Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Yes.

Not yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g13EY3oEJI8

Monty Python would be the speed of your "science".

Here are more goodies that can't be quantified.

https://blog.allaboutlearningpress.c...-cant-measure/

And then you can add to those eternity since you think the universe is eternal.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here are more goodies that can't be quantified.

https://blog.allaboutlearningpress.c...-cant-measure/

Until you can define each of these "goodies" you can't say whether or not they can or can't be quantified. A dictionary will not help you here since lexicographers generally do not design their definitions with an eye toward quantification. The fact remains that the universe consists of primary particles driven by primary forces. These definitely can be quantified. Ultimately such things a love, joy, etc. are complex arrangement of the primaries, making their measurement difficult but by no means impossible. Things like love, joy, etc. are experienced by individuals who do not understand the source of these feelings and who, being part of the experiment, must necessarily affect the results, ergo, they are not in a position to make a judgement.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And then you can add to those eternity since you think the universe is eternal.

I think I've previously stated that the is finite but unbounded. That does not add up to infinite. It seems quite probable that time would also be finite but unbounded (although there is not enough data at this time to say this is definitely so). That does not add up to eternal.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Here are more goodies that can't be quantified.

You make a claim. The burden of proof is yours. So here's a challenge for you. Pick any one of these "goodies" and prove it can't be quantified.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Until you can define each of these "goodies" you can't say whether or not they can or can't be quantified. A dictionary will not help you here since lexicographers generally do not design their definitions with an eye toward quantification. The fact remains that the universe consists of primary particles driven by primary forces. These definitely can be quantified. Ultimately such things a love, joy, etc. are complex arrangement of the primaries, making their measurement difficult but by no means impossible. Things like love, joy, etc. are experienced by individuals who do not understand the source of these feelings and who, being part of the experiment, must necessarily affect the results, ergo, they are not in a position to make a judgement.

I think I've previously stated that the [sic] is finite but unbounded. That does not add up to infinite. It seems quite probable that time would also be finite but unbounded (although there is not enough data at this time to say this is definitely so). That does not add up to eternal.

I'll let you define them and tell us how they can be quantified. You're the "scientist", so go for it.

And now you're backtracking from your original claim that the universe is infinite? If the universe is infinite then it had a beginning and will have an end -- just like your life has a beginning and an end.

So, remind us again how your infinite universe came into existence. Explain to us how it created itself.

Also, define "unbounded".

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Psychology is not my field but I imagine that it would be possible to map the neurons in the brain and record which are on and which are off when a subject experiences any one of these.

I believe there is much more than just the organization and measurements of neurons.

Consciousnesses itself can be understood as a "third-party" analysis scientifically, or more directly as a "first-party" study, as in some schools of thought, as Zen Buddhism.

There is a huge difference between the two approaches. I believe in modern western philosophy it stems back to Descartes, "I think, therefore I am"

So the question of Consciousness changes everything. Particularly if experienced directly. Studying "I" is vital. Or do you think the concept of "I" is besides the point?.

YouTube (Short URL)

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'll let you define them and tell us how they can be quantified.

You pulled these rabbits out of your hat. They are yours to define.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And now you're backtracking from your original claim that the universe is infinite?

I never made such a claim. If you claim that I did then the burden of proof is yours.

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the universe is infinite then it had a beginning and will have an end --

Non sequitur! You don't understand logic.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, remind us again how your infinite universe came into existence.

I repeat, I never claimed that the universe is infinite. The burden of proof is yours.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, define "unbounded".

An ordered set is unbounded if it can be circumnavigated. The simplest example is a circle. If you travel far enough along the circle you arrive back at your starting point. The universe consists of points in space-time defined by coordinates x,y,z,t. The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation proves that x,y,z are unbounded. I think that t is also unbounded although this has yet to be proven.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You pulled these rabbits out of your hat. They are yours to define.

Well, if you don't know now by your age what love, compassion, empathy, kindness, joy, etc., etc. are, I doubt anyone could explain them to you. Anyhow...none of these are quantifiable. I have found no evidence of anyone developing a "Ricther"-type scale to measure these attributes.

I never made such a claim. If you claim that I did then the burden of proof is yours.

Non sequitur! You don't understand logic.

I repeat, I never claimed that the universe is infinite. The burden of proof is yours.

An ordered set is unbounded if it can be circumnavigated. The simplest example is a circle. If you travel far enough along the circle you arrive back at your starting point. The universe consists of points in space-time defined by coordinates x,y,z,t. The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation proves that x,y,z are unbounded. I think that t is also unbounded although this has yet to be proven.

Of course, you have. But be that as it may, explain to us how a finite universe caused itself to come into existence.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have found no evidence of anyone developing a "Ricther"-type scale to measure these attributes.

God of the gaps. Ricther developed his scale in 1935. Just because no one had developed such a scale does not mean earthquakes were not quantifiable before 1935.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... explain to us how a finite universe caused itself to come into existence.

It seems you did not understand the definition of unbounded. I seriously doubt that any future attempt to educate you would be successful since you wish to remain ignorant.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

God of the gaps. Ricther developed his scale in 1935. Just because no one had developed such a scale does not mean earthquakes were not quantifiable before 1935.

It seems you did not understand the definition of unbounded. I seriously doubt that any future attempt to educate you would be successful since you wish to remain ignorant.

Well, you made it clear that "unbounded" does not mean infinite. Therefore, if the universe is not infinite, it must be finite. Law of Excluded Middle and all that.

And my comment about the absence of evidence to date is no different than your excuse for not believing in God, i.e. you have found no evidence for his existence.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And my comment about the absence of evidence to date is no different than your excuse for not believing in God, i.e. you have found no evidence for his existence.

Shirley you can do better than that. There's a big difference. I never suggested that God suddenly ceased to exist (or suddenly popped into existence). But your claim is that the laws of physics suddenly popped into existence because we suddenly had the means to measure them. That's like claiming that Ptolemy was right and the earth was the center of the universe until Copernicus said Ptolemy was wrong, at which time the earth suddenly started going around the sun.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, you made it clear that "unbounded" does not mean infinite. Therefore, if the universe is not infinite, it must be finite. Law of Excluded Middle and all that.

Now you are backtracking on your claim that I said the universe was infinite.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Shirley you can do better than that. There's a big difference. I never suggested that God suddenly ceased to exist (or suddenly popped into existence). But your claim is that the laws of physics suddenly popped into existence because we suddenly had the means to measure them. That's like claiming that Ptolemy was right and the earth was the center of the universe until Copernicus said Ptolemy was wrong, at which time the earth suddenly started going around the sun.

You're lying. I never claimed anything about the laws of physics.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Now you are backtracking on your claim that I said the universe was infinite.

Well, you switch horses in midstream so many times, it's difficult to know your true position. But NOW -- since at this present moment -- you believe the universe is finite, then explain to us how this finite universe could have created itself.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, you switch horses in midstream so many times, it's difficult to know your true position. But NOW -- since at this present moment -- you believe the universe is finite, then explain to us how this finite universe could have created itself.

Maybe it always was? There is no reason to assume time is also infinite.

Your "God-must-be-first" infinite regress, can not be logically supported.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Maybe it always was? There is no reason to assume time is also infinite.

There is no universe without Time. Also, if the universe were eternal, there couldn't be any Change in it it; for whatever is eternal must by nature be pure existence. And this in turn implies , it must be immutable. Yet, we see all kinds of things in this universe go in and out of existence. This violates the Law of Identity!

Your "God-must-be-first" infinite regress, can not be logically supported.

There is no infinite regress with God because he is eternal and immutable. He is the Uncaused Cause who is the Final Cause of all things. He is the Unmoved Mover who ultimately causes all things to move (change).