The Inner Life: Beyond Science?

[seer]

But you prefer to believe in the cosy notion of a divinely created universe as put forward in mythological creation myths deriving from Bronze Age fantasies and for which there is “zero evidence”. Quite the reverse; the available evidence contradicts the biblical creation narratives.

No, it’s what any rational person would say, namely that it’s reasonable to demand substantive evidence for what one believes in. The alternative is to base beliefs upon man-made religious fantasies masquerading as divine revelation.

Then where is the substantive evidence for your multi-verse? Actual physical evidence Tass? Your link is full of maybe, might, possibly, may. Not one lick of physical evidence. Different theories, BTW that contradict each other, that to date have no basis in fact. So once again we have the pot calling the kettle black.

[Tassman]

Then where is the substantive evidence for your multi-verse? Actual physical evidence Tass? Your link is full of maybe, might, possibly, may. Not one lick of physical evidence. Different theories, BTW that contradict each other, that to date have no basis in fact. So once again we have the pot calling the kettle black.

"Substantive" is defined as having a having a firm basis in reality. And, unlike the utter lack of any substantive evidence for fantasy of a divinely created universe as put forward by

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-really-exist/

But given your history of denial when it comes to scientific facts or hypotheses which contradict your particular religious presuppositions, e.g. the well established facts of evolutionary theory, I doubt you will accept any such possibility...just as the church refused to accept Copernicus' and Galileo's theories for the same reason and expended considerable effort attempting to prevent their dissemination.

[MaxVel]

"Substantive" is defined as having a having a firm basis in reality. And, unlike the utter lack of any substantive evidence for “your” fantasy of a divinely created universe as put forward by “your” creation myths, there’s good evidence for the probable existence of a multiverse, as per previous link:

"In Scientific American articles and books such as Brian Greene’s latest, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists have spoken of a super-Copernican revolution. In this view, not only is our planet one among many, but even our entire universe is insignificant on the cosmic scale of things. It is just one of countless universes..."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-really-exist/

But given your history of denial when it comes to scientific facts or hypotheses which contradict your particular religious presuppositions, e.g. the well established facts of evolutionary theory, I doubt you will accept any such possibility...just as the church refused to accept Copernicus' and Galileo's theories for the same reason and expended considerable effort attempting to prevent their dissemination.

(1) You've moved the goalposts. Seer was talking about the Big Bang as compared to the various multiverse theories. Now [n]you're[/b] comparing your strawman of Seer's creationism with multiverse theories. That's dishonest.

(2) There is actual empirical evidence that supports the Big Bang. Multiverse theories?.. not so much.

(3) You're overlooking your own 'denial of scientific facts and hypotheses' (see the Big Bang) because they 'contradict your particular religious presuppostions'.

(4) You're still hauling out old canards in an attempt at discrediting Seer via guilt by association. Thats slimy and dishonest.

[JimL]

(1) You've moved the goalposts. Seer was talking about the Big Bang as compared to the various multiverse theories. Now [n]you're[/b] comparing your strawman of Seer's creationism with multiverse theories. That's dishonest.

Read before posting Max. Seer specifically asked "Then where is the substantive evidence for your multiverse?"

(2) There is actual empirical evidence that supports the Big Bang. Multiverse theories?.. not so much.

Tass just gave you the scientific evidence. Did you bother to read it. Its also a matter of common sense. From nothing, nothing comes!

(3) You're overlooking your own 'denial of scientific facts and hypotheses' (see the Big Bang) because they 'contradict your particular religious presuppostions'.

Which scientific facts would those be Max?

(4) You're still hauling out old canards in an attempt at discrediting Seer via guilt by association. Thats slimy and dishonest.

Presenting truth in debate isn't slimy Max. The truth might hurt your feelings, but it isn't slimy. Calling it slimy and dishonest, is slimy and dishonest!

[MaxVel]

Read before posting Max. Seer specifically asked "Then where is the substantive evidence for your multiverse?"

And Tassman replies with a irrelevancy about the evidence for creation...instead of comparing multiverse with Big Bang.

Tass just gave you the scientific evidence. Did you bother to read it. Its also a matter of common sense. From nothing, nothing comes!

Where in that citation was there actual empirical evidence? Cite it please. All I found was five possible theories/interpretations that could allow for multiverses. Not a lot of actual empirical evidence that said multiverses actually exist.

Which scientific facts would those be Max?

Can't read, huh?

Presenting truth in debate isn't slimy Max. The truth might hurt your feelings, but it isn't slimy. Calling it slimy and dishonest, is slimy and dishonest!

What fundy atheists (erroneously) claim the Catholic church once did is irrelevant to Seer's points; dragging it up to imply Seer is intellectually dishonest is slimy.

But then, since you're a fellow-traveller with the atheists who happily murdered millions in their failed attempt to create a socialist utopia, it's no surprise that you also feel any means,no matter how brutal or malicious, justifies getting your ends.**






** Did the truth hurt your feelings, JimL? You'd gladly cheer the mob as they lynch a few of those intolerant Christians, wouldn't you? A small price to pay for social justice and harmony.

See? Smearing you with guilt-by-association is slimy and dishonest. I know you're not like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But it does make it look like your arguments are wrong...

[shunyadragon]

(1) You've moved the goalposts. Seer was talking about the Big Bang as compared to the various multiverse theories. Now [n]you're[/b] comparing your strawman of Seer's creationism with multiverse theories. That's dishonest.

You can compare the Big Bang with multiverses, but in reality there is no direct objective evidence for either. Nothing is verifiable objectively and directly before 1 plank second of our universe.




Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...universe.html#

(2) There is actual empirical evidence that supports the Big Bang. Multiverse theories?.. not so much.

No there is not. We have no empirical evidence beyond the theoretical 1 plank sec. of the hypothetical beginning of our universe, if such a beginning actually took place. There are different theories proposed for the origins and nature of our physical existence beyond our known universe.

[JimL]

And Tassman replies with a irrelevancy about the evidence for creation...instead of comparing multiverse with Big Bang.

No he didn't, the supposed irrelevancy in his quote is all that you cared to acknowledge. It is the scientific theories which actually point to the existence of a multiverse, scientists unlike religion didn't just pull this hypotheses out of their respective hats. And pointing out the fact that there is no such evidence for creationism is not irrelevancy.

Where in that citation was there actual empirical evidence? Cite it please. All I found was five possible theories/interpretations that could allow for multiverses. Not a lot of actual empirical evidence that said multiverses actually exist.

What do you think that theories/interpretations are based on? As above, they are not solely guesswork, and there is no reason to believe that the big bang that created our universe emerged from out of nothing. There is no empirical evidence that anything comes from nothing, aka creation.

Can't read, huh?

Can't answer the question, huh?

What fundy atheists (erroneously) claim the Catholic church once did is irrelevant to Seer's points; dragging it up to imply Seer is intellectually dishonest is slimy.

Its not a claim, its a fact, and your inability to acknowledge even that is telling. Tass was merely pointing out that particular trait that you and seer seem to have in common with religious teaching.

But then, since you're a fellow-traveller with the atheists who happily murdered millions in their failed attempt to create a socialist utopia, it's no surprise that you also feel any means,no matter how brutal or malicious, justifies getting your ends.**

Look in the mirror Max. See the irony?

** Did the truth hurt your feelings, JimL? You'd gladly cheer the mob as they lynch a few of those intolerant Christians, wouldn't you? A small price to pay for social justice and harmony.

See? Smearing you with guilt-by-association is slimy and dishonest. I know you're not like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But it does make it look like your arguments are wrong...

The problem with your analogy Max, is that it sucks. Ones disbelief in God has nothing to do with the despicable actions of Stalin, Mao or Pol pot. Your actions of denying facts and slandering non believers do equate with the treatment given to Galileo et el. by the church.

[Tassman]

(1) You've moved the goalposts. Seer was talking about the Big Bang as compared to the various multiverse theories. Now [n]you're[/b] comparing your strawman of Seer's creationism with multiverse theories. That's dishonest.

So quick to judge!

Seer specifically referred to evidence of the multiverse, to which I responded. In any event multiverse theory doesn't necessarily rule out Big Bang theory.

(2) There is actual empirical evidence that supports the Big Bang. Multiverse theories?.. not so much.

Not really! We have no evidence of what occurred re the Big Bang during the first moments of Plank time because the natural laws break down at that point and "actual empirical evidence"

(3) You're overlooking your own 'denial of scientific facts and hypotheses' (see the Big Bang) because they 'contradict your particular religious presuppostions'.

(4) You're still hauling out old canards in an attempt at discrediting Seer via guilt by association. Thats slimy and dishonest.

[Tassman]

But then, since you're a fellow-traveller with the atheists who happily murdered millions in their failed attempt to create a socialist utopia, it's no surprise that you also feel any means,no matter how brutal or malicious, justifies getting your ends.**

Uh, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Thirty Years War, the Albigensian Crusade...to name a few! "Let he who is without sin....... "

** Did the truth hurt your feelings, JimL? You'd gladly cheer the mob as they lynch a few of those intolerant Christians, wouldn't you? A small price to pay for social justice and harmony.

See? Smearing you with guilt-by-association is slimy and dishonest. I know you're not like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But it does make it look like your arguments are wrong...

Get a grip you impetuous fool.

[seer]

"Substantive" is defined as having a having a firm basis in reality. And, unlike the utter lack of any substantive evidence for “your” fantasy of a divinely created universe as put forward by “your” creation myths, there’s good evidence for the probable existence of a multiverse, as per previous link:

Tass, you have still not shown any physical evidence for your BELIEF. You are just asserting what you hope to be true.

"In Scientific American articles and books such as Brian Greene’s latest, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists have spoken of a super-Copernican revolution. In this view, not only is our planet one among many, but even our entire universe is insignificant on the cosmic scale of things. It is just one of countless universes..."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-really-exist/

But given your history of denial when it comes to scientific facts or hypotheses which contradict your particular religious presuppositions, e.g. the well established facts of evolutionary theory, I doubt you will accept any such possibility...just as the church refused to accept Copernicus' and Galileo's theories for the same reason and expended considerable effort attempting to prevent their dissemination.

But Tass, there is zero physical evidence in your link for your imaginary multi-verse. Did you even read the title in your link? Does the Multiverse Really Exist? Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science

And your link quotes Alexander Vilenkin who, as we have discussed, said that his multi- verse theory is not past eternal. So we still need a creation event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

[JimL]

Tass, you have still not shown any physical evidence for your BELIEF. You are just asserting what you hope to be true.

Physical evidence for the existence of the multiverse is not observation of the multiverse itself seer, which seems to be what you are asking for. For one, Quantum mechanics and Everetts interpretation of Schrodingers equation is evidence of a multiverse. We can also utilize our common sense and extrapolate from knowledge we have of the physical world we live in and come to the sound conclusion that "nothing comes from nothing." Or we could instead ignore reason and in our ignorance make up a story about an eternally existing immaterial conscious being who after an infinite existence, out of complete boredom with himself, decided just 14 billion years ago, to think a material world into existence from out of nothing so that he could finally have something to play with. Scientific evidence for the multiverse isn't the only reason for our disbelief in creation seer! the lack of any evidence whatsoever for such extraordinary and seemingly ridiculous claims is reason enough in itself.

[Tassman]

Tass, you have still not shown any physical evidence for your BELIEF.

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-...-theories.html

You are just asserting what you hope to be true.

But Tass, there is zero physical evidence in your link for your imaginary multi-verse. Did you even read the title in your link? Does the Multiverse Really Exist? Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science

all lead to some form of a multiverse. Not enough as yet to prove that a multiverse exists, but it's a compelling possibility and considerably more than your for your god-did-it bald assertion.

And your link quotes Alexander Vilenkin who, as we have discussed, said that his multi- verse theory is not past eternal. So we still need a creation event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

Or we could instead ignore reason and in our ignorance make up a story about an eternally existing immaterial conscious being who after an infinite existence, out of complete boredom with himself, decided just 14 billion years ago, to think a material world into existence from out of nothing so that he could finally have something to play with. Scientific evidence for the multiverse isn't the only reason for our disbelief in creation seer! the lack of any evidence whatsoever for such extraordinary and seemingly ridiculous claims is reason enough in itself.

Interesting concept! So seer is actually God's "plaything" in this scenario, created to relieve His infinite boredom.

[seer]

Nevertheless “there’s good physics behind it. And there's not just one way to get to a multiverse — numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.”

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-...-theories.html

Then Tass, where is the ACTUAL PHYSICAL for any of these. And do you have any real idea where the "good physics" lead here.

Is there a copy of you:

"Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.

"The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will* just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelganger any less real."* Max Tegmark.

space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

So Tass, do you BELIEVE that there are copies of you and me are having this debate in Parallel Universes? If that is where the "science" leads are you willing to accept that?

This is a misrepresentation of the argument. There’s nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proposal that suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness”, in fact, the opposite is true. The authors write about what exists beyond the boundary. Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”…by which is meant that cosmic origins can be described in “purely scientific terms” as per Vilenkin’s paper:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

All this stuff has been discussed before, seer, but you keep regurgitating the same selective quotes which you imagine support your religious presuppositions. They don’t.

That is false Tass, I misrepresented nothing. As it stands now the inflation theory is not past eternal and needs a creation event, and that is from Vilenkin’s own mouth in my link.

And from your link, to quote, In this paper Vilenkin said: I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.

So we still need a Creation event, and do you believe Tass that the universe was created from literally nothing? So science is catching up with the theologians.

[Tassman]

Then Tass, where is the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for any of these.

And do you have any real idea where the "good physics" lead here.

Where "good physics" leads is to facts or theories which have been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent...as is the case with most of the laws and constants of nature.

Is there a copy of you:

space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

So Tass, do you BELIEVE that there are copies of you and me are having this debate in Parallel Universes? If that is where the "science" leads are you willing to accept that?

I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.

So we still need a Creation event, and do you believe Tass that the universe was created from literally nothing? So science is catching up with the theologians.

[seer]

Where is the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of your god-did-it scenario?

Read your Bible - God's Word confirms it.

Yes hypotheticals - with no ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. But like I said Tass, I won't deny your faith...



Right, so you would believe that there may actually be dozens if not hundreds of copies of you and me having this same debate is "science" says so. Talk about nonsense...



Right, all I said is that no inflation theory is past eternal. The multi-verse still needs a creation event. What came before that or if there was anything before that is not known.

Let me quote your link again: Vilenkin: I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.

Spontaneous creation from literally nothing Tass? How is that different from creation Ex nihilo? Tell me. And stop falsely accusing me of misrepresenting anyone, especially when I quote your own sources. Bad form old chap.

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing