It is good to be back!!!

[The Midnight]

Again, you speak of things you know nothing of. And yet, you speak of them with such conviction! I was simply laying down the possibilities. And I would think that an extensive theory based on well established mathematical and physical facts warrants more attention than some childish emotion-based impulse that hasn't been examined by the very person who holds it.

Keep in mind that I only responded because you demanded a serious response. Otherwise I wouldn't have. I knew it was a waste of my time, and that you will not give any efforts to your retort, but I naively thought you may have legitimate interest in gaining knowledge.

But knowledge is the nemesis of blind faith, and I should not have expected any serious reflection on your part.

Do you recognize that your "well established mathematical and physical facts" only apply to and are derived from what we can observe "within this universe"?

So it is futile to use them to explain the origin of the universe.


But I guess it's easier to attack others and dismissed them as having "blind faith".

 

[Dr. Jones]

Siro, I assume you do understand the unfairness of debating something completely faith-based against science .. when the basis of the debate is 'prove it' is quite unfair.

This is the reason I stay out of these conversations. My feeling on the matter is pretty simple.

I believe in God. Why? I don't know, I just do. You don't? Cool, I get that. Proving something that is inherently a faith seems counter-intuitive for me... which, in and of itself, is the perfect reason for me to respect what others believe.

 

[Siro]

Do you recognize that your "well established mathematical and physical facts" only apply to and are derived from what we can observe "within this universe"?

So it is futile to use them to explain the origin of the universe.


But I guess it's easier to attack others and dismissed them as having "blind faith".

So according to your logic, no explanation is possible except for yours! After all, we either have an explanation based on the facts at hand or one based on factless statements people make. And since all observation must come from within the universe, only your random assertions can be used to evaluate the origin of the universe! Air tight!

And I don't believe in the multiverse that you keep dismissing despite knowing nothing about. I was giving you a possibility that conforms to the understanding of quantum mechanics. The multiverse can sufficiently explain most of what we see on the quantum level. It can explain why the math that governs it. It is thus something to keep in mind for when we have the tools to test it.

Your theory? What is it exactly? All I see is "no it's god. hes did everything. shut up". At least do me a solid and tell me who this god you so believe in is? Just tell me anything meaningful about him. Anything! Is that too much to ask from someone who claims to know the nature of reality based on a feeling?

 

[Siro]

Siro, I assume you do understand the unfairness of debating something completely faith-based against science .. when the basis of the debate is 'prove it' is quite unfair.

This is the reason I stay out of these conversations. My feeling on the matter is pretty simple.

I believe in God. Why? I don't know, I just do. You don't? Cool, I get that. Proving something that is inherently a faith seems counter-intuitive for me... which, in and of itself, is the perfect reason for me to respect what others believe.

That's all good. But if you're willing to give me Mr. Miyagi style nuggets of wisdom about the truth in every honest man's heart, you better expect me to respond.

 

[The Midnight]

So according to your logic, no explanation is possible except for yours! After all, we either have an explanation based on the facts at hand or one based on factless statements people make. And since all observation must come from within the universe, only your random assertions can be used to evaluate the origin of the universe! Air tight!

And I don't believe in the multiverse that you keep dismissing despite knowing nothing about. I was giving you a possibility that conforms to the understanding of quantum mechanics. The multiverse can sufficiently explain most of what we see on the quantum level. It can explain why the math that governs it. It is thus something to keep in mind for when we have the tools to test it.

Your theory? What is it exactly? All I see is "no it's god. hes did everything. shut up". At least do me a solid and tell me who this god you so believe in is? Just tell me anything meaningful about him. Anything! Is that too much to ask from someone who claims to know the nature of reality based on a feeling?

I'm not dismissing all scientific observations as meaningless, I'm merely pointing out to you that they are of this Universe and therefore you cannot use it to make inferences about what is beyond the Universe itself. (i.e., the creation).

As much as you're accusing me of dismissing your scientific theory - are you also guilty of dismissing the spiritual side to the Universe?

How?

If I were to ask you to prove me to the love you have for your wife or your mother/father. How would you do it? Can you do it? Is it even possible? Nevertheless, your love for them is there and it's REAL.

I hope you can see where I'm going with this. All I ask is for you to be open to the possibility. Nothing more.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This is about the most basic logical fallacy. "You either give me an explanation, or you accept mine regardless of its merits".

You twist the meaning of open-mindedness to serve your belief. I am very open minded. I don't think I hold the same opinion I held 5 years ago on the majority of subjects. Does that mean every sentence uttered as divine truth is worth considering? No.

There are many MANY possible explanation of how the universe came to be. Most of them are far superior to "it was created by a supernatural being". Hell, if that is a reasonable hypothesis, then I can make them up on the fly. The Blackswordsman created the universe. His denial only confirms it, for Lord TBS is most humble. Please keep an open mind about my "theory".

If we're going to discuss your god, you must define him. You must do it in real terms, with real meaning, because that shows you know what you believe, and not just parroting empty statements like "god is forever". Then we can discuss whether that construct can possibly come from nothing, and whether it can create universes.

Until then, we can contemplate other ,better, theories:

Quantum fluctuation:

https://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

This one denies the universe is something at all. The number zero can be thought of as a representation of nothing. But it can also be made up by somethings. -1+1=0. Similarly, the universe can just be a temporary blip of somethingness over its natural state of nothingness.

Simulation:

https://inspirehep.net/record/1189720

If humanity survive long enough, it is reasonable to assume that computer simulations will become sophisticated enough, that universes with different parameters can be produced. Some of those will in turn produce conscious beings, who will wonder about the nature of their universe.

Multiverse:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cations-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis

This is by far the most scientifically supported possibility. The universe is part of an infinite number of universes that flux in and out of existence. They have no beginning and no end, collectively. And there are many others. SO MANY. But until we have the ability to test such hypotheses, they remain in the realm of amusing speculation.

Edit: If this is hijacking Whisky's thread, I'm willing to take it elsewhere.

what do you suppose "flux in and out of existence" means?

 

[Dr. Jones]

That's all good. But if you're willing to give me Mr. Miyagi style nuggets of wisdom about the truth in every honest man's heart, you better expect me to respond.

I'm all for it. I actually enjoy talking about the science, btw. Science doesn't threaten my faith. Nor, should there ever become proof of God's existence, destroy one's love (or faith in) science.

 

[Siro]

I'm not dismissing all scientific observations as meaningless, I'm merely pointing out to you that they are of this Universe and therefore you cannot use it to make inferences about what is beyond the Universe itself. (i.e., the creation).

As much as you're accusing me of dismissing your scientific theory - are you also guilty of dismissing the spiritual side to the Universe?

How?

If I were to ask you to prove me to the love you have for your wife or your mother/father. How would you do it? Can you do it? Is it even possible? Nevertheless, your love for her is there and it's REAL. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

I already responded to your first point. You won't accept any objective explanation, regardless of its merits. You want your supernatural one. But you won't explain what supernatural, spiritual, god, and whatever else actual mean. If this is just a personal thing that you can't explain to anyone else, why do you bother me with it??

As for love, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about love being some sort of magic? You obviously can explain such physical phenomena quite easily. Love is pretty well understood, from the chemical releases of infatuation, to the reinforced neural patterns of attachment. I never thought that my love for anyone is so cheap as to be immaterial. It is a physical system that evolved to do what it does. I find that beautiful. Comforting even.

I am going out. I will respond tomorrow if you say anything that requires a response.

 

[Siro]

what do you suppose "flux in and out of existence" means?

I am talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty (well, something analogous to it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In physics, atoms and other tiny entities have a bit of a probabilistic existence, where things such as position and momentum are not fixed. Like the famous cat who is alive dead or both.

Edit: In case that wasn't clear, things in the universe can pop in and out of existence. So a vacuum is only empty on average. In reality, particles are popping in and out of existence in that vacuum all the time. The universe could be the product of a similar process, where the "vacuum" is the average state, and we happen to be living in an above average situation.

 

[The Midnight]

I already responded to your first point. You won't accept any objective explanation, regardless of its merits. You want your supernatural one. But you won't explain what supernatural, spiritual, god, and whatever else actual mean. If this is just a personal thing that you can't explain to anyone else, why do you bother me with it??

As for love, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about love being some sort of magic? You obviously can explain such physical phenomena quite easily. Love is pretty well understood, from the chemical releases of infatuation, to the reinforced neural patterns of attachment. I never thought that my love for anyone is so cheap as to be immaterial. It is a physical system that evolved to do what it does. I find that beautiful. Comforting even.

I am going out. I will respond tomorrow if you say anything that requires a response.

Are you telling me that when you express love to your loved one, you show them all the physical & chemical reactions in your body? And tell them that this is proof that "I Love You"?

Are you being serious right now?

 

[Siro]

Are you telling me that when you express love to your loved one, you show them all the physical & chemical reactions in your body? And tell them that this is proof that "I Love You"?

Are you being serious right now?

I assume that my actions toward those I love express my love for them. What do you do? Spray them with spiritual love juice?

Edit: Here for 5-10 minutes more.

 

[The Midnight]

I assume that my actions toward those I love express my love for them. What do you do? Spray them with spiritual love juice?

Edit: Here for 5-10 minutes more.

Yes exactly my point - you can show your love through your actions. BUT - if I were to ask you to prove to me to beyond doubt that the love for your wife exists within you, it's essentially not possible. You can show me all the examples of why you loved her. What you've done for her, all the presents you've bought for her, etc, etc,

And yet, another person can never be 100% convinced that you loved her.

It is the same with God... PKM, me or WhiskyPriest would never ever be able to convince you... all we can do is ask you to keep an open heart and an open mind.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I am talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty (well, something analogous to it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In physics, atoms and other tiny entities have a bit of a probabilistic existence, where things such as position and momentum are not fixed. Like the famous cat who is alive dead or both.

Will be interesting to see if anything new comes from LHC's resuming of atom smashing in '15. I doubt anything of consequence in that go 'round.

 

[Siro]

Will be interesting to see if anything new comes from LHC's resuming of atom smashing in '15. I doubt anything of consequence in that go 'round.

I edited the post you quoted for clarification.

The LHC found what it was built to find. Anything else would be a wonderful surprise.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Yes exactly my point - you can show your love through your actions. BUT - if I were to ask you to prove to me to beyond doubt that the love for your wife exists within you, it's essentially not possible. You can show me all the examples of why you loved her. What you've done for her, all the presents you've bought for her, etc, etc,

And yet, another person can never be 100% convinced that you loved her.

It is the same with God... PKM, me or WhiskyPriest would never ever be able to convince you... all we can do is ask you to keep an open heart and an open mind.

I am curious. Are you willing to keep an open heart/mind as to the possibility of no God?

 

[The Midnight]

I am curious. Are you willing to keep an open heart/mind as to the possibility of no God?

Yes of course, and he asks us to wrestle with it.

Israel - literally means "the one who wrestles with God".


It's only when we wrestles with him, and the question of his existence, that we grow closer to the truth. It's only through wrestling with this question that when it comes to our final days, that we can have the strongest conviction, and our faith does not waver.

 

[Siro]

Yes exactly my point - you can show your love through your actions. BUT - if I were to ask you to prove to me to beyond doubt that the love for your wife exists within you, it's essentially not possible. You can show me all the examples of why you loved her. What you've done for her, all the presents you've bought for her, etc, etc,

And yet, another person can never be 100% convinced that you loved her.

It is the same with God... PKM, me or WhiskyPriest would never ever be able to convince you... all we can do is ask you to keep an open heart and an open mind.

Ah, you refute your own argument. Love cannot be proven to be real because there is the possibility it isn't. So someone can tell his wife he loves her, he can buy her presents, etc etc etc, when in fact, he's not in love with her. That is the sole reason it's not possible to "prove" you love someone. Had that not been the case, proof would not be unnecessary. Similarly, you may "believe" in god as much as you want, but my knowledge and science are real. Your beliefs, whether it is about someone's love for you, or the existence of god, are only real inside your head, and that does not affect the truth of the world at large.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I edited the post you quoted for clarification.

The LHC found what it was built to find. Anything else would be a wonderful surprise.

I am outclassed here. I admit that.. so take my questions as sincere rather than argumentative.

I disagree that they found what they were looking for.. it's more like they were surprised to not find what they were expecting to find. The reason for the '15 experiments is to turn up the heat and see if the evidence is indeed there (contradicting the current findings). As I understand it.

 

[Siro]

I am outclassed here. I admit that.. so take my questions as sincere rather than argumentative.

I disagree that they found what they were looking for.. it's more like they were surprised to not find what they were expecting to find. The reason for the '15 experiments is to turn up the heat and see if the evidence is indeed there (contradicting the current findings). As I understand it.

They found the Higgs Boson (using the scientific definition of discovery). That is what they were looking for. They also found it around the energy level they expected, and with the anticipated properties. I believe they also found an anomaly in the decay rate of the Boson, which they will investigate in the coming years.

 

[The Midnight]

Ah, you refute your own argument. Love cannot be proven to be real because there is the possibility it isn't. So someone can tell his wife he loves her, he can buy her presents, etc etc etc, when in fact, he's not in love with her. That is the sole reason it's not possible to "prove" you love someone. Had that not been the case, proof would not be unnecessary. Similarly, you may "believe" in god as much as you want, but my knowledge and science are real. Your beliefs, whether it is about someone's love for you, or the existence of god, are only real inside your head, and that does not affect the truth of the world at large.

I'm talking specifically about proving a love that is real - hence I've used the love between you and your wife/mother/father as an example.


Let's take it as a given that your love for them is real - I argue that there is no way to scientifically or otherwise to proof that "your love for them" is real.

I then argue that - Just because you cannot prove that love, it doesn't mean that the love itself doesn't exist.