A world with a loving God.

[foghorn]

All else is pure speculation.

Yes, speculation.

Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing, but I acknowledge some people might not think inflation technically supports that.

Without no space to begin with, where does that leave the uncertainty principle to start your universe?

 

[Vociferous]

Without no space to begin with, where does that leave the uncertainty principle to start your universe?

Time-energy uncertainty.

 

[foghorn]

Time-energy uncertainty.

Where is this 'Time-energy uncertainty' if not in some place ?
Are you talking of quantum foam?
Are you saying time and energy existed before space?
There's no space remember. You said ''Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing''.

 

[Vociferous]

Where is this 'Time-energy uncertainty' if not in some place ?
Are you talking of quantum foam?
Are you saying time and energy existed before space?
There's no space remember. You said ''Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing''.

Time-energy uncertainty requires no space. Space would only be necessary if there was a definite interval of time, which would then allow a definite energy. But the time-energy uncertainty means that the less time, the greater the uncertainty of the energy. This is precisely what allows for virtual particles to pop into existence from nothing. It's actually the lack of time that makes this possible. And it's not even that that energy exists before popping into existence. Here's a pretty short and simple explanation:

 

[foghorn]

Time-energy uncertainty requires no space. Space would only be necessary if there was a definite interval of time, which would then allow a definite energy. But the time-energy uncertainty means that the less time, the greater the uncertainty of the energy.

My bold above.
Quantum foam or Spacetime foam is the result of no ''definite interval of time,''.
That is something and not ''absolutely nothing''. It has spatial extent because it is happening everywhere, hence the name foam.

 

[Vociferous]

My bold above.
Quantum foam or Spacetime foam is the result of no ''definite interval of time,''.
That is something and not ''absolutely nothing''. It has spatial extent because it is happening everywhere, hence the name foam.

No, quantum fluctuations (quantum foam is a hypothesis of an, as yet, unknown theory of quantum gravity) come from "absolutely nothing", and they are a point phenomena with no extent in space. No one implied that virtual particles were, themselves, nothing. These only have spatial extent because they occur in a universe that already has space. Space is not necessary for them to occur.

 

[foghorn]

No, quantum fluctuations (quantum foam is a hypothesis of an, as yet, unknown theory of quantum gravity) come from "absolutely nothing", and they are a point phenomena with no extent in space. No one implied that virtual particles were, themselves, nothing. These only have spatial extent because they occur in a universe that already has space. Space is not necessary for them to occur.

My bold.
I don't mean to be flippant, but ''occur'' where? Where else did these quantum fluctuations ''exist'' ?
Ps. You were talking about quantum fluctuations in your last line,weren't you?

 

[Vociferous]

My bold.
I don't mean to be flippant, but ''occur'' where? Where else did these quantum fluctuations ''exist'' ?
Ps. You were talking about quantum fluctuations in your last line,weren't you?

Doesn't matter. Until there is space for virtual particles to pop into existence, the quantum fluctuations are only point energy with no extent.

 

[foghorn]

Doesn't matter. Until there is space for virtual particles to pop into existence, the quantum fluctuations are only point energy with no extent.

Actually, I'm getting confused. I thought we were talking of the beginning of your universe from absolutely nothing?
I can see the point about virtual particles appearing from the uncertainty about the energy content at a point in space in a small enough time, and hence could give rise to a particle in that place.
If there is no space then where is the uncertainty about energy content?

 

[Vociferous]

Actually, I'm getting confused. I thought we were talking of the beginning of your universe from absolutely nothing?
I can see the point about virtual particles appearing from the uncertainty about the energy content at a point in space in a small enough time, and hence could give rise to a particle in that place.
If there is no space then where is the uncertainty about energy content?

There is no "where" necessary because there is no time. It is that lack of time that makes the energy so uncertain.

 

[foghorn]

There is no "where" necessary because there is no time. It is that lack of time that makes the energy so uncertain.

My bold.

Personally, I think it can come of absolutely nothing,

If energy is a property, then what is your energy a property of, if there is '' absolutely nothing''? No space, no fields, ''no time''.
Can you give an exmple of energy without using the concept of time and place/space?

 

[spidergoat]

What's in it for him?

Moral authority.

 

[davewhite04]

Moral authority.

I can't find the post you quoted but I do remember saying it.

What "Moral authority" are you talking about?

Do you not think he has already got that?

 

[James R]

wegs:

This is from a while ago, but I didn't read the thread at the time.

But, that's where faith comes in. These ''arguments'' are so repetitive, literally the same back and forth rebuttals all day long, month after month - different threads. Faith is subjective, and I think much of our life experiences live in the cross section of objectivity and subjectivity.

I just don’t think it lends to a helpful conversation to generalize people’s beliefs as irrational, but that’s just me.

I have distinguished two types of faith elsewhere on this forum. The first we might call rational faith, which would be faith based on objective evidence and experience. Examples would be the faith that your house is built to high enough engineering standards that it won't collapse on you, or the faith that your friends will support you when you're having trouble.

The second type of faith could be called irrational faith. That type of faith is belief in the absence of good objective evidence. Religious faith is an example of this, but so is belief in most types of pseudoscience (dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, UFOs, etc.).

Irrational faith, especially of the religious kind, is often propped up by the individual's belief that he or she has had a mystical, personal, experience that cannot be objectively explained.

I think you're correct that many of those who have an irrational faith also refer when pressed to real-world evidence that they believe supports the belief that they hold on irrational grounds. Usually a lot of wishful thinking is involved, often accompanied by misinterpretation of the real-world evidence that is used to bolster the belief.

It may seem mean to point out that a person's beliefs are not held on objective, rational grounds. Whether it is morally acceptable to do so really depends on what you value, and what is most appropriate considering all the circumstances. People often value happiness or comfort over truth. As a result, they can get very upset when they find out that their beliefs aren't objectively true (or at least, objectively verifiable). A subset of those people will even go to great lengths to protect their irrational beliefs.

Nearly everyone seems to hold true to themselves, subjective beliefs...even if they're non-spiritual. Politics, different philosophies, etc. Opinions are often times, based on subjective truths, aren’t they? Just my two cents, anyways.

I agree. Again, I think that whether that is a good thing or not really depends on what you value. If you value truth over comfort, then holding true to yourself for bad reasons (i.e. irrational reasons) isn't necessarily a virtue, even if it makes you or those around you happy.

While that’s true, millions believe in God, or an afterlife or hold spiritual beliefs. And they’re intelligent and kind. They are not irrational - they just believe and place their hope in something that brings them joy and peace. Of course, some people do terrible things in light of their spiritual beliefs, but a great many don’t.

Just because somebody is intelligent or kind, it doesn't mean they are immune from irrationality. Maybe they would be just as intelligent and kind if they believed what is true, rather than believing a fantasy. Maybe they'd be more intelligent and kind.

I find faith, spirituality, religion, to be a personal thing.

Sure, but is that an excuse for irrationality?

I understand the tendency to let sleeping dogs lie, especially if they are doing no obvious harm to anything or anyone. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that approach. But irrational faith can and does often have negative impacts, both on the individual and on others whom the individual influences or exerts power over.

But, if someone is following the Bible for example, Jesus asked his followers to make disciples of all nations. That is often the ''calling'' that many Christians feel is on their hearts to share their faith. I share my faith, but it's usually within a discussion. Street evangelizing, and trying to intervene in government matters with one's religious beliefs, etc is where it all goes off the rails. Not an advocate of those 'methods.'

The idea of "following the bible" is an interesting one. Most Christians, I think it would be fair to say, don't "follow the bible". They cherry pick which parts they follow and which parts they ignore. If they are good people, their goodness doesn't come from following the bible.

Read objectively, the bible contains just as much evil and dubious morality as it does wisdom and good advice. To pick one example, it condones slavery. It does that explicitly in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the bible contains no record of Jesus ever speaking out against slavery. Most Christians these days, I think it would be fair to say, do not "follow the bible" when it comes to their attitudes to slavery. Although, having said that, I have heard a number of Christians make feeble attempts to try to excuse the slavery that is in the bible. They tie themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible because the Holy Book must be preserved at all costs.

But, the US offers everyone freedom of religion, freedom of speech, so long as you're not harming your neighbor, I'm respectful of people's right to choose. I wouldn't want to live in a country that forbid religious expression, to be honest.

The First Amendment is a strength of the US system of government, despite the endless arguments it provokes. It prevents the United States from becoming a theocracy. Ironically, though, the US is far more religious than many other nations that lack any such clause, or even a Bill of Rights of any kind.

 

[James R]

Personally, I think [the universe] can come of absolutely nothing

No you don't. You think it came from God. God isn't nothing. (Or do you think God is nothing?)

 

[wegs]

wegs:

This is from a while ago, but I didn't read the thread at the time.



I have distinguished two types of faith elsewhere on this forum. The first we might call rational faith, which would be faith based on objective evidence and experience. Examples would be the faith that your house is built to high enough engineering standards that it won't collapse on you, or the faith that your friends will support you when you're having trouble.

The second type of faith could be called irrational faith. That type of faith is belief in the absence of good objective evidence. Religious faith is an example of this, but so is belief in most types of pseudoscience (dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, UFOs, etc.).

Irrational faith, especially of the religious kind, is often propped up by the individual's belief that he or she has had a mystical, personal, experience that cannot be objectively explained.

I think you're correct that many of those who have an irrational faith also refer when pressed to real-world evidence that they believe supports the belief that they hold on irrational grounds. Usually a lot of wishful thinking is involved, often accompanied by misinterpretation of the real-world evidence that is used to bolster the belief.

It may seem mean to point out that a person's beliefs are not held on objective, rational grounds. Whether it is morally acceptable to do so really depends on what you value, and what is most appropriate considering all the circumstances. People often value happiness or comfort over truth. As a result, they can get very upset when they find out that their beliefs aren't objectively true (or at least, objectively verifiable). A subset of those people will even go to great lengths to protect their irrational beliefs.


I agree. Again, I think that whether that is a good thing or not really depends on what you value. If you value truth over comfort, then holding true to yourself for bad reasons (i.e. irrational reasons) isn't necessarily a virtue, even if it makes you or those around you happy.


Just because somebody is intelligent or kind, it doesn't mean they are immune from irrationality. Maybe they would be just as intelligent and kind if they believed what is true, rather than believing a fantasy. Maybe they'd be more intelligent and kind.


Sure, but is that an excuse for irrationality?

I understand the tendency to let sleeping dogs lie, especially if they are doing no obvious harm to anything or anyone. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that approach. But irrational faith can and does often have negative impacts, both on the individual and on others whom the individual influences or exerts power over.


The idea of "following the bible" is an interesting one. Most Christians, I think it would be fair to say, don't "follow the bible". They cherry pick which parts they follow and which parts they ignore. If they are good people, their goodness doesn't come from following the bible.

Read objectively, the bible contains just as much evil and dubious morality as it does wisdom and good advice. To pick one example, it condones slavery. It does that explicitly in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the bible contains no record of Jesus ever speaking out against slavery. Most Christians these days, I think it would be fair to say, do not "follow the bible" when it comes to their attitudes to slavery. Although, having said that, I have heard a number of Christians make feeble attempts to try to excuse the slavery that is in the bible. They tie themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible because the Holy Book must be preserved at all costs.


The First Amendment is a strength of the US system of government, despite the endless arguments it provokes. It prevents the United States from becoming a theocracy. Ironically, though, the US is far more religious than many other nations that lack any such clause, or even a Bill of Rights of any kind.

I understand your points, but believing in God (or having faith in a higher power) is irrational...to you. You can find it irrational but that doesn’t make it objectively so. On the contrary, I don’t find it irrational if someone chooses to not believe in a higher power, but it’s possibly irrational to not be open minded to why others do. If you have never really tried to understand why many people believe in God, or follow a spiritual path, then how can you be so sure that their beliefs are “irrational?”

Just because you aren’t convinced, doesn’t make the idea of having faith in God, to be irrational. It simply means that you’re not convinced.

According to Romans 7:4, Jesus “undoes” all of OT law. It’s a radical shift to caring about others under a “new covenant.” If people 1000 years from now look back to 2020, would it be fair to accuse God and/or all of humankind of condoning human trafficking? No, it wouldn’t be, yet it goes on. I’ve come to believe that the Bible is a compilation of stories that are to show the reader that societies weren’t so different from now - we still have evils in modern day society and I don’t believe God approves of them. What is unfortunate is that many people (and I was once one of them) tend to have negative views of various religions based on how the “followers” of those religions act. (Instead of looking at the beliefs, they look at the “believers” who may be twisting the beliefs to suit their own agendas)

What do you make of Exodus 6:1-8, where God basically states that he hears the cries of those praying to him, who are afflicted, and makes a way for them out of slavery? The passage appears to indicate that God doesn't want anyone to be in bondage to slavery.

An example would be of Christians holding signs in public places shouting out how this or that group is going to Hell. That isn’t “Biblical,” but it’s easy to believe that “all Christians” might actually advocate that message.

Going back to the original thread topic - I tend to believe that God is ''loving'' in that he allows us to choose to believe or not. We have the freedom to choose or not. I believe the problem comes in where believers (of different beliefs/religions) become jealous and combative, forcing their beliefs onto others. I'm not defending my beliefs, as much as defending the right to have them. I wouldn't want to be a part of a society that banned spiritual and/or religious expression.

 

[(Q)]

I understand your points, but believing in God (or having faith in a higher power) is irrational...to you. You can find it irrational but that doesn’t make it objectively so. On the contrary, I don’t find it irrational if someone chooses to not believe in a higher power, but it’s possibly irrational to not be open minded to why others do. If you have never really tried to understand why many people believe in God, or follow a spiritual path, then how can you be so sure that their beliefs are “irrational?”

Just because you aren’t convinced, doesn’t make the idea of having faith in God, to be irrational. It simply means that you’re not convinced.

If you read and understood James post, you'd realize he does understand why many people believe in God, and not just your God but the God of many other religions. He explains this but for some reason you appear to be ignoring his explanation or simply chose to disregard it, in the very same way James explains in his post as to why those beliefs are irrational.

What do you make of Exodus 6:1-8, where God basically states that he hears the cries of those praying to him, who are afflicted, and makes a way for them out of slavery? The passage appears to indicate that God doesn't want anyone to be in bondage to slavery.

And yet, God makes no commandment against slavery and we find later in the New Testament, God continues to not prohibit slavery and in fact condones it. If God doesn't want anyone to be in bondage, where are the verses that stipulate it?

Can you see how easy it is to not be convinced?

 

[wegs]

If you read and understood James post, you'd realize he does understand why many people believe in God, and not just your God but the God of many other religions. He explains this but for some reason you appear to be ignoring his explanation or simply chose to disregard it, in the very same way James explains in his post as to why those beliefs are irrational.

They are his assumptions, basically he believes that ''most'' Christians think this way or that way, because of some cherry picked verses. For example, he never asks me why I believe? Or what I believe? I can only surmise that it doesn't matter, because all believers are categorized in a similar way - we are ''irrational.'' But, honestly, I'm not seeking approval or for James to believe in my belief system. I'm more interested in just keeping religious/spiritual expression, freedom of choice.

And yet, God makes no commandment against slavery and we find later in the New Testament, God continues to not prohibit slavery and in fact condones it. If God doesn't want anyone to be in bondage, where are the verses that stipulate it?

Can you see how easy it is to not be convinced?

Romans 7:4 among other verses, discusses how Jesus came to not have people enslaved to laws from the OT. I posted that above. Doesn't seem like you're reading what I've posted.

 

[(Q)]

They are his assumptions, basically he believes that ''most'' Christians think this way or that way, because of some cherry picked verses. For example, he never asks me why I believe? Or what I believe? I can only surmise that it doesn't matter, because all believers are categorized in a similar way - we are ''irrational.'' But, honestly, I'm not seeking approval or for James to believe in my belief system. I'm more interested in just keeping religious/spiritual expression, freedom of choice.

Sure, your reasons why and what you believe are very likely different from others, but the same reasoning still applies, that there is no rationale to those beliefs, that they are beliefs based on faith and not evidence in the same way people believe in dowsing, homeopathy, astrology, UFOs, etc. That's why those beliefs are irrational, they are not logical or reasonable, by definition.

And, while it's fine to be interested in freedom of choice, there are places that demand you believe in certain irrational things and other places that do indeed give you that freedom. But, the simple question that begs an answer is why would anyone want to believe in the irrational, what purpose does that serve other than stroking ones ego.

Romans 7:4 among other verses, discusses how Jesus came to not have people enslaved to laws from the OT. I posted that above. Doesn't seem like you're reading what I've posted.

Here is what you said, which is indeed about slavery, people in bondage, not about being slaves to the OT, so yes, I did read what you posted and responded accordingly.

"What do you make of Exodus 6:1-8, where God basically states that he hears the cries of those praying to him, who are afflicted, and makes a way for them out of slavery? The passage appears to indicate that God doesn't want anyone to be in bondage to slavery."

So again, the question of God delivering people from slavery and not wanting people to be in bondage does not appear anywhere in the OT or NT, it is not a command, it isn't even a request. God allows slavery, he does not prohibit it. Yet, God gets pretty upset over such things as children talking back to their parents, for example. Yet, nothing on slavery. How can anyone want to believe in such an irrational God? How can anyone even consider this entity to be a "higher power"?

 

[wegs]

Just so I'm clear, are you replying on James' behalf? I’m a little confused in that I replied to him but then you started responding as if this is what he might say?