Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by inimalist
Nobody says the answer is unimportant, and I have answered this

However, again

stop using science. The "Socratic law of cause and effect" is not a real scientific principal, nor does the lack of understanding of the causality of the origins of the universe refute in any way the theory of the big bang

The most convincing evidence for the Big Bang comes from the CMB radiation. Until you can postulate a theory that describes our observations of CMBR better than the big bang theory, you have no point.

The only reason scientists propose the big bang theory is because it fits the evidence without having to add in more unknown assumptions. As it stands now, there are many, such as the assumption that something must have started the big bang.

Why are you so proud that you trust a book written thousands of years ago to answer modern questions... Thats weird... But then again, I understand cognitive dissonance...

In the words of Chris Tucker from Rush Hour Two (or was it Rush Hour One?)

Anyhoo, "inimalist, do you understand the words that I am posting in this thread? I mean coming out of my mouth?"

For the umpteenth time buddy ole' pal I am not seeking or asking for evidence OF the Big Bang. I want you (or anyone else up to the task) to tell me WHAT CAUSED IT. Please don't write me any more posts about how the Big Bang has been proven or how Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the evidence OF the Big Bang. That is no my question. Tell me what is the adequate cause of it. So without further ado, let me re-post this for your answering pleasure inimalist, but pay particular attention to the statements and illustrations about adequate cause before replying.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
My question for atheists, agnostics, intelligentsia, academics, scholars, the erudite, the learned, the educated, all scientists, and anyone else who wants to put their two cents in. The “Socratic Law of Causality (i.e. the Law of Cause and Effect)" states that everything happens for a reason (i.e. everything is a result of the Law of Cause and Effect). You see, every effect must be preceded by an adequate cause. For example, a fierce wind blows causing a tree, its leaves, and its branches to sway back and forth severely, suddenly the tree becomes uprooted. This is an example of an adequate cause. However, if the wind blows gently there will not be enough adequate force to cause the tree to sway back and forth violently. The wind will simply rustle the branches and leaves, but it will definitely not uproot the tree. Another example: computers don’t become infected with viruses and worms because someone spilled ketchup on them; the airplane did not fly at mach speed because it was equipped with the latest propeller. These would not be adequate causes. It is amazing to me how children grasp this concept of cause and effect. They want to know why the sky is blue, or why cats purr, or where babies come from. They just innately know that everything comes from something else or that every effect is preceded by an adequate cause. The notion that something comes from nothing or that matter came from non-matter is inconsistent with the established rule of cause and effect--not to mention exceedingly illogical. So, I said all that to say this:

What force, agent, or catalyst precipitated the Big Bang explosion—I mean expansion (some believe that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter, but an expansion of space which carries matter with it)? The answer cannot be that it is not important. That to me is not a valid answer.

This fundamental question has yet to be answered. This is a loaded question because I intend to further elaborate my question.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, why attribute it to God though and not Angry Manatee.

I mean, there might be a creator, possible, but why do you think it is the type that you think it is.

To ask in teh mind of the thread. Can you handle the truth that it might be a different explanation. That you might be wrong. And in what way do you deal with it?

😆 😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by Regret
But, the Bible says God... not Angry Manatee, Buddha, or Krishna... 😕

😆 😆 😆 😆

Why believe that bible? 😉

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In the words of Chris Tucker from Rush Hour Two (or was it Rush Hour One?)

[B]Anyhoo, "inimalist, do you understand the words that I am posting in this thread? I mean coming out of my mouth?"

For the umpteenth time buddy ole' pal I am not seeking or asking for evidence OF the Big Bang. I want you (or anyone else up to the task) to tell me WHAT CAUSED IT. Please don't write me any more posts about how the Big Bang has been proven or how Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the evidence OF the Big Bang. That is no my question. Tell me what is the adequate cause of it. So without further ado, let me re-post this for your answering pleasure inimalist, but pay particular attention to the statements and illustrations about adequate cause before replying. [/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why believe that bible? 😉

😆 😆 😆 😆

I believe the Bible, it's just the attempted logic here I laugh at. Faith is the basis of belief, not necessarily logic or reason or rationality.

Originally posted by Regret
Because it says it was inspired by God, and since it says God created everything God obviously exists, which means the Bible is true, because it says it was inspired by God, and since... 😕

😆 😆 😆 😆

I believe the Bible, it's just the attempted logic here I laugh at. Faith is the basis of belief, not necessarily logic or reason or rationality.

Finally someone who answers my question without going off the deep end. Thanks. 😄

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you? (just kidding Bardock42). God doesn't need one I can walk right outside and see His handiwork. To me this is far superior than any scehamtic diagram.

See, I don't need one either. You just answered your own question asked upon me. Just take my word for it. All that is stated in the book I am writing will be all truth, because it is said to be so.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

For the umpteenth time buddy ole' pal I am not seeking or asking for evidence [b]OF the Big Bang. I want you (or anyone else up to the task) to tell me WHAT CAUSED IT. Please don't write me any more posts about how the Big Bang has been proven or how Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is the evidence OF the Big Bang. That is no my question. Tell me what is the adequate cause of it. So without further ado, let me re-post this for your answering pleasure inimalist, but pay particular attention to the statements and illustrations about adequate cause before replying. [/B]

ok

I think every time that this has been asked the answer has been that the origins of the big bang, and thusly the universe, are still unknown to science.

However, if you ARE really interested in this topic, which you clearly aren't, I would suggest asking someone who studies the early universe or quasars or other relics of a time when the universe was vastly different from when it was today.

I study the priming effects of various features of stimuli in the visual field and how they corelate to a task of locating an object within a field of similar objects. I study VISUAL ATTENTION. Asking me for an answer to this question is akin to asking your mechanic to tell you the finer points of your circulatory system (or your cardiologist about the finer points on a combustion engine).

However, your interpretation of cause and effect does fall somewhat within my field. Cause and effect as you describe it are almost entirely constructs of our brains. Our brains are naturally set up to make these cause and effect judgements about the world around us. Because of this, we interpret all events as having a cause that is similar to how we understand "causes".

Now, this works fine for objects that we can see and interact with, and in fact your law of cause and effect holds for everything down to the atomic level. Anything humans can interact with we are able to understand the mechanisms behind basically intuitively. This is where classical or Newtonian physics come from.

However, as I have said countless times before in this thread, when dealing with things at a quantum mechanical level or smaller (how the pre-universe conditions MUST have been) the rules of Newton fall appart. Events at a quantum level are so strange, that individuals like Feynman have said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". Feynman won a nobel prize for his research into quantum physics btw.

Our brains literally are unable to make the same type of predictive and causality based statements about quantum mechanics as the do automatically with Newtonian physics. We are just biologically unable to understand quantum physics. We can make mathematical models of the things we observe, which have unquestionably high accuracy, but we cannot really "explain" it in words that we would use to describe the orbit of planets or even Newton's laws of motion.

However, this assumes that quantum physics is even remotely capable of explaining the pre-universe conditions, which it is likely not. Quantum physics is still subject to the laws of the fundamental forces of the universe and whatever the unified field theory turns out to be. Pre-universe, the ratios and values of the fundamental forces are potentially variable. This means that there would NEVER be a way for us to recreate the conditions of a pre-universe within our universe.

Give me this much at least: Do you think that the same rules of cause and effect that govern the reality you percieve on a constant basis are the same that would have existed at the dawn of the universe?

Originally posted by Regret
Because it says it was inspired by God, and since it says God created everything God obviously exists, which means the Bible is true, because it says it was inspired by God, and since... 😕

😆 😆 😆 😆

I believe the Bible, it's just the attempted logic here I laugh at. Faith is the basis of belief, not necessarily logic or reason or rationality.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And I thought you were dangerous. 😂

I threaten the imbecilic assumption by Christians that science is evil and categorically flawed due to its stance that it has no evidence supporting the existence of deity. 😈

I threaten those that limit themselves to some biased power hungry dark ages priest's interpretation of scripture. 😈

I threaten the foundation of the ignoramus brand of Christianity. 😈

... or at least I hope I do 😉

One of the main points that is being discussed here is with cause. JIA, you asked for the cause of the Big Bang and in our discussion the cause of the gravitational force. So the problem is with cause itself and about what caused those physical observables.

I know where do you want to get, but first I will analyze what we can know scientifically :

About the Big Bang we don´t know its cause. What doesn´t mean there is no cause. We just don´t know the cause. This happens because of the conditions the universe where in at the time of the Big Bang(a huge mass in a small space), in those conditions you need to use general relativity and quantum mechanics together but these theories are not compatible. It is needed to develop a new theory that unifies those two like they are trying to do with the superstring theory.

It is the same with gravitational waves, you can say that their cause is mass. The presence of mass causes then. If you ask what causes mass, then it is the Higg´s field but I don´t know from where the Higg´s field comes from.

Anyway at some point we will have to stop because science do not know everything, but science has a limit it does not mean there is no cause. Thats why science has to evolve and new theories have to be discovered. There is no contradiction with the law of cause and effect(which btw is philosophy not science, it is only postulated in science), no scientist never said there is no cause for the Big Bang. We need more knowledge to determine a possible cause for it.

Now to the point you are trying to get. What you want to say is that there must be a primary cause, and that cause is God. This is a philosophical interpretation and there is many different philosophical interpretations. Not only one. Some people will not deny a primary cause to the universe but will not attribute that cause to a God or a divine entity, they will attribute it to a different thing.

Even if we attribute a possible primary cause to a God, that God doesn´t need to be like the bible say it is. Perhaps It is like its believed in the Baghavad Gita or in the Zend Avesta, or maybe it is like the Mayas believed or like the Greeks believed. Who knows. One thing is right, some have less conflicts with science than others.

The conclusion is. The need of a primary cause does not imply the need for a christian interpretation for that same cause. There are many different cosmologies that give different explanations for that cause. There are even philosophies which do not require the existence of a God.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok

I think every time that this has been asked the answer has been that the origins of the big bang, and thusly the universe, are still unknown to science.

However, if you ARE really interested in this topic, which you clearly aren't, I would suggest asking someone who studies the early universe or quasars or other relics of a time when the universe was vastly different from when it was today.

I study the priming effects of various features of stimuli in the visual field and how they corelate to a task of locating an object within a field of similar objects. I study [b]VISUAL ATTENTION. Asking me for an answer to this question is akin to asking your mechanic to tell you the finer points of your circulatory system (or your cardiologist about the finer points on a combustion engine).

However, your interpretation of cause and effect does fall somewhat within my field. Cause and effect as you describe it are almost entirely constructs of our brains. Our brains are naturally set up to make these cause and effect judgements about the world around us. Because of this, we interpret all events as having a cause that is similar to how we understand "causes".

Now, this works fine for objects that we can see and interact with, and in fact your law of cause and effect holds for everything down to the atomic level. Anything humans can interact with we are able to understand the mechanisms behind basically intuitively. This is where classical or Newtonian physics come from.

However, as I have said countless times before in this thread, when dealing with things at a quantum mechanical level or smaller (how the pre-universe conditions MUST have been) the rules of Newton fall appart. Events at a quantum level are so strange, that individuals like Feynman have said "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics". Feynman won a nobel prize for his research into quantum physics btw.

Our brains literally are unable to make the same type of predictive and causality based statements about quantum mechanics as the do automatically with Newtonian physics. We are just biologically unable to understand quantum physics. We can make mathematical models of the things we observe, which have unquestionably high accuracy, but we cannot really "explain" it in words that we would use to describe the orbit of planets or even Newton's laws of motion.

However, this assumes that quantum physics is even remotely capable of explaining the pre-universe conditions, which it is likely not. Quantum physics is still subject to the laws of the fundamental forces of the universe and whatever the unified field theory turns out to be. Pre-universe, the ratios and values of the fundamental forces are potentially variable. This means that there would NEVER be a way for us to recreate the conditions of a pre-universe within our universe.

Give me this much at least: Do you think that the same rules of cause and effect that govern the reality you percieve on a constant basis are the same that would have existed at the dawn of the universe? [/B]

The Law of Cause and Effect is unchangeable so why would it be any different today than it was during the creation of the universe?

In the field of Quantum Mechanics (which is the study of matter and radiation at the atomic and subatomic level) the Law of Cause and Effect still applies/hold because all atoms are composed of matter. Particles of matter or subatomic particles are the cause of atoms. Atoms are the cause of elements. Elements are the cause of Molecules etc.

Do you follow me?

Each component has a cause and is an effect of something else. (By cause I mean that it is a source or constituent of something else.) The Law of Cause and Effect hold even with subatomic particles. For example, electrons derive their energy to move from point to point seemingly at random in response to their mass and a positively charged proton. This keeps the electron constantly jumping around inside the atom (In other words, this is an example of the Law of Cause and Effect even at the Quantum Mechanical level). Another example of the Law of Cause and Effect at the microscopic, Quantum Mechanical level is the attraction that occurs between electrons and protons. Each particle has its own electrical charge. Another example, of the Law of Cause and Effect at the atomic level deals with what holds an atom together. Scientists believe that it is the nuclear or "strong" force which is greater than the force that is supposed to repel protons and neutrons.

In short, yes I believe that

"...the same rules of cause and effect that govern the reality I percieve on a constant basis are the same that would have existed at the dawn of the universe."

But no I do not believe that

"...when dealing with things at a quantum mechanical level or smaller (how the pre-universe conditions MUST have been) the rules of Newton fall apart."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do people get offended when you tell them the truth as it pertains to the Bible?

They don't.

However when you misrepresent the information, try to force it on them as fact in the real world rather than just the Bible and act in a manner that suggests an extremely sanctimonious view of the world they tend to get irritated.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
One of the main points that is being discussed here is with cause. JIA, you asked for the cause of the Big Bang and in our discussion the cause of the gravitational force. So the problem is with cause itself and about what caused those physical observables.

I know where do you want to get, but first I will analyze what we can know scientifically :

About the Big Bang we don´t know its cause. What doesn´t mean there is no cause. We just don´t know the cause. This happens because of the conditions the universe where in at the time of the Big Bang(a huge mass in a small space), in those conditions you need to use general relativity and quantum mechanics together but these theories are not compatible. It is needed to develop a new theory that unifies those two like they are trying to do with the superstring theory.

It is the same with gravitational waves, you can say that their cause is mass. The presence of mass causes then. If you ask what causes mass, then it is the Higg´s field but I don´t know from where the Higg´s field comes from.

Anyway at some point we will have to stop because science do not know everything, but science has a limit it does not mean there is no cause. Thats why science has to evolve and new theories have to be discovered. There is no contradiction with the law of cause and effect(which btw is philosophy not science, it is only postulated in science), no scientist never said there is no cause for the Big Bang. We need more knowledge to determine a possible cause for it.

Now to the point you are trying to get. What you want to say is that there must be a primary cause, and that cause is God. This is a philosophical interpretation and there is many different philosophical interpretations. Not only one. Some people will not deny a primary cause to the universe but will not attribute that cause to a God or a divine entity, they will attribute it to a different thing.

Even if we attribute a possible primary cause to a God, that God doesn´t need to be like the bible say it is. Perhaps It is like its believed in the Baghavad Gita or in the Zend Avesta, or maybe it is like the Mayas believed or like the Greeks believed. Who knows. One thing is right, some have less conflicts with science than others.

The conclusion is. The need of a primary cause does not imply the need for a christian interpretation for that same cause. There are many different cosmologies that give different explanations for that cause. There are even philosophies which do not require the existence of a God.

I am aware of what you have written concerning various explanations for the cause of the alleged Big Bang.

But when you examine the text of the Bible you will discover that the Bible is not like any other book in the universe. The Bible talks about God, that He is (meaning He lives or exists) and that He is Almighty (i.e. All-powerful), that His understanding is infinite (meaning that He is All-knowing), and that He has no physical boundaries or limitations (meaning that He is everywhere present simultaneously). Second, the Bible reveals how the universe and all life came into existence. Third, the Bible discusses humanity's sinful nature and spiritual condition. Humankind is incapable of not sinning. Fourth, the Bible affirms that this All-powerful, All-knowing, Omnipresent God loves humanity. No book is as profound, yet easy to understand as the Bible. No Book tells us how to be saved from our sins like the Bible. No other text describes a God Who loves His creation so much that He sent His only Begotten Son to die for their sins in order to redeem them. No other Book instructs all people to live by one law: the law of love. No other work describes the future home of the saved/redeemed in as much vivid detail as the Bible. The Bible is more than just another book. It is the Word of the living God Who created this universe and earth with the breath of His mouth. God spoke and it was done.

With regard to the Bible I cannot explain every minute detail about why God did this or why God did not do that. But God has made His Word (the Bible) available to us and through the instrumentality of 40 different authors over a period of 1600 years. Some were prophets, some were shepherds, some were professionals (Luke was a physician), some were businessmen (some of the apostles were fishermen), some were highly educated, some were commoners. But the point is that All Scripture (from Genesis up to and including Revelation) is God's Word. God has chosen to intersperse details throughout His Word perhaps so that we could see a common thread among all the Books of the Bible. This (metaphorical) thread is God's signature as it were to us that the Bible is indeed His Word. There is remarkable continuity of theme from beginning to end, from the first Book of Moses (the Book of Genesis) to the last Book of the apostle John (the Book of Revelation). The miraculous flow and congruency among all sixty-six books of the Bible strengthens the case that holy men of God spoke (and wrote) as they were moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that the Bible, the holy Scriptures are indeed the Word of God which lives and abides forever

The Holy Bible-the Word of God-IS INSPIRED OF GOD.

The word Bible is derived from, or comes from the Greek word Biblos, which means, "a written book, a roll, or a scroll." So the word book in the Bible can mean or refer to a roll or a scroll.

The Bible is a library of 66 different books that were written over a period of approximately 1600 years (from 1500 B.C. to A.D. 100). It was written by more than 40 different writers or authors who were inspired by God to write. The Bible is divided into what is called, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. The word testament can refer to or mean a compact, covenant, or will that a person draws up to
dispose of their earthly possessions before they die.
So the Old Testament (compact or covenant) has 39 books (written approximately 1500 B.C. to A.D. 100). The New Testament (compact, covenant, or will) has 27 books (written approximately A.D. 45 to 100).

The Old Testament was written mostly in the Hebrew language, but with some Aramaic portions. The New Testament was written in Greek.

Councils of rabbis, Jewish elders, and church leaders collected, arranged, and recognized the books of the Bible as SACRED AUTHORITY, based on careful guidelines.

God is fully aware that HIS WORD WAS WRITTEN OR RECORDED BY MEN. He is the one who inspired them to write His Word, and to make sure that the accuracy and integrity of His Word was preserved and kept safe for us today.

The Bible was copied very accurately by hand before the printing press was invented. Special scribes (those who were educated in the Law of Moses and other sacred Scriptures) developed complex methods of counting words and letters to insure that no errors had been made.

The Old Testament was originally written on stone, clay, or leather (approx. 1500 B.C. to 400 B.C.). The New Testament was written on papyrus (a plant material) approximately A.D. 45 to 100. Some copies of the Bible were printed on luxurious, expensive, and fine quality animal skins called vellum (scraped calf or antelope skin),
and sheep or goat skins called parchment. These skins were used for over 1,000 years to make copies of the Bible approximately A.D. 300 to 1400.

The Gutenberg Bible, named after the inventor of the printing press with moveable type, was the first book ever printed on Gutenberg's Press with moveable type in 1455. It was printed at Johann Gutenberg's shop in Mainz, Germany and completed in 1454 or 1455. Gutenberg used the Latin text (translated from Hebrew and Greek) of St. Jerome.

The Bible we have today is very true to the original writings. Thousands of copies were made by hand before A.D. 1500, and more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts from the New Testament alone still exist today. The text of the Bible is better preserved than the writings of Caesar, Plato, or Aristotle.

In 1947 a Bedouin shepherd discovered 7 Scrolls in jars that were in limestone caves carved out of cliffs along the wadis (a bed or valley of streams) that descend through the Judean wilderness to the left bank of the Dead Sea. These scrolls confirm the accuracy of some copies of the Old Testament.

The Bible was transported to other countries and translated into the common language of the people by linguistic scholars who wanted others to know God's Word. There are still many groups of a people with no Bible in their own language.

To date the Bible has been translated into more than 2,000 languages and dialects.

--Rose Publishing, Inc. 4733 Torrance Blvd. #259
Torrance, CA 90503 USA
Phone: 310-353-2100
Toll Free: 800-53-CHART (800-532-4278)
Fax: 310-353-2116
Email: [email protected] Click Here
Website: http://www.rose-publishing.com

Originally posted by Regret
Oh, I'm dangerous. 😈

I threaten the imbecilic assumption by Christians that science is evil and categorically flawed due to its stance that it has no evidence supporting the existence of deity. 😈

I threaten those that limit themselves to some biased power hungry dark ages priest's interpretation of scripture. 😈

I threaten the foundation of the ignoramus brand of Christianity. 😈

... or at least I hope I do 😉

JesusIsNOTAlive, he is a sock! Do not talk to the sock!

💃 💃 💃

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
JesusIs[b]NOTAlive, he is a sock! Do not talk to the sock!

💃 💃 💃 [/B]

Only delusional or psychotic people talk to socks (or any other article of clothing) 🙂

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

[COLOR=darkblue]In short, yes I believe that

"...the same rules of cause and effect that govern the reality I percieve on a constant basis are the same that would have existed at the dawn of the universe."

But no I do not believe that

"...when dealing with things at a quantum mechanical level or smaller (how the pre-universe conditions MUST have been) the rules of Newton fall apart."

Well, in short, that is not scientifically accurate

Originally posted by inimalist
Well, in short, that is not scientifically accurate

Explain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, why attribute it to God though and not Angry Manatee.

I mean, there might be a creator, possible, but why do you think it is the type that you think it is.

To ask in teh mind of the thread. Can you handle the truth that it might be a different explanation. That you might be wrong. And in what way do you deal with it?

Logic dictates that Angry Manatee is not divine. I know that Angry Manatee is not divine because he asks me questions. If he were God he wouldn't have to ask me any questions.

There is reason to believe that the true God is Who the Bible states that He is. The Bible is the only Book that reflects in reality what it relates in Scripture. There is remarkable congruency and harmony with the the things that are revealed about God's nature and with what I see in this material world. The Bible repeatedly states that God is in Heaven. This explains why He cannot be seen on earth. The Bible says that we sin because we are born sinners. This fact is seen in even a two year old. Now, God will not hold a young child accountable for their sins because they don't have the capacity to comprehend the gravity and ramifications of their sins yet.

You are correct Bardock42 I could be wrong. But the probability that I am wrong based on the circumstances is highly unlikely. I would describe the likeliness that I am wrong as being so low that it is considered an impossibility. At least that is how we reckon this in statistics.

In what way do I deal with what? Being wrong? Being right? I honestly do not entertain the idea of being wrong about God being the Creator of matter and life because He is the only One that could possibly pull off creating a working universe in keeping with the rule of adequate cause. God is the only plausible Cause (in fact He is the First Cause that is why He does not have a creator) based on the exceeding complexity that surrounds us on a daily basis. No other cause for the origin of matter and life is worth embracing based on the circumstances because the prevailing theories all lack adequate cause.