions of years in the future. Between the first event of the universe and the last, there is a theoretically measurable gap of time. We can estimate that gap now despite not being able to observe any but a minute fraction of it.
I think somewhere in the middle between the two courses of actions you mention above is the proper path, the happy median.
Too much, and too little, of anything is not good for you.
a lot of it just seems like yet another god of the gaps tbh. we don't understand the beginning or end of time, so to alleviate that, we will invent a "timeless" en y that did it all.
its possible that said en y exists, but it seems baseless to assume that it does indeed exist
Indeed. I can understand why you would disagree with that, but I don't get why you see that as a non-answer, rather than a bad one.
Okay. But then you are supposing the beginning of time is somehow special. We can agree that infinite regression is based in time, but that doesn't do a lot of work. We need a good reason to suppose that the regression ends half-way through a cycle (the Big Bang being an effect) rather than at a cause.
Sure, but there's a gap now, and the instant before time ends, there will still be that gap. It will be measurable. Anyway, I don't agree that time is simply a gap between events. I don't think that makes sense. I can see time only being measurable as a gap. But I understand it to be a necessary quality for existence. It's not like light or sound in that it must be perceived to exist.There is a gap now. At the end of time there will never have been one.
The "god of gaps" idea as I understand it is just people trying to appeal to higher authority to explain mysteries which can be explored empirically. Since no one ever thinks we can observe, test or measure outside of existence, it's quite a bit more severe. Essentially, it's hard to call the beginning of existence a gap.
But obviously, I would think that.
It's a non answer because it stops short. You prefaced your diesm statement by saying you only believe what science has discovered to be likely true, yet you believe in a god and science hasn't touched that one.
Why are you going back "before" time. Don't you realize that's a nonsensical concept?
Why do you need to consider that the Big Bang ends halfway through a cycle? Do you think time was linear during the Big Bang? It's not like you had space, and then a singularity, and then the BB happened. It's like the Big Bang happened. There's no "and then". I realize it's difficult to wrap your mind around it, but we are not programmers of the universe and we cannot view it from a remote perspective though we pretend we can. Our thoughts are time based, we cannot think of anything that isn't also time based (except concepts).Okay. But then you are supposing the beginning of time is somehow special. We can agree that infinite regression is based in time, but that doesn't do a lot of work. We need a good reason to suppose that the regression ends half-way through a cycle (the Big Bang being an effect) rather than at a cause.
So you believe in Newtonian time? Time is absolutely a gap between events. Otherwise, I'd like to see you describe it without using events. I'd like to see even a concept of an eventless time existence.Sure, but there's a gap now, and the instant before time ends, there will still be that gap. It will be measurable. Anyway, I don't agree that time is simply a gap between events. I don't think that makes sense. I can see time only being measurable as a gap. But I understand it to be a necessary quality for existence. It's not like light or sound in that it must be perceived to exist.
Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time.
"In the theory of relativity, the concept of time begins with the Big Bang the same way as parallels of la ude begin at the North Pole. You cannot go further north than the North Pole," says Kari Enqvist, Professor of Cosmology.
One of the most peculiar qualities of time is the fact that it is measured by motion and it also becomes evident through motion.
Not really. The god of the gaps is how theists tend to regress their god back into the shadows of the unknown as science reveals the previously unknown, that was attributed to god. It's how the church recognized evolution only after it was irrefutable, and accredited it to god whereas before it was against the concept of a god.
In the OT God was in the skies, Satan was in the ground. In the NT Jesus ascended to heaven but only after he descended into . Now that we know what's inside the Earth and what's above the planet, God suddenly exists in a different realm, as does Satan. The supernatural always regresses back to the shadows of the unknown. They must, else they go poof.
The bolded above is of huge importance.
Science is a way of understanding the natural world WITHOUT the use of the supernatural. For the life of me, I don't understand why people try to utilize science, or some perverted form of science, to prove the existence of the supernatural.
Science says " I cannot use the supernatural for explanations, that's not how I work, I can't touch that."
The belief that supernatural events occur is outside the purview of science. The belief in the supernatural influencing the natural world requires an entirely different type of belief system. It's not better or worse, it's different. So why is it so in bent upon for example creationists, to use a belief system that uses magic to explain natural phenomena? This is stepping off a cliff.
As for the second part of the quote above... Me too. It would be most interesting. And if one accomplished this I can't see how we would call it time. Make up a new word.
That is not to say that science "should not" touch or study the supernatural, rather it is saying that they haven't yet.
When someone is adamantly opposed to the concept of the supernatural, they limit only themselves, not the concept.
Scientists have "faith" in their theories.
This is at the core of their compulsion to continue to learn and blatantly challenge previously held beliefs.
When did curiosity cease being an integral element of discovery?
you posted this earlier as a definition of faith... belief that is not based on proof
this is not what scientists do
And I agree with that. In that instance I was using it as a "figure of speech", but you are technically correct, "faith" excludes the need for proof, whereas science requires proof.
However I used that "figure of speech" because "most" people do take science on "faith" because it is much easier to trust a scientist's evaluations for things than it is to go and test things for themselves.
But the rest of my statement stands IMHO.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-07-2014 at 09:05 PM.
When someone is adamantly opposed, i.e. closed minded, to the concept of the supernatural, they limit only themselves, not the concept.
So I repeat, when did curiosity cease being an integral element of discovery in science?
This is what happens when you try to take peoples' statements out of context, they come back to slap you in the face.
You're slapping yourself
No.
Just No.
I repeat, science does not deal with the supernatural. If the supernatural follows natural rules, we don't refer to it as supernatural.
If we can observe, measure, model, use math and logic to describe physical phenomena, without using magic, we are using science. Once you start making up rules, you believe the natural world works without using the aforementioned, you are NOT using science. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. There is nothing WRONG (morally) with a value system saying the Bible says this about about how humans came to be. Just realize you are using religion to answer a question that can be approached without the use of the supernatural. So choose your questions carefully. Tell me what science says about the punishment for stealing?
Now if you use the religious explanation of how humans came to be, knowing there are better explanations using a value system (which puts very high value on the reasonable nature of scientific enquiry), then repent. And realize science has no prescription on how many Hail Marys you should say in penance.
Why is this so difficult?
how about David Hume?
Just curious, what do you think of the way he craps all over your watch maker belief?
You're the one being closed minded and limiting yourself, not I,
So go ahead, keep slapping yourself, I don't mind, mine is open.
based on observations of xmas' behavior, I empirically predict a long winded post full of gibberish forth coming.
The idea of action at a distance was once explained using the supernatural. If you say God created gravitational fields (a scientific model), I can't rule that out using science. But I can, being a reasonable human being, ask if saying God created gravitational fields is really necessary. If one feels it is, fine by me. But that's me, my judgement. My own judgement NOT using science. I would rather say there is a connection between mass and gravitational fields, this is more useful TO ME so that one can ask FURTHER questions using science.
I dont think the above should be difficult either.
No, that is what we have you here for, gibberish.
Oh the rubber glue argument. Who could have predicted that.No, that is what we have you here for, gibberish.
You are misinterpreting anger vs concern. Who, in their right mind, would choose to believe a fairy tail Knowing there was verifiable evidence that unequivocally disproves said persons beliefs?
I don't even know why I am arguing with you.... Even with the most concrete evidence, you will still choose to ignore it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
