ForumsWEPRHow old do you think the universe is?

219 30061
dr_doughnut
offline
dr_doughnut
72 posts
Peasant

I don't personally believe in billions an millions of years, but I want to know what people think.

  • 219 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

I don't need to because you Can't prove he doesn't.


Stop with the intellectual dishonesty.

You are the one making the claim God exists.
By your own admission the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" is valid.

Thus, you need to provide evidence for your claim in order for it to be valid.

FURTHER, these statements.

"I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened."
"I understand common sense though. Something that doesn't have proof to back it up is invalid."

Both were said by you. Again, by your own admission, your argument is invalid because you have no proof to back it up.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

That only goes for scientific theories.


Blatant admission for double standards much...

On what grounds does that only go for scientific theories?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

When I was using it to describe what I was talking about I said it means that things are True until proven False.


Except you've already admitted through agreeing with the logic of "innocent until proven guilty" that claims need to be backed up by proof.

I can still believe what I think is true though. And I do.


Yes, you can and no one can stop you.

But you're being so contradictory to yourself it's unbelievable.

You say that without proof something is invalid, but that doesn't apply to God. You say that a claim needs to be backed up, but God doesn't.

Why is God exempt from needing evidence to show he exists?
Why do our claims need to be proven, but yours don't?

This is just a simple double standard, one where your belief always wins because you don't need to prove it and we can't prove ours enough.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

My belief is only invalid on the grounds of being a scientific theory.


Your belief is invalid of the grounds of you having absolutely no reason to believe it, as admitted by yourself multiple times in different ways.

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.


1) Logical fallacy, Argument from Popularity. 4000 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Was it? No.
2) There are thousands of different versions of Christianity which believe various things. Your argument that they all believe in the same thing is wrong.
3) There are nearly 2 billion believers in Islam, why aren't they right? I wasn't aware that truth was a democracy.
4) No matter how many people believe something, that has no bearing on whether it is actually true. Evidence and the ability to replicate results and predict future results is the most accurate way we have of determining fact.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

Oh, forgot to repeat this, since you dodged it.

Why is God exempt from needing evidence to show he exists?
Why do our claims need to be proven, but yours don't?

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

things are True until proven False.

so any, just any, statement i make is true until proven false?
hahahaha. sorry but that is just silly.

if i accuse someone of murder then he is a murderer until he can proven he isn't.
this is "guilty until proven not guilty"

you say you understand common sense.
but do you also know how to apply it. (or logic thinking)
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,121 posts
Grand Duke

Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

Over 50% of the population of Iceland believe in trolls. The fact that ALL of them believe in trolls should be proof enough.

Now can we go back to discussing the AGE of the universe, and not whatever may have been the cause of it?
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
Shepherd

Magic: Magic Words said, Life happens
God: God says words, Breathes Life into clay figures

Even if I were to accept your completely unfalsified explanation, we're still no closer to demonstrating that your version of your god created the world.
Well because nothing can't have created it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

The Universe simply could have existed eternally. Alternatively, the universe could have been brought into existence by outside forces that were neither sentient nor capable of independent action. You havenât even demonstrated that your god is either.
Also if God didn't do it, who did?

All sorts of answers to that one. A mindless cosmic entity could have done it (Azathoth), a different god that yours could have (Marduk), an alien scientist in a different multiverse could have, the universe we know could have arose from natural processes, etc.
Okay if God didn't do it, WHAT Did.

Natural forces acting upon already existing matter in a way that we do not completely understand.
Yes. The Universe. As I stated earlier The universe created God to create the Universe to create God to Create The Universe... It's a Paradox. Simple as that.

So the universe is both capable of creating god and capable of independent action? Which of them existed first to start this cycle of creation?
I don't have any. But Since you don't have undeniable proof to prove God DOESN'T exist. You can't prove that he doesn't exist.

You donât have undeniable proof that god isnât Marduk/El/Yam/Talthamaat/Ishtar/etc. You canât prove that any of the following arenât supreme beings.
The fact that something needs to be created to exist. And something needs to create it.

No- something can exist eternally, removing the need for a creator and the problem of who created the creator.
I have none. But That won't keep me from believing that's what happened.

So there is as much evidence for your god as there is for any other?
I don't need to because you Can't prove he doesn't.

Bill Clinton is an Irish fairy with pink butterfly wings. You canât prove he isnât.
When I was using it to describe what I was talking about I said it means that things are True until proven False.

So the earth was flat until people learned that it was round? Fire was caused by Philogiston until people learned that it was the result of chemical reactions? Bill Clinton is an Irish fairy with pink butterfly wings until you prove that he isnât.
Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.

Once again, in science, you donât âproveâ anything besides mathematical equations. You demonstrate a theory by conducting research that falsifies the theory.
Over 50% of the population of America are Christian. The fact that ALL of them believe in God should be proof enough.

So, back in the Roman days, Jupiter and his crew were the actual gods? And before that, Ishtar, Marduk, and their gang?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

If we go from the assumption that the big bang which was the "start" point for our universe was the first. Can't say whether there haven't been multiple crunches or what not.


We can say it's rather likely that we haven't gone through crunches given the shape of the universe.

Magic: Magic Words said, Life happens
God: God says words, Breathes Life into clay figures

What do you know they're different.


I'm not seeing how they are different.

Yes that's Innocent until proven Guilty. They're Legally Innocent until there is sufficient evidence to prove they're guilty.


Then why are you using guilty until proven innocent for your argument?

Well when he said the words. A Big Explosion Appeared that you call the Big Bang. It was actually how the universe was created but God had to be there to cause it.


Wasn't really an explosion as it was an expansion of the universe from a singularity.

Well because nothing can't have created it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Also if God didn't do it, who did?


There was no who that did it.

As for nothing,
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/animation_lava.gif

That is what nothing looks like. Nothing on a quantum scale is something. It's thought these virtual particles are what kick started the Big Bang.
From what we see here it's likely the reason we have something instead of nothing is that it's because true nothing can't exist.

The fact that something needs to be created to exist. And something needs to create it.


Creation in the sense that we know it is only the reordering of matter/energy. It's not actually creating new matter/energy.

Yes. The Universe. As I stated earlier The universe created God to create the Universe to create God to Create The Universe... It's a Paradox. Simple as that.


That doesn't make things simple, that makes things complicated and sounds like another one of your dodges.

You don't understand. Someone Accuses you. You're brought to court. You're innocent until the person provides sufficient evidence to prove you Guilty. Innocent until proven Guilty.


You accused the creation of the universe being God. God didn't do it until you prove with sufficient evidence that God did. Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't have any. But Since you don't have undeniable proof to prove God DOESN'T exist. You can't prove that he doesn't exist.


It's no our place to prove a negative. You are making a positive claim, so it's up to yo to prove.

It's like with the claim that Bill Clinton has fairy wings. It' not up to you to disprove, but up to the person claiming he has them to prove.

Also this dodgy behavior is very irritating.

Because I believe he did.


What you believe in regards to what is true means two things, jack and squat.

Scientific Theories are based on proven facts. Beliefs are based on inferences and things you basically believe.


Then it would seem we should rely on science instead of belief for determining what is true or not.
MrMrE
offline
MrMrE
3 posts
Peasant

I said it means that things are True until proven False.

You're brought to court. You're innocent until the person provides sufficient evidence to prove you Guilty. Innocent until proven Guilty.

I just thought you would like to know... it makes you look very bad when you contradict yourself like this. And as for the "innocent until proven guilty," just because it applies in court does not necessarily mean it applies to all situations.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

just because it applies in court does not necessarily mean it applies to all situations.


It was a running metaphor for claims require evidence. Which -is- true. The greater the claim, the more evidence.

You may not need to provide evidence for everyday, unimportant things, like, "I saw a bird while driving to the mall." as that's something we see all the time. Now if you said, "I saw godzilla fighting king kong while driving to the mall" people are going to want to see pictures and evidence of destruction.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
MrMrE
offline
MrMrE
3 posts
Peasant

It was a running metaphor for claims require evidence. Which -is- true. The greater the claim, the more evidence

It wasn't the fact that he used it outside a legal situation. I agree there are many places outside of court in which the metaphor can be used. But he was saying "God exists until it is proven that He does not." Not a completely accurate statement.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

But he was saying "God exists until it is proven that He does not." Not a completely accurate statement.


It's not at all accurate of a statement.

Lets see what's been used so far in justifying God creating the universe.

"(7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion).

A quite common outcome in arguments between science and pseudoscience is when the person holding the failing position resorts to saying ââ¦well, that is my view and I am entitled to my opinion.â This is often recruited in support of the argument being made, thus implying that ones entitlement is somehow important for the truth of the argument itself. Indeed they are entitled to their opinion, but their entitlements were never in question. We are all entitled to our opinions â" but this has no consequence for the scientific truth of them and does not establish or justify the validity of them. So the problem here arises when one recruits the mere âentitlementâ (and no evidence) to a view, as some form of evidential support for the truth of the view. It is often used as a final defence mechanism when faced with quite strong counter-arguments and evidence.

The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that your individual entitlement to hold a view is no indication at all as to its validity or truth â" indeed, it is completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). When having a scientific debate, discussing evidence and theory, it makes no sense to recruit your human rights and âentitlementsâ in defence of any view. It shifts the focus from one of science, evidence, and reason to one of human rights (see Whyte, 2005). This is an irrelevant and unhelpful tangent. You are of course entitled to hold any view you please, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit that mere entitlement as some form of evidence in support of the truth of that view.

Recruiting the âIâm entitled to my opinionâ stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, âI am entitled to be wrong!â Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason. A scientist may be entitled to his / her opinion of the facts, but their entitlements do not make them correct, their data and evidence makes them correct. A scientist is entitled to believe that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, but the entitlement to that view does not make the scientist correct â" the facts gained from scientific study provide evidence â" which actually exists independent of anyoneâs view of it. Therefore, it is sound reasoning, logic, and the recruitment of supportive empirical evidence of quality that makes an argument more likely to be correct.
"

We see this fallacy with "Because I believe he did."

"(2) Science cannot disprove the paranormal â" therefore, this failure is, by default, support for the existence of paranormal phenomena.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of central principles of science. It reflects a variety of logical fallacies and mistakes of reason. These include:

1. argumentum ad ignorantiam;
2. a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence of absence and the absence of evidence;
3. a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiency;
4. a shifting of the burden of proof.

These, along with other contextual issues are discussed below.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam basically means the argument to ignorance. The underlying fallacy from the argument to ignorance is when it is argued that something must be true, purely and simply because it has not been proved to be false (or vice versa). Carroll (2004) suggests, this fallacy could also be called the âfallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contraryâ (Carroll, 2004; pp115). The fallacy of the argument to ignorance is not based in any one individual in an argument being ignorant â" it is thus not directed to the individual. The notion of ignorance relates to the form of the argument itself. In this case, to there being âno evidenceâ and thus, we are ignorant of the potential truth. The crucial point to keep in mind here is that an inability to disprove a claim does not automatically mean that the claim being made is true. An individual might make the claim that he / she can run the 100 metres sprint in under seven seconds (which would be the fastest ever recorded). However, if the person refuses to be tested in a race, our inability to falsify the claim does not make the claim true by default. If this was the case, anybody making a claim like this would be eligible for an Olympic gold medal, without ever having to run a single race!

A similar fallacious argument to ignorance would be one that states âas nobody can prove God did not create the universe, it must therefore be trueâ. The lack of evidence means nothing either way. The fallacy also works in the other direction as well. For example, a statement like; âOf course apparitions do not exist, nobody has provided any proof that they are indeed realâ is also an error in reasoning committing the same fallacy. In science, we can make the valid assumption that from the lack of evidence, something has not occurred. However, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that it has not occurred.

One mistake related to the argument to ignorance is to falsely interpret the absence of evidence as being equal to that of there being evidence of absence. Clearly they are not equal. The crucial point is that although science may not be able to disprove a claim, this is not evidence in support of the claim. Science accepts claims, not just on the basis of the absence of evidence but mainly on the presence of confirming evidence (i.e., positive evidence). There must be positive empirical evidence for accepting any claim or argument as being true. The lack of any evidence itself is not direct support of an alternative paranormal theory. It is completely neutral on the matter. The absence of evidence for Creationism does not, on its own, provide support for the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution requires its own positive evidence to establish it as a truth. The confusion over the absence of evidence being the same as evidence of absence is also related to some misunderstandings over the notion of falsification in science.

The principal of falsifiability states that in order for any claim to be held as a scientific truth â" it must be falsifiable. That is to say, we must be able to test it and falsify it. The rule of falsifiability is an assurance that if the claim being made is indeed false, then the evidence will show it is false; and if the claim is true, then the evidence will not disprove it. In the latter case we can accept the claim as a provisional account of âtruthâ until such time as further evidence is produced which disproves it (thus, it is a provisional truth). Therefore, the rule of falsifiability makes the explicit commitment that the evidence must matter and has to matter in a well reasoned scientific argument. If we cannot test the claim being made then that claim is no more true, than it is false. The problem with pseudoscience is that many of their claims are not testable â" yet this absence of evidence is often taken as direct support for the claim. As noted above, if the absence of disconfirming evidence were to be taken as proof for a claim, then it is conceivable that we could show anything to be true â" even when it is totally false. In addition to this, Lett (1990) notes, this type of faulty reasoning is also related to the concept of âsufficiencyâ. That is to say, any evidence recruited in support of a claim must be sufficient to establish the truth of that claim, in the manner in which it was made. The absence of disconfirming evidence for a particular claim, is not sufficient on its own to establish the truth of that claim. This type of reasoning is also relevant to a related error, that of it being up to science to disprove the existence of the paranormal. The discussion above shows clearly why this type of reasoning is incorrect and not a viable criticism of science at all.

Finally, another error in reasoning underlying these types of arguments relates to the burden of proof. It is not the job of science to disprove such claims (any claims). Indeed, science maintains that this is logically impossible. The burden of proof always rests with those making the claims. In other words the claimant must furnish the claim with good quality evidence, reason and logic. If a scientist argues that all species evolve through a process of natural selection, then he / she needs to support that claim with positive evidence for that process. If a parapsychologist argues that the mind is separate from the brain and can survive bodily death, then he / she also needs to support that claim with positive evidence. It is unsound to argue that the absence of evidence alone, due to:

1. a failure of science disproving claims; and
2. shifting the burden of proof onto others, somehow supports the claim being made.

The burden of providing positive evidence lies with those making the claims.
"

We see this fallacy with "I said it means that things are True until proven False."

Source
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

shape of the universe.

can you link me that link you gave me about this again.
not all astronomers have the same idea. what shape was it you said?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

can you link me that link you gave me about this again.
not all astronomers have the same idea. what shape was it you said?


I don't remember which link that was, but one of your links from back on page 6 makes mention of this.

"4. â¦nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Basically being in a flat universe we are likely not going to experience a Big Crunch but instead continue to expand experiencing a heat death of the universe. This will be because the matter/energy in the universe will be to far apart from one another to be able to interact.

I suppose one possibility would be that the universe in a previous incarnation was spherical instead of flat and the universe in that shape went through a Big Crunch, only to expand back out flat. That might make for an interesting hypothesis to look into.
Showing 106-120 of 219