Debate Now Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
• Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
※→ "ding." et al,

BTW you will have to excuse me if I don't use the proper debate terminology as I have no formal training in debate.

Before I begin I would like to correct one of the statements you made in your response. The equations of GToR do not breakdown at the singularity, they yield infinities which I believe are an accurate representation of what lies beyond.
(COMMENT)

The Theory of General Relativity (GR) (effects gravity and all detectable and tangible material in the universe) and the motion of bodies under the action of forces accounting for the expanding universe as a whole. But then, there is Quantum Mechanics (QM), which describes the three fundamental forces we have discovered – Electromagnetic Force (EM) and two nuclear forces (the Weak Force and the Strong Force); (WF) (SF) respectively. Both GR and QM do not account for or describe either Dark Matter (≈ 25% of the universe) or Dark Energy (≈ 70% of the universe). Infinity describes a theoretical without limits.

A "theoretical without limits" is a wholly different topic, an entirely different dynamic in the effect it has on the transition point from what we can detect and recognize, and that which we cannot detect and recognize.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning.
(COMMENT)

  • Who says that?
  • Why must that be true?

When we talk about an "Expanding Universe," we are only talking about what we can see or otherwise detect. We cannot assume that the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" follow the rules of GR and/or QM. In fact, we do not actually know if we need to invent a new type of mathematics that can describe the other ≈ 95% of the universe (Dark Mathematics).

If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time.
(COMMENT)

What is a "boundary of space time." And that implies a limit. We do not know the limits of an ever expanding universe, or any subset within the Expanding Universe.

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.

But we know that space and time must have had a beginning because the SLoT states that for every matter to energy and energy to matter exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. So an infinite acting universe (i.e. cyclical model) would eventually reach thermal equilibrium as time approached infinity. This we do not see.

We know from cosmic background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's GToR field equations that ~14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. Every cosmological model honors this point.

The question is how did it get that way.
(COMMENT)

In physic circles, it is sacrilege to challenge Dr J I Friedman, a doctorial candidate under the great Dr Enrico Fermi, father of the Nuclear Reactor (Atomic Pile and the Fermi Paradox).

But entropy is not an inevitable conclusion since it is based on the choas of the observible universe and excludes the direction of the dark components. For all we know, that portion of the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion may be converting to Dark Energy.

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.
(COMMENT)

Yes, and again, the theory behind the "Zero-Energy Universe" only works on 5% of the Known Universe; and does not compensate for the other ≈ 95%.

So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created.
(COMMENT)

Yes, this 30 year old theiry by Professor Stephen Hawking, in which somehow (I honestly do not know how) the theory of gravity is a source of the initial power creating a universe. The idea opposes the projibition that a universe spontaniously form out of chaos and entropy. I am not truly competent to address this as my limited capacity suggest that science does not challenge the concept of the Supreme Being.

In summary, space and time had a beginning and that beginning followed rules and those rule were in place before space time itself.
(COMMENT)

Interesting argument since it is based on the dubious position that cannot be verified: "and those rule were in place before space time itself."

✪ ⇒ How do we know this, since our sampling is based on ≈ 5% of the universe.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
• Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
※→ "ding." et al,

BTW you will have to excuse me if I don't use the proper debate terminology as I have no formal training in debate.

Before I begin I would like to correct one of the statements you made in your response. The equations of GToR do not breakdown at the singularity, they yield infinities which I believe are an accurate representation of what lies beyond.
(COMMENT)

The Theory of General Relativity (GR) (effects gravity and all detectable and tangible material in the universe) and the motion of bodies under the action of forces accounting for the expanding universe as a whole. But then, there is Quantum Mechanics (QM), which describes the three fundamental forces we have discovered – Electromagnetic Force (EM) and two nuclear forces (the Weak Force and the Strong Force); (WF) (SF) respectively. Both GR and QM do not account for or describe either Dark Matter (≈ 25% of the universe) or Dark Energy (≈ 70% of the universe). Infinity describes a theoretical without limits.

A "theoretical without limits" is a wholly different topic, an entirely different dynamic in the effect it has on the transition point from what we can detect and recognize, and that which we cannot detect and recognize.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning.
(COMMENT)

  • Who says that?
  • Why must that be true?

When we talk about an "Expanding Universe," we are only talking about what we can see or otherwise detect. We cannot assume that the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" follow the rules of GR and/or QM. In fact, we do not actually know if we need to invent a new type of mathematics that can describe the other ≈ 95% of the universe (Dark Mathematics).

If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time.
(COMMENT)

What is a "boundary of space time." And that implies a limit. We do not know the limits of an ever expanding universe, or any subset within the Expanding Universe.

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.

But we know that space and time must have had a beginning because the SLoT states that for every matter to energy and energy to matter exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. So an infinite acting universe (i.e. cyclical model) would eventually reach thermal equilibrium as time approached infinity. This we do not see.

We know from cosmic background radiation, red shift and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's GToR field equations that ~14 billion years ago the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. Every cosmological model honors this point.

The question is how did it get that way.
(COMMENT)

In physic circles, it is sacrilege to challenge Dr J I Friedman, a doctorial candidate under the great Dr Enrico Fermi, father of the Nuclear Reactor (Atomic Pile and the Fermi Paradox).

But entropy is not an inevitable conclusion since it is based on the choas of the observible universe and excludes the direction of the dark components. For all we know, that portion of the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion may be converting to Dark Energy.

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.
(COMMENT)

Yes, and again, the theory behind the "Zero-Energy Universe" only works on 5% of the Known Universe; and does not compensate for the other ≈ 95%.

So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created.
(COMMENT)

Yes, this 30 year old theiry by Professor Stephen Hawking, in which somehow (I honestly do not know how) the theory of gravity is a source of the initial power creating a universe. The idea opposes the projibition that a universe spontaniously form out of chaos and entropy. I am not truly competent to address this as my limited capacity suggest that science does not challenge the concept of the Supreme Being.

In summary, space and time had a beginning and that beginning followed rules and those rule were in place before space time itself.
(COMMENT)

Interesting argument since it is based on the dubious position that cannot be verified: "and those rule were in place before space time itself."

✪ ⇒ How do we know this, since our sampling is based on ≈ 5% of the universe.

Most Respectfully,
R
1. My comment about what the equations yield at the singularity is factual. They yield infinite values. Saying the equations breakdown is a subjective term. The equations are not broken, they have reached their limit. Unless of course you believe as I do that they are pointing to something which is eternal. In that case the equations are working just fine.

2. Alexander Vilenkin says that if the universe is expanding then the universe must have a beginning.

Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

3. It must be true because inflation must have a beginning and because the universe cannot be infinite acting because of the SLoT which states that every mass to energy and energy to mass exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. Therefore, as time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see.

4. What is a "boundary of space time." The singularity which we call the big bang or the beginning of space and time which in reality is the point in time after inflation.

Another really good discussion on this subject can be found here.

 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top