There is no creation!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not presenting a theory. I am presenting a model that does not require a creation.

You're barely even presenting a model. All you've done is throw together a bunch of terms and called it philosophy/science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would this model have a creation?

You remind me of a teacher I had back in college. I asked him about the new idea that birds might be related to dinosaurs. He swore up and down that there is no way that could ever be. Now, it is common knowledge.

it isn't a model

at best you have a thesis and some hypotheses

Originally posted by inimalist
it isn't a model

Whatever dude. NEXT!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whatever dude. NEXT!

/facepalm

how many parameters would be in your model for a regression analysis?

what fit of the variance, for which phenomenon in question, do you expect to see when running this model?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're barely even presenting a model. All you've done is throw together a bunch of terms and called it philosophy/science.

I never called it anything. That is also not important. This is a religious forum, not science of philosophy. Please stay on topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

how many parameters would be in your model for a regression analysis?

what fit of the variance, for which phenomenon in question, do you expect to see when running this model?

There is no creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no creation.

so you don't have a model then

Originally posted by inimalist
so you don't have a model then

I do seem to have a troll.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never called it anything. That is also not important. This is a religious forum, not science of philosophy. Please stay on topic.

Then tell us why we should care about this religion you built from a bunch of sciency words you tossed together.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do seem to have a troll.

not really

when you open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic (the creation of the universe is a scientific question, regardless of what forum you put it in, especially when the entire OP is about general relativity), you can't cry foul when even the most basic standards of science are applied.

Look how quickly you retreated from Sym because "this is a religion forum" and I'm a troll because you have no idea what the term "model" means, yet you are happy to throw it around before anyone calls you on it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to general relativity to explain something, then feel victimized when someone tries to address the scientific merits of your idea. Science cuts both ways, and if you aren't willing to live up to its standards, it is intellectually dishonest to try and wrap yourself in its theories and language; it just looks silly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then tell us why we should care about this religion you built from a bunch of sciency words you tossed together.

The first post is a model/senario/thingy/whatever you want to call it that describes a universe that has no creation. For some reason you are fixated on the technical terms I am not using.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really

when you open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic (the creation of the universe is a scientific question, regardless of what forum you put it in, especially when the entire OP is about general relativity), you can't cry foul when even the most basic standards of science are applied.

Look how quickly you retreated from Sym because "this is a religion forum" and I'm a troll because you have no idea what the term "model" means, yet you are happy to throw it around before anyone calls you on it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to general relativity to explain something, then feel victimized when someone tries to address the scientific merits of your idea. Science cuts both ways, and if you aren't willing to live up to its standards, it is intellectually dishonest to try and wrap yourself in its theories and language; it just looks silly.

I never "open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic".

I opened a thread dealing with a religious concept in a religious forum.

in that case, appealing to general relativity seems foolish

Originally posted by inimalist
in that case, appealing to general relativity seems foolish

Not at all. Many religious people understand and believe in general relativity. I know you like to think of religious people as barbarian, but they are not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Many religious people understand and believe in general relativity.

but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevant

you can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts.

Originally posted by inimalist
[b]but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevant

you can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts. [/B]

I haven't changed my point of view. As far as your knowledge of Relativity, it seems to be limited.

I want to talk about is, can the model I started with have a creation. If you want to talk about that, I will listen. Anything else I will ignore.

Honestly sometimes it seems like one of the tenets of Buddhism is "If you say something that sounds clever no one will question you." and you get angry every time it doesn't come true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Honestly sometimes it seems like one of the tenets of Buddhism is "If you say something that sounds clever no one will question you." and you get angry every time it doesn't come true.

Please go spam somewhere else. If you want to talk to me personally, then PM me.

Woah.

Anyway.

Shakya, I think the detractors are treating your idea this way because you're using scientific terminology in a very broad sense to justify ideas you can't possibly verify even on a theoretical level.

So if it's just a religious idea, ok, it's on level with any other religious idea. But as soon as you start invoking scientific principles, you're inviting scientific scrutiny. So any appeal to wormholes, relativity, space-time, white holes, etc. can and will (and should) be questioned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd have any trouble admitting that your idea is just a fanciful guess. Because, and this may be me showing my cynicism, but the murky spiritual/religious/scientific divide has dozens of pseudo-scientists lining up to show us how quantum mechanics and energy fields and {insert science-y term} lead us to their personal conclusions. And, in every case I've seen so far, legitimate scientists are able to show exactly where there leaps in logic are, and what in their arguments is left wanting. This seems no different to me, just on a smaller scale. Best case scenario, you lack any evidence. Worst case, you're either misrepresenting the science behind your ideas or don't have a full enough grasp of all the mechanics involved for your ideas to be possible, let alone plausible.

I don't want to overtly attack being "open" to this kind of thinking, because I think it's mostly harmless. But it's also dangerous if you actually want to believe it, because it creates a precedent for belief that requires little to no justification. So really, my only issue may be how seriously you're taking this. Because it's not sloppy to think about stuff like this, it's creative, but it is flawed to give it too much credence.

Originally posted by Digi
Woah.

Anyway.

Shakya, I think the detractors are treating your idea this way because you're using scientific terminology in a very broad sense to justify ideas you can't possibly verify even on a theoretical level.

So if it's just a religious idea, ok, it's on level with any other religious idea. But as soon as you start invoking scientific principles, you're inviting scientific scrutiny. So any appeal to wormholes, relativity, space-time, white holes, etc. can and will (and should) be questioned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd have any trouble admitting that your idea is just a fanciful guess. Because, and this may be me showing my cynicism, but the murky spiritual/religious/scientific divide has dozens of pseudo-scientists lining up to show us how quantum mechanics and energy fields and {insert science-y term} lead us to their personal conclusions. And, in every case I've seen so far, legitimate scientists are able to show exactly where there leaps in logic are, and what in their arguments is left wanting. This seems no different to me, just on a smaller scale. Best case scenario, you lack any evidence. Worst case, you're either misrepresenting the science behind your ideas or don't have a full enough grasp of all the mechanics involved for your ideas to be possible, let alone plausible.

I don't want to overtly attack being "open" to this kind of thinking, because I think it's mostly harmless. But it's also dangerous if you actually want to believe it, because it creates a precedent for belief that requires little to no justification. So really, my only issue may be how seriously you're taking this. Because it's not sloppy to think about stuff like this, it's creative, but it is flawed to give it too much credence.

😕 I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"

Most science today, admits that the big bang is a creation of some sort. I believe that the universe has no creation. It is irrelevant if the model reflects reality. At this point no one knows. Take it at face value and tell me how can it be created.

As far as what has been posted: I am not going to get into an argument over rather what someone has said has upset me or not. That is off topic. I will help explain the model, but I can't tell you if it is true or not, but it doesn't have a beginning. If I can create a model that does not have a beginning, then it is possible to have a universe without a creation or beginning.

I am not presenting a theory or anything scientific, but I have to use the words I know to explain the model.