Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

And thus God spoke to J.LyonLayden

297 views
Skip to first unread message

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 2:55:05 AM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org


"J.LyonLayden"

> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > Seems to me that it is the only answer based on
> > firsthand evidence, and so is the only answer
> > which is *not* superstitious. Assuredly,
> > speculations about unmoved movers at the
> > beginning of the universe are all unfounded.

> I think this depends on whether you accept Hawking's
> alternative. Despite what Ron says, we do have
> scientists proposing multiple universes, virtual
> reality, an expanding and contracting universe, and
> all kinds of other complex theories to get us 'past
> the singularity." None of them seem any more
> convincing than the prime mover.

Everyone is a religious fundamentalist it seems,
always insisting upon a literal reading of
whatever it is they believe... always acting so
dogmatic...

The fact is that that there's plenty of serious
men of science looking for "God." They just have
to use a different name. And in the famous words
of Shakespeare:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet"

It doesn't matter WHAT we call something, it's
still that something.

So when science talks about God they use names
like "The Programmer" in the "Simulated Universe"
theory. Or "The Brain Universe."

...and then there's the round-about way of
looking for God in things like The One Electron
Universe theory... every electron in every
atom (etc) is the exact same electron...

So it's not like science ignores God or even
ruled out God. Science quite routinely
proposes and/or hunts for God. It simply avoids
using the name "God."

That's all.

"As long as we call God something else we'll
be okay."



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/151155459913

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 6:55:05 AM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
By nature we are wired with a tendency to seek patterns and to attribute
intentions to others (theory of mind). Ergo animism and intelligent design.
Add a further tendency to anthropomorphize and voila...god(s). The intense
motivation some feel to project a protective father figure comes from fear
of death. And to please him a rules/incentives structure is in place. The
rules come from a native sense of morality (kinship and reciprocity)
coupled with an arbitrary proximal rewarding that leads into superstitious
ritual. Eternal life in paradise is the ultimate reward subsuming all other
behavior within what amounts to a Cosmic Skinner Box of deferred reward
(heaven) and punishment (hell).

No wonder people seek their closure anywhere they can whether Behe’s IC
systems or the singularity. To admit intractable ignorance and say we don’t
know is more difficult. Uncertainty and doubt are psychologically
troubling. Highbrows thus intellectualize what is an instinctive response
to the world and through wishful thinking convince themselves God is
Reality.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 11:35:06 AM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This is because the universe has patterns and people usually have intentions.


>Ergo animism and intelligent design.

Ego evolutionary theory and pretty much every science.


> Add a further tendency to anthropomorphize and voila...god(s). The intense

Where's your evidence that all gods have been anthropomorphized? The Ainu bear god is a bear, not a bear-man, for instance. When were the Greek gods anthropomorphize?


> motivation some feel to project a protective father figure comes from fear
> of death.


Amaterasu is a female. there are many others.


>And to please him a rules/incentives structure is in place. The

You're saying this is the only reason for rules?

> rules come from a native sense of morality (kinship and reciprocity)
> coupled with an arbitrary proximal rewarding that leads into superstitious
> ritual.

Evidence? Citations?


>Eternal life in paradise is the ultimate reward subsuming all other
> behavior within what amounts to a Cosmic Skinner Box of deferred reward
> (heaven) and punishment (hell).


This is one view among many sects of Christian, not all. The idea of reincarnation in religion may be older.

>
> No wonder people seek their closure anywhere they can whether Behe’s IC
> systems or the singularity.

I don't think one has anything to do with the other. We don't know what's beyond the singularity and neither do you. We don't have an explanation for the beginning of the universe and neither do you. We don't fully understand abiogenesis and neither does your hero Dawkins. We realize that we can not yet contemplate "outside of time and space." But somehow you think you can.


>To admit intractable ignorance and say we don’t
> know is more difficult.


But the fact is we don't know jack about why anything is here. we evolved to kill other hominids, not to contemplate the universe. We're lucky we can understand as much as we do, which isn't much at all.



>Uncertainty and doubt are psychologically
> troubling. Highbrows thus intellectualize what is an instinctive response
> to the world and through wishful thinking convince themselves God is
> Reality.

Or through something called spirituality, which is personal and has nothing to do with science.

Message has been deleted

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 12:45:03 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I was watching one of those Morgan Freeman science shows and scientists from various fields showed evidence that pointed back to the unknowns of the universe. What's holding it all together, what's past the singularity, why "limiters" in the quantum universe and why hints at alternate universes, etc.

The basic conclusion was that it would be very easy to conclude an "Unmoved Mover," but that science isn't that lazy. Therefore multiple universes, expanding contracting universes, expansion of time and space with the Big Bang, and many other things were proposed.

There is nothing wrong with using Occam's Razor to say "the simplest is the best" and get on with your life.

Any explanation requires an existence outside of space and time, or nothing outside of space and time. So God isn't going away, and despite Hemidactyls wishes people who worship a God are not going to be considered sub-intelligent or bigots any time soon.



>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/151155459913


Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 2:40:03 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/14/17 9:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> [...]
> I was watching one of those Morgan Freeman science shows and scientists from various fields showed evidence that pointed back to the unknowns of the universe. What's holding it all together, what's past the singularity, why "limiters" in the quantum universe and why hints at alternate universes, etc.
>
> The basic conclusion was that it would be very easy to conclude an "Unmoved Mover," but that science isn't that lazy. Therefore multiple universes, expanding contracting universes, expansion of time and space with the Big Bang, and many other things were proposed.
>
> There is nothing wrong with using Occam's Razor to say "the simplest is the best" and get on with your life.

You hit a pet peeve of mine. Occam's Razor does not say, "The simplest
is the best." It say, "Don't multiply entities without justification."
That differs from "simplest is best" in two ways. First, it
acknowledges that less simple can be better when it is justified.
Second, it refers not to overall simplicity, but only of unjustified
entities. If you ask, "Where did my computer come from?", person A
might deluge you with circuit diagrams, software production details,
manufacturing techniques of ICs, plastics, metals, etc., while person B
says, "God made it." Person B's answer is a whole lot simpler, but it
includes one unjustified entity, which is one more than A's answer, so
Occam's Razor favors A's answer.

> Any explanation requires an existence outside of space and time, or nothing outside of space and time. So God isn't going away, and despite Hemidactyls wishes people who worship a God are not going to be considered sub-intelligent or bigots any time soon.

Yes. Religion is a cultural universal, and it will stay that way until
robots take over from humans. However, God is not a necessary part of
religion. And more important, God is neither a necessary nor a
desirable part of objective explanations.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 3:25:05 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/14/17 9:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > [...]
> > I was watching one of those Morgan Freeman science shows and scientists from various fields showed evidence that pointed back to the unknowns of the universe. What's holding it all together, what's past the singularity, why "limiters" in the quantum universe and why hints at alternate universes, etc.
> >
> > The basic conclusion was that it would be very easy to conclude an "Unmoved Mover," but that science isn't that lazy. Therefore multiple universes, expanding contracting universes, expansion of time and space with the Big Bang, and many other things were proposed.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with using Occam's Razor to say "the simplest is the best" and get on with your life.
>
> You hit a pet peeve of mine. Occam's Razor does not say, "The simplest
> is the best." It say, "Don't multiply entities without justification."

The other scenarios seem like multiplications of entities with no justification to me.


> That differs from "simplest is best" in two ways. First, it
> acknowledges that less simple can be better when it is justified.
> Second, it refers not to overall simplicity, but only of unjustified
> entities. If you ask, "Where did my computer come from?", person A
> might deluge you with circuit diagrams, software production details,
> manufacturing techniques of ICs, plastics, metals, etc., while person B
> says, "God made it." Person B's answer is a whole lot simpler, but it
> includes one unjustified entity, which is one more than A's answer, so
> Occam's Razor favors A's answer.


But in the metaphor above, circuit diagrams, software production details, manufacturing techniques of ICs, plastics, metals, etc. are analogous to multiple dimensions, pre-existing anti-matter, virtual reality programs, expanding/contracting universes, and "nothing."

But we have no evidence for the latter. We know about the former, so we can make an intelligence assessment of the situation. The singularity is quite a different scenario and the metaphor doesn't work.

In the case of the singularity, perhaps neither A nor B are favored. I think the Unmoved Mover requires less multiplication of entities, but the expanding/contracting universe might be a close tie. However, it leads to more questions. Computer programs and virtual realities lead to more causes and in the end require something else beyond time or space, which still might be called the prime mover.


All I'm saying is that since we don't know, there is no reason to try to steel the mystery of what we don't know from someone else. There is no reason to claim that no mystery exists.

I'm fully aware that my theory might not be correct, but I'm also aware that Ron's theory might not be correct.


>
> > Any explanation requires an existence outside of space and time, or nothing outside of space and time. So God isn't going away, and despite Hemidactyls wishes people who worship a God are not going to be considered sub-intelligent or bigots any time soon.
>
> Yes. Religion is a cultural universal, and it will stay that way until
> robots take over from humans. However, God is not a necessary part of
> religion. And more important, God is neither a necessary nor a
> desirable part of objective explanations.


This is true. But I don't see the point of it when referring to Ron's behavior or the subject of this post.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 3:35:03 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Yes. Religion is a cultural universal, and it will stay that way until
> robots take over from humans.
>
At the end of AI those Mecha life forms revered humans as their creator and
were stoked the robokid had memories of them. In Battlestar Galactica the
Cylons are rabid monotheists.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 4:10:06 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There is a great film, Doomsday book, by Kim Jee-woon and Yim Pil-sung,
where in the second part (The Heavenly Creature) a robot may or may not
have achieved enlightenment. Here a few glimpses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOR01USWgN0

(the first part of the film is an allusion to Genesis, coupled with an
ever-so-subtle dig at the alleged Christian dominance in South Korean
cinema)

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 4:30:05 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> The intense
> motivation some feel to project a protective
> father figure comes from fear of death. And
> to please him a rules/incentives structure
> is in place. The rules come from a native
> sense of morality (kinship and reciprocity)
> coupled with an arbitrary proximal rewarding
> that leads into superstitious ritual. Eternal
> life in paradise is the ultimate reward
> subsuming all othe behavior within what
> amounts to a Cosmic Skinner Box of deferred
> reward(heaven) and punishment (hell).

I think your reaction here is the perfect
illustration of what scientist face, and why
they always search for God by a different name.

Clearly "God" carries with it some very heavy
connotations for you... and countless others.
And as you're unwilling to drop your connotations,
and accept what they are saying to you (and ONLY
what they are saying to you) they have to hide
behind other names.

...they've got to fool you into thinking
that they're searching for something other than
God, in order to escape you and your connotations.

So, God becomes "The Programmer" or "Brain
Universe" or the electron that forms everything
out of itself... and so on and so forth.

There. Now they're happy because you're not
beating them with your emotional baggage, and
you're happy because you were never offended
by heretics who failed to share in your beliefs.

Life 101: They'll be a test on Friday!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/150878909048

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 7:05:02 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That snippet caught my interest. I will be watching the movie soon. Thanks.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 14, 2017, 11:05:02 PM12/14/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/14/17 12:20 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:40:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/14/17 9:42 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I was watching one of those Morgan Freeman science shows and scientists from various fields showed evidence that pointed back to the unknowns of the universe. What's holding it all together, what's past the singularity, why "limiters" in the quantum universe and why hints at alternate universes, etc.
>>>
>>> The basic conclusion was that it would be very easy to conclude an "Unmoved Mover," but that science isn't that lazy. Therefore multiple universes, expanding contracting universes, expansion of time and space with the Big Bang, and many other things were proposed.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with using Occam's Razor to say "the simplest is the best" and get on with your life.
>>
>> You hit a pet peeve of mine. Occam's Razor does not say, "The simplest
>> is the best." It say, "Don't multiply entities without justification."
>
> The other scenarios seem like multiplications of entities with no justification to me.
>
>
>> That differs from "simplest is best" in two ways. First, it
>> acknowledges that less simple can be better when it is justified.
>> Second, it refers not to overall simplicity, but only of unjustified
>> entities. If you ask, "Where did my computer come from?", person A
>> might deluge you with circuit diagrams, software production details,
>> manufacturing techniques of ICs, plastics, metals, etc., while person B
>> says, "God made it." Person B's answer is a whole lot simpler, but it
>> includes one unjustified entity, which is one more than A's answer, so
>> Occam's Razor favors A's answer.
>
>
> But in the metaphor above, circuit diagrams, software production details, manufacturing techniques of ICs, plastics, metals, etc. are analogous to multiple dimensions, pre-existing anti-matter, virtual reality programs, expanding/contracting universes, and "nothing."

No, they are not. The circuit diagrams etc. are known qualities. The
multiple dimensions etc. are speculations. Big difference. *Huuuge*
difference. Speculations are entities without justification, which
Occam wants to shave off.

> But we have no evidence for the latter. We know about the former, so we can make an intelligence assessment of the situation. The singularity is quite a different scenario and the metaphor doesn't work.
>
> In the case of the singularity, perhaps neither A nor B are favored. I think the Unmoved Mover requires less multiplication of entities, but the expanding/contracting universe might be a close tie. However, it leads to more questions. Computer programs and virtual realities lead to more causes and in the end require something else beyond time or space, which still might be called the prime mover.

I gather you are writing fiction there. I'll wait for the movie.

> All I'm saying is that since we don't know, there is no reason to try to steel the mystery of what we don't know from someone else. There is no reason to claim that no mystery exists.
>
> I'm fully aware that my theory might not be correct, but I'm also aware that Ron's theory might not be correct.

Speculations are a valid part of science, but there is one big problem
with them: Sometimes people think there is evidence behind them and act
accordingly. When they are properly used, they lead instead to
questions which scientists then try to answer by making predictions and
gathering data.

jillery

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 3:20:03 AM12/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Even though most variations don't include it explicitly, there is a
required addenda; "and still explains the evidence". Without that,
simplistic thinking would almost inevitably select an insufficient
answer. That's the problem with Goddidit; even though some people
think it's the simplest solution (it's not), it doesn't explain
anything.


>Any explanation requires an existence outside of space and time, or nothing outside of space and time.


ISTM your sentence above covers all possibilities, and so is a
meaningless truism.


>So God isn't going away, and despite Hemidactyls wishes people who worship a God are not going to be considered sub-intelligent or bigots any time soon.


You're likely right that God isn't going away, but not for the reasons
you stated.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 10:55:05 AM12/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In this case I really don't see where there could be a real explanation that we will ever be able to accept. We evolved to scavenge and kill other hominids, which is why we are so smart. Being able to do a little science is a byproduct of that.

We cannot visualize or even fully conceptualize anything that is "beyond time and space" and the same goes for the concept of "infinity."

So you can make up one thing that is infinite and beyond time and space or you can make up a whole bunch. None of these infinite spaceless/timeless/infinite things are likely to ever be proven.

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 15, 2017, 5:05:03 PM12/15/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
J.LyonLayden wrote:

> In this case I really don't see where there could be
> a real explanation that we will ever be able to accept.

I don't think there will be. Or, at least we need
as yet incomprehensible discoveries before we can
begin to tackle it...

If we posit an external source, all bets are off!

Why would we assume that the same rules WITHIN the
universe would apply to the environment/force that
produced it? I mean, the page of text coming out
of my printer doesn't resemble the printer at all!

And does it even matter?

From our perspective, time begins with the universe
so, from our perspective, there is literally no
"Before." This may be completely wrong from a
different perspective, but we don't have a different
perspective! So we're stuck with it...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168560639908

jillery

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 2:20:02 AM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:51:42 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
I'm not talking about explanations. I pointed out that your
description of Occam's Razor is inadequate. My impression is people
who use your description are the ones who claim Goddidit is a good
explanation, when in fact it's no explanation at all.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 2:40:02 AM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well you're right. But everything else I've seen is "no explanation at all" as well.

I think the Goddidit claim is because they believe in God anyway, and Genesis fits pretty good with Origin of Species. "Let there be light" and the Big Bang could be considered the same, since light came within a nanosecond after the bang. Some people say Genesis gets the order wrong between populating the heavens and populating the dry land, but actually winged insects seem to have evolved before fully terrestrial species.

Unless that's been updated of course; I haven't checked pre-Cambrian timelines in a few years.

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 5:10:05 AM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 15/12/2017 08:15, jillery wrote:
> Even though most variations don't include it explicitly, there is a
> required addenda; "and still explains the evidence". Without that,
> simplistic thinking would almost inevitably select an insufficient
> answer. That's the problem with Goddidit; even though some people
> think it's the simplest solution (it's not), it doesn't explain
> anything.
>

Einstein is quoted as saying "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme
goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple
and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate
representation of a single datum of experience." This is commonly
paraphrased as things should be as simple as possible but no simpler.

--
alias Ernest Major

jillery

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 5:45:05 AM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:39:02 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Not sure what explanation you're looking for. If you're looking for
an explanation to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang is a very
good explanation. Put Inflation aside, and one can still walk back
what necessarily must have happened within the Universe to within the
first 10^-32 of its beginning. With Inflation, the explanation is
pushed to the first few Plank units of time.

To assert that's "no explanation at all" is mere mindless handwaving
of the pseudo-skeptic.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 12:45:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Definitely. I consider it a fact. But what caused it?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and every reaction needs an action. Every action is, to some degree, a reaction.


> Put Inflation aside, and one can still walk back
> what necessarily must have happened within the Universe to within the
> first 10^-32 of its beginning. With Inflation, the explanation is
> pushed to the first few Plank units of time.

What was before time? How did time begin with no impetus?

>
> To assert that's "no explanation at all" is mere mindless handwaving
> of the pseudo-skeptic.

I was talking about multiple dimensions, expanding and contracting universes, computer programs, and all of the other causes scientists have put forth as a possible cause of the Big Bang.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 12:50:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 5:45:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:39:02 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 2:20:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:51:42 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 3:20:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> >In this case I really don't see where there could be a real explanation that we will ever be able to accept. We evolved to scavenge and kill other hominids, which is why we are so smart. Being able to do a little science is a byproduct of that.
> >> >
> >> >We cannot visualize or even fully conceptualize anything that is "beyond time and space" and the same goes for the concept of "infinity."
> >> >
> >> >So you can make up one thing that is infinite and beyond time and space or you can make up a whole bunch. None of these infinite spaceless/timeless/infinite things are likely to ever be proven.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not talking about explanations. I pointed out that your
> >> description of Occam's Razor is inadequate. My impression is people
> >> who use your description are the ones who claim Goddidit is a good
> >> explanation, when in fact it's no explanation at all.
> >
> >
> >Well you're right. But everything else I've seen is "no explanation at all" as well.
> >
> >I think the Goddidit claim is because they believe in God anyway, and Genesis fits pretty good with Origin of Species. "Let there be light" and the Big Bang could be considered the same, since light came within a nanosecond after the bang. Some people say Genesis gets the order wrong between populating the heavens and populating the dry land, but actually winged insects seem to have evolved before fully terrestrial species.
> >
> >Unless that's been updated of course; I haven't checked pre-Cambrian timelines in a few years.
>
>
> Not sure what explanation you're looking for. If you're looking for
> an explanation to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang is a very
> good explanation.

Definitely. I consider it a fact. But what caused it?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and every reaction needs an action. Every action is, to some degree, a reaction.


> Put Inflation aside, and one can still walk back
> what necessarily must have happened within the Universe to within the
> first 10^-32 of its beginning. With Inflation, the explanation is
> pushed to the first few Plank units of time.

What was before time? How did time begin with no impetus?

>
> To assert that's "no explanation at all" is mere mindless handwaving
> of the pseudo-skeptic.

I was talking about multiple dimensions, expanding and contracting universes, computer programs, and all of the other causes scientists have put forth as a possible impetus for the Big Bang. The Prime Mover is one explanation provided by science, just like the others.


jillery

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 4:35:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 09:46:31 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

I noticed that you often, though not always, make duplicate posts. I
know that some people worry their posts are lost when they don't
appear immediately. But in fact, a delay of several minutes is quite
normal, and should be expected.

If you're duplicating posts on purpose, it's almost never necessary,
and tends to destroy continuity in threads where there are several
posters replying. Just sayin'.

jillery

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 4:35:03 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 09:40:00 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
AIUI none of the speculations you mention above are put forth as
causes of BB. To the contrary, multiple dimensions are a likely
effect of Inflation, while expanding and contracting universes,
computer programs, et al are alternatives to BB.

Keep in mind that all origin stories necessarily reach a point of an
unproved assumed first cause. Just because you can rightfully
identify points of ignorance, doesn't justify you handwaving away
other points of knowledge, ex. ignorance about abiogenesis doesn't
negate knowledge of Evolution.

To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 16, 2017, 6:00:02 PM12/16/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 3:20:05 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
your expressed points of view, why bother?

Jonathan

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 8:20:05 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Problem is science has moved on since then, and the
new view is the laws of nature and reality are
best seen in the most complex the universe has
to offer.

In a sandpile not a particle of sand.

Just as a larger statistical sample better
shows the underlying behavior than a
small sample.

For instance, is stock market behavior
better understood by looking at a
very small or barely changing company?

Or by looking at the far more complex
and dynamic market as a whole?

But of course such new ideas are totally lost
on an ng that can't even define complexity
and like the Church of the Inquisition
declares such new ideas blasphemy to be
ignored and silenced.

And just to save them from having to
do some homework, pretty sad state
of affairs.




--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

“But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness
like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 8:40:03 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2017 5:09 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 08:15, jillery wrote:
>>> Even though most variations don't include it explicitly, there is a
>>> required addenda; "and still explains the evidence".  Without that,
>>> simplistic thinking would almost inevitably select an insufficient
>>> answer. That's the problem with Goddidit; even though some people
>>> think it's the simplest solution (it's not), it doesn't explain
>>> anything.
>>>
>>
>> Einstein is quoted as saying "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme
>> goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple
>> and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate
>> representation of a single datum of experience." This is commonly
>> paraphrased as things should be as simple as possible but no simpler.
>>
>
>
>
> Problem is science has moved on since then, and the
> new view is the laws of nature and reality are
> best seen in the most complex the universe has
> to offer.
>
> In a sandpile not a particle of sand.
>
Since this dumbfounded Ray maybe you could do better. At what point do we
go from grains of sand to pile and transcend the grains themselves? Can
emergent properties cope with Sorites? Can you?

> Just as a larger statistical sample better
> shows the underlying behavior than a
> small sample.
>
Because larger sample is hopefully more representative. Hence the sinister
reductionistic concept of genetic drift the stupid evolutionists stuck in
20th century still champion.

And this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html
>
> For instance, is stock market behavior
> better understood by looking at a
> very small or barely changing company?
>
> Or by looking at the far more complex
> and dynamic market as a whole?
>
Way OT. More to the point economic theory tends to assume rational actors
and discounts ignorance. Evolutionary theory can show humans carry
distorting psychological biases. But that’s reductionism. Evil specter.
>
> But of course such new ideas are totally lost
> on an ng that can't even define complexity
> and like the Church of the Inquisition
> declares such new ideas blasphemy to be
> ignored and silenced.
>
> And just to save them from having to
> do some homework, pretty sad state
> of affairs.
>
Ever hear of Sewall Wright? If not do some homework and get back to us.
Otherwise you will be stuck reinventing the wheel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift





J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 9:55:06 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:20:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:59:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
> >> anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
> >> Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
> >> and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?
> >
> >Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?
>
>
> If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
> your expressed points of view, why bother?


Pout? Should I have not answered your question?

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 10:40:05 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:20:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:59:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
> >> anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
> >> Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
> >> and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?
> >
> >Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?
>
>
> If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
> your expressed points of view, why bother?

I am guessing you are interested in debating this. Although I am not really qualified, I'll indulge your desire a bit more.

Here are the causes of the Big Bang as described in Wikipedia:

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[115] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles[116] has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[117][118] Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[119][120] Some also argue that nothing cannot exist or that non-existence might never have been an option.[121][122][123][124] Quantum fluctuations, or other laws of physics that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang could then create the conditions for matter to occur.

This section refers to another section for more reading:
Problem of why there is anything at all
The question "Why is there anything at all?", or, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been raised or commented on by philosophers including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[4] Martin Heidegger − who called it the fundamental question of metaphysics[5][6][7] − and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[8]
The question is general, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific such as the universe/s, the Big Bang, mathematical laws, physical laws, time, consciousness or God. It can be seen as an open metaphysical question.[9][10][11][12]


The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or The Absolute.
Criticism of the question's adequacy[edit]
Some argue that the question may be inherently illogical; if the universe had no beginning point then its non-existence might never have been an option.[13] One study has suggested a model that eliminates the initial singularity and predicts that the Universe had no beginning but existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before 'collapsing' into the Big Bang's hot dense state.[14][15][16] In other research a possible consequence of "rainbow gravity" might be that the universe had no beginning with time stretching back infinitely without an initial singularity and Big Bang.[17] Similarly physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang, but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[18][19] A related view from Augustine of Hippo is that time is part of God's creation.

Philosopher Stephen Law has said the question may not need answering, as it is attempting to answer a question that is outside a spatio-temporal setting, from within a spatio-temporal setting. He compares the question to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"[20] Similarly Gödel's incompleteness theorems suggest that the question cannot be answered from inside our system, as it applies to our system and its superset. It may be that nothing cannot exist.[21][22][23][24][25] Nothing might be a human concept that is only a construct and inappropriate for a description of a possible alternative reality, state, or absence of state. Philosopher Bede Rundle[26] has also questioned whether nothing can exist.[27]

On cause[edit]
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the notion of an uncaused cause was non-sensical, and that the universe was eternal.[citation needed]

David Hume argued that, whilst we expect everything to have a cause because of our experience of the necessity of causes, that a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe, which is outside our experience.[28]

Bertrand Russell said "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all",[29] a "brute fact" position also taken by physicist Sean Carroll.[30]

Philosopher Brian Leftow has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a contingent explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e. something that just exists, rather than is caused).[31]

Explanations[edit]

Timeline of the (observable) universe from the Big Bang to the present: why does it exist?
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[32] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[33][34] (Particles can emerge from nothing under the effects of quantum physics and possibly under other physical laws that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang.)

In popular culture[edit]
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a comic science fiction series created by Douglas Adams, hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional aliens request an answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. Deep Thought takes 7½ million years to compute the answer, which turns out to be "42".

Which of these do you feel are more scientific that the Unmoved or Prime Mover?

The Unmoved Mover entry is longer than either of the two entries above, so i will post the summary and a link:

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ,[1] ho ou kinoúmenos kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[2] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:10:05 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 06:53:25 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:20:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:59:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
>> >> anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
>> >> Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
>> >> and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?
>> >
>> >Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?
>>
>>
>> If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
>> your expressed points of view, why bother?
>
>
>Pout? Should I have not answered your question?


Sorry, but your snark doesn't qualify as an answer. You say nothing
about what is predicted by assuming the existence of an infinite God.

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:20:05 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:34:56 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:20:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:59:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> To argue that science must know everything before you will accept
>> >> anything is a lazy way to avoid recognizing the better inferences.
>> >> Inflation and the BB successfully predicted quite a few observations
>> >> and refuted other possibilities. What does Goddidit predict?
>> >
>> >Perhaps it doesn't. It may just be easier in my little mortal mind to visualize a deity than it is to visualize infinity or absence of time and space. And since I personally know there's a God through non-scientific means already, why bother?
>>
>>
>> If you're going to pout any time someone posts an objection to one of
>> your expressed points of view, why bother?
>
>I am guessing you are interested in debating this. Although I am not really qualified, I'll indulge your desire a bit more.
>
>Here are the causes of the Big Bang as described in Wikipedia:
>
>Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[115] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles[116] has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[117][118] Physics may conclude that time did not exist before 'Big Bang', but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[119][120] Some also argue that nothing cannot exist or that non-existence might never have been an option.[121][122][123][124] Quantum fluctuations, or other laws of physics that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang could then create the conditions for matter to occur.
>
>This section refers to another section for more reading:
>Problem of why there is anything at all
>The question "Why is there anything at all?", or, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been raised or commented on by philosophers including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[4] Martin Heidegger ? who called it the fundamental question of metaphysics[5][6][7] ? and Ludwig Wittgenstein.[8]
>The question is general, rather than concerning the existence of anything specific such as the universe/s, the Big Bang, mathematical laws, physical laws, time, consciousness or God. It can be seen as an open metaphysical question.[9][10][11][12]
>
>
>The circled dot was used by the Pythagoreans and later Greeks to represent the first metaphysical being, the Monad or The Absolute.
>Criticism of the question's adequacy[edit]
>Some argue that the question may be inherently illogical; if the universe had no beginning point then its non-existence might never have been an option.[13] One study has suggested a model that eliminates the initial singularity and predicts that the Universe had no beginning but existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before 'collapsing' into the Big Bang's hot dense state.[14][15][16] In other research a possible consequence of "rainbow gravity" might be that the universe had no beginning with time stretching back infinitely without an initial singularity and Big Bang.[17] Similarly physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang, but 'started' with the Big Bang and hence there might be no 'beginning', 'before' or potentially 'cause' and instead always existed.[18][19] A related view from Augustine of Hippo is that time is part of God's creation.
>
>Philosopher Stephen Law has said the question may not need answering, as it is attempting to answer a question that is outside a spatio-temporal setting, from within a spatio-temporal setting. He compares the question to asking "what is north of the North Pole?"[20] Similarly Gödel's incompleteness theorems suggest that the question cannot be answered from inside our system, as it applies to our system and its superset. It may be that nothing cannot exist.[21][22][23][24][25] Nothing might be a human concept that is only a construct and inappropriate for a description of a possible alternative reality, state, or absence of state. Philosopher Bede Rundle[26] has also questioned whether nothing can exist.[27]
>
>On cause[edit]
>Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the notion of an uncaused cause was non-sensical, and that the universe was eternal.[citation needed]
>
>David Hume argued that, whilst we expect everything to have a cause because of our experience of the necessity of causes, that a cause may not be necessary in the case of the formation of the universe, which is outside our experience.[28]
>
>Bertrand Russell said "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all",[29] a "brute fact" position also taken by physicist Sean Carroll.[30]
>
>Philosopher Brian Leftow has argued that the question cannot have a causal explanation (as any cause must itself have a cause) or a contingent explanation (as the factors giving the contingency must pre-exist), and that if there is an answer it must be something that exists necessarily (i.e. something that just exists, rather than is caused).[31]
>
>Explanations[edit]
>
>Timeline of the (observable) universe from the Big Bang to the present: why does it exist?
>Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[32] Philosopher of physics Dean Rickles has argued that numbers and mathematics (or their underlying laws) may necessarily exist.[33][34] (Particles can emerge from nothing under the effects of quantum physics and possibly under other physical laws that may have existed at the start of the Big Bang.)
>
>In popular culture[edit]
>In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a comic science fiction series created by Douglas Adams, hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional aliens request an answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. Deep Thought takes 7½ million years to compute the answer, which turns out to be "42".
>
>Which of these do you feel are more scientific that the Unmoved or Prime Mover?
>
>The Unmoved Mover entry is longer than either of the two entries above, so i will post the summary and a link:
>
>The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ? ?? ?????????? ?????,[1] ho ou kinoúmenos kineî, "that which moves without being moved") or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[2] As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek "?") of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover


I missed the part where you identified what of the above obfuscation
you think is relevant to your claim, that Goddidit is an equivalent
assumption to the BigBang.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:30:03 AM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I don't see a difference between "the Unmoved Mover" and "Godditit," and none of the other causes or lack of causes has any more proof than the Unmoved Mover.

Why do I choose the Unmoved Mover instead of one of the others? because I have trouble conceptualizing "Nothing" and "Infinity," just as the philosophers opposed to the Unmoved Mover above use as their argument against it. We cannot conceptualize beyond space and time. I cannot conceptualize a no-cause scenario for the Big Bang. Therefore it is beyond my ability. It is easier to conceptualize on infinite thing than a whole bunch, for me at least.

Now, the Unmoved Mover may not be God. Or the Unmoved Mover could be dead.

That is totally separate question, and the only excuse I have is my own personal spirituality.

That's not pouting, it's just a fact about my psyche.

I never siad God was an equal assumption to the Big Bang, and if I did it must have been a writing error, because I have never believed that.

I think God, or the Unmoved Mover, is an equal assumption to any other presented as to what CAUSED the Big Bang. And I think there was a cause, despite what a minority of philosophers say.


Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 12:30:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/16/17 9:40 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 5:45:05 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>>
>> Not sure what explanation you're looking for. If you're looking for
>> an explanation to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang is a very
>> good explanation.
>
> Definitely. I consider it a fact. But what caused it?
>
> Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and every reaction needs an action. Every action is, to some degree, a reaction.
>
>
>> Put Inflation aside, and one can still walk back
>> what necessarily must have happened within the Universe to within the
>> first 10^-32 of its beginning. With Inflation, the explanation is
>> pushed to the first few Plank units of time.
>
> What was before time? How did time begin with no impetus?

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, especially when you don't know.

There are two relevant points which I think are safe to make. First,
virtually everything we know about how the universe works now does not
apply to how the universe originated. That includes concepts such as
time and causality. Second, any answer (or partial answer) to the
origin of the universe will be expressed in mathematics, because normal
language will not work to explain it. And it is possible that even
mathematics will not suffice, and the word "virtually" in my first point
should be replaced with "absolutely".

Not that I think we should stop trying. Getting closer and closer to
time=0 will be interesting on its own. If technological advancement
continues for the next three centuries as it has for the last three, I
think it is likely we will be able to make new universes of our own.
But even that would not tell us the origin of our own. Still, the
speculations will always have applications for science fiction.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 12:40:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Absolutely!

To Jillery: Mark may be a better person to debate this with. I think he knows more about this particular subject than I do.

Jonathan

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 1:05:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You're not only 25 years behind the times but
not able to understand that you are.


s

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 3:15:05 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak wrote:

> There are two relevant points which I think are safe to make. First,
> virtually everything we know about how the universe works now does not
> apply to how the universe originated.

So obvious that I would argue it's a fact, but
there are many people with lots of letters after
their name who seem to think otherwise.

> That includes concepts such as
> time and causality.

Absolutely.

If time was created with our universe, as part of
our universe, then there is no such thing as
"Before."

There can't be.

So in order to even ask "What came before" you need
to first argue that time exists independent of the
universe.

...but then we remind everyone that it's not
"Time" so much as "Spacetime," so space would have
to exist as well.

And "Spacetime" isn't nothing. It's something. It
can even be bent!

So, there. In order to ask "What came first" we have
to assume not only that something came first, but
we have to assume what that something was!

Not very logical and by that I mean not logical at
all...

Of course, this is all going by our limited perspective
as humans, and may not in fact apply at all.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168621671858

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 3:25:04 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You have not shown yourself to be a reliable source of knowledge on
anything. You are full of bluff and bluster. Or all hat and no cattle. You
spew copypaste, but when called out you resort to vacuous insult.

If you cannot make substantive commentary you are a waste of time.



jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 5:05:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:28:58 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>I don't see a difference between "the Unmoved Mover" and "Godditit," and none of the other causes or lack of causes has any more proof than the Unmoved Mover.


Nobody mentioned "proof". But if you really meant evidence, then when
a hypothesis successfully predicts a number of observations, and
excludes others, that is good evidence said hypothesis is reasonably
accurate. BB predicted CMB in specific detail. So once again, what
has Goddidit/unmoved mover predicted?


>Why do I choose the Unmoved Mover instead of one of the others? because I have trouble conceptualizing "Nothing" and "Infinity," just as the philosophers opposed to the Unmoved Mover above use as their argument against it. We cannot conceptualize beyond space and time. I cannot conceptualize a no-cause scenario for the Big Bang. Therefore it is beyond my ability. It is easier to conceptualize on infinite thing than a whole bunch, for me at least.


How do you choke on your skepticism about BB, but swallow your
credulity of your unmoved mover? Instead, why not ignore both, and
move on to the effects predicted by them? There are differences
between them.


>Now, the Unmoved Mover may not be God. Or the Unmoved Mover could be dead.
>
>That is totally separate question, and the only excuse I have is my own personal spirituality.
>
>That's not pouting, it's just a fact about my psyche.
>
>I never siad God was an equal assumption to the Big Bang, and if I did it must have been a writing error, because I have never believed that.
>
>I think God, or the Unmoved Mover, is an equal assumption to any other presented as to what CAUSED the Big Bang. And I think there was a cause, despite what a minority of philosophers say.


Ok, I accept your correction above, but it still misses the point.
Once again, in any origin narrative, there is necessarily an unproved
first cause, an assumed postulate. So my objection isn't that you
accept an uncaused cause, because everybody does. Instead, my point
is that your uncaused cause doesn't explain how or why it caused the
Big Bang, and so is an unnecessary actor in your narrative. Logically,
you might as well start with the Big Bang as your uncaused cause.

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 5:05:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I have two problems with your suggestion above:

1) I don't disagree with what Mark Isaak wrote above, and

2) Mark Isaak isn't the one who claimed scientific theories and
Goddidit were equivalent.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 7:10:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What is CMB?
How can the Big Bang predict something?
People try to figure out the CAUSE of the Big Bang.
The CAUSE of the Big Bang is not the Big Bang itself.

The CAUSE of the Big Bang is as of yet a complete unknown, and yet there are several theories on the CAUSE of the Big Bang. there are also theories that the BIG BANG does not need a cause.

I think that to believe that the Big Bang did not have a cause takes an abandonment of "common sense." Gut feeling if you will. The inability to conceptualize something so huge and rare just happeneing for no reason or casue whatsoever. Even when things appear out of nothing at the quantum level, we still assume that there is a cause we don't know about yet.

If you think I'm stupid for not being able to accept that there is no cause, just say so. And we can end this waste of time.


>
>
> >Why do I choose the Unmoved Mover instead of one of the others? because I have trouble conceptualizing "Nothing" and "Infinity," just as the philosophers opposed to the Unmoved Mover above use as their argument against it. We cannot conceptualize beyond space and time. I cannot conceptualize a no-cause scenario for the Big Bang. Therefore it is beyond my ability. It is easier to conceptualize on infinite thing than a whole bunch, for me at least.
>
>
> How do you choke on your skepticism about BB,



I have no skepticism about the Big Bang! Where are you getting this?

The Big Bang happened. How many times do I need to say it before you'll believe me?





but swallow your
> credulity of your unmoved mover? Instead, why not ignore both, and
> move on to the effects predicted by them?


Effects? You mean the unfolding of the universe and evolution? I have moved on to those. I am only thinking about the Big Bang because you are insisting that I do so.



There are differences
> between them.
>
>
> >Now, the Unmoved Mover may not be God. Or the Unmoved Mover could be dead.
> >
> >That is totally separate question, and the only excuse I have is my own personal spirituality.
> >
> >That's not pouting, it's just a fact about my psyche.
> >
> >I never siad God was an equal assumption to the Big Bang, and if I did it must have been a writing error, because I have never believed that.
> >
> >I think God, or the Unmoved Mover, is an equal assumption to any other presented as to what CAUSED the Big Bang. And I think there was a cause, despite what a minority of philosophers say.
>
>
> Ok, I accept your correction above, but it still misses the point.
> Once again, in any origin narrative, there is necessarily an unproved
> first cause, an assumed postulate. So my objection isn't that you
> accept an uncaused cause, because everybody does. Instead, my point
> is that your uncaused cause doesn't explain how or why it caused the
> Big Bang, and so is an unnecessary actor in your narrative. Logically,
> you might as well start with the Big Bang as your uncaused cause.


God is eternal in a way my mortal mind cannot understand. I don't know if he did it with a magic wand or whether by some science that exists beyond time and space that I can't possibly conceive of. I don't know whether he had a band of angels do it or whether he was a big energy ball that shat out the Big Bang.

I don't know how many steps there were between God and the Big Bang.


I don't really give a shit about the Big Bang and I'm really tired of talking about it. But nothing you can do or say is going to make me think that something other than an Unmoved Mover is a better explanation for the CAUSE of the Big Bang unless you provide scientific evidence.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 7:15:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation. I am sorry for pissing in your cornflakes for equating the Unmoved Mover to God.

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 8:40:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:06:42 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Cosmic Microwave Background (GIYF).


>How can the Big Bang predict something?


How do you think it can't? BB was an event. Events have effects.
Different events have different effects. Are you really challenging
this?


>People try to figure out the CAUSE of the Big Bang.


People also try to figure out the effects of the Big Bang, to see if
observations match theory. It's part of the scientific process. Look
it up.


>The CAUSE of the Big Bang is not the Big Bang itself.


And how 'bout them Mets.


>The CAUSE of the Big Bang is as of yet a complete unknown, and yet there are several theories on the CAUSE of the Big Bang. there are also theories that the BIG BANG does not need a cause.


To be precise, there are several hypotheses on the cause of BB, some
of which make better predictions than others.


>I think that to believe that the Big Bang did not have a cause takes an abandonment of "common sense." Gut feeling if you will. The inability to conceptualize something so huge and rare just happeneing for no reason or casue whatsoever. Even when things appear out of nothing at the quantum level, we still assume that there is a cause we don't know about yet.
>
>If you think I'm stupid for not being able to accept that there is no cause, just say so. And we can end this waste of time.


"Stupid" is *your* word. Nowhere have I stated or implied any such
opinion. I resent your baseless and unjustified implication that I
have.


>> >Why do I choose the Unmoved Mover instead of one of the others? because I have trouble conceptualizing "Nothing" and "Infinity," just as the philosophers opposed to the Unmoved Mover above use as their argument against it. We cannot conceptualize beyond space and time. I cannot conceptualize a no-cause scenario for the Big Bang. Therefore it is beyond my ability. It is easier to conceptualize on infinite thing than a whole bunch, for me at least.
>>
>>
>> How do you choke on your skepticism about BB, but swallow your
>> credulity of your unmoved mover? Instead, why not ignore both, and
>> move on to the effects predicted by them? There are differences between them.
>
>
>
>I have no skepticism about the Big Bang! Where are you getting this?
>
>The Big Bang happened. How many times do I need to say it before you'll believe me?


I restored my comment back to its original form, to show that my point
isn't about skepticism of any particular assumption, but that said
skepticism doesn't keep you from separately evaluating the rest of the
narrative.


>Effects? You mean the unfolding of the universe and evolution? I have moved on to those. I am only thinking about the Big Bang because you are insisting that I do so.


If I am "insisting" that you do so, it is only because you are
"insisting" Goddidit is equivalent, when by any reasonable measure
they are not.


>> >Now, the Unmoved Mover may not be God. Or the Unmoved Mover could be dead.
>> >
>> >That is totally separate question, and the only excuse I have is my own personal spirituality.
>> >
>> >That's not pouting, it's just a fact about my psyche.
>> >
>> >I never siad God was an equal assumption to the Big Bang, and if I did it must have been a writing error, because I have never believed that.
>> >
>> >I think God, or the Unmoved Mover, is an equal assumption to any other presented as to what CAUSED the Big Bang. And I think there was a cause, despite what a minority of philosophers say.
>>
>>
>> Ok, I accept your correction above, but it still misses the point.
>> Once again, in any origin narrative, there is necessarily an unproved
>> first cause, an assumed postulate. So my objection isn't that you
>> accept an uncaused cause, because everybody does. Instead, my point
>> is that your uncaused cause doesn't explain how or why it caused the
>> Big Bang, and so is an unnecessary actor in your narrative. Logically,
>> you might as well start with the Big Bang as your uncaused cause.
>
>
>God is eternal in a way my mortal mind cannot understand. I don't know if he did it with a magic wand or whether by some science that exists beyond time and space that I can't possibly conceive of. I don't know whether he had a band of angels do it or whether he was a big energy ball that shat out the Big Bang.
>
>I don't know how many steps there were between God and the Big Bang.
>
>
>I don't really give a shit about the Big Bang and I'm really tired of talking about it. But nothing you can do or say is going to make me think that something other than an Unmoved Mover is a better explanation for the CAUSE of the Big Bang unless you provide scientific evidence.


So while you're not giving a shit, consider why you strain on the gnat
of a cause for BB, but swallow the camel of an unevidenced eternal
God.

jillery

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 8:40:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:10:21 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Don't just assert it, that's just opinion. Like assholes, everybody
has one. In addition, explain how you think the unmoved mover is a

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 8:55:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> 2) Mark Isaak isn't the one who claimed scientific theories and
> Goddidit were equivalent.

Science did that.

Start with the "Simulated Universe" theory.

It's simply the search for God by another name:

"Programmer."

Of course this and other examples have been brought
up before, and you mental "Issues" never allowed
you to acknowledge let alone address them. There's
no reason to suspect that your "Issues" will do so
now.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167971863023

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 9:00:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I already told you I'm sick of this stupid conversation. Should i go ahead and killfile you? It's that what you're wanting?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 10:25:02 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Good Lord. Look up philosophy, then looked up Unmoved Mover.

NO SCIENTIFIC CAUSE IS ANY BETTER!

NOT ONE!

NONE!

NOT ANY!

Prove that one has more evidence than the Unmoved Mover, angry woman!



I am not interested in carrying on long ridiculous conversations with you every time you get offended by the idea of God or the lack of atheists in the world.

Rant all you want. I will not read anything you write for a while, and if I see you are responding to me on every post I will kill-file you in 7 days.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:35:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> [...]
> The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.

The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical concept, not a theory. It has
never been scientific in the modern understanding of science. I doubt
any cosmologists take it seriously at all. It is worthless as an
explanation.

> I am sorry for pissing in your cornflakes for equating the Unmoved Mover to God.

Given Aquinas' use of the term, I don't see how "Unmoved Mover" could
plausibly refer to anything besides God, unless the person using the
term specifically ruled out that meaning.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 17, 2017, 11:55:03 PM12/17/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > [...]
> > The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
>
> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical concept, not a theory. It has
> never been scientific in the modern understanding of science. I doubt
> any cosmologists take it seriously at all. It is worthless as an
> explanation.


I consider philosophy a science. I have read all the theories on the cause of the Big Bang. None of them seem any more plausible to me. I have told Jillery that I don't care to discuss this. If you would like to think I'm stupid for not favoring one of the theories you think is more plausible, that is fine with me. I assure you I have read them and understood them to the best of my ability. You guys have fun.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:20:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I want to add more thing. If Ron or someone else on this forum starts telling a possibly confused person who doesn't even understand evolution yet, let alone the Big Bang, that the only explanation for the Big Bang is one of the three to five of modern consensus....I WILL want to discuss it again.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 19:23:43 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Good Lord. Look up philosophy, then looked up Unmoved Mover.
>
>NO SCIENTIFIC CAUSE IS ANY BETTER!
>
>NOT ONE!
>
>NONE!
>
>NOT ANY!
>
>Prove that one has more evidence than the Unmoved Mover, angry woman!


Ah yes, argument by all-caps and insult, the hallmark of a troll at a
loss for words.


>I am not interested in carrying on long ridiculous conversations with you every time you get offended by the idea of God or the lack of atheists in the world.
>
>Rant all you want. I will not read anything you write for a while, and if I see you are responding to me on every post I will kill-file you in 7 days.


Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with your
irrational crap.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:54:50 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>and you mental "Issues"


It's your mental "issues" you see in the mirror. Take your meds.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:04:14 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Good Lord you're stupid. Look up philosophy, then looked up Unmoved Mover.
>
>NO SCIENTIFIC CAUSE IS ANY BETTER!
>
>NOT ONE!
>
>NONE!
>
>NOT ANY!
>
>Good lord I bet you're ugly, and I bet your voice sounds like scraping metal.


Ah yes, argument by all-caps and personal insult, the hallmark of a
troll at a loss for words.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:57:34 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I already told you I'm sick of this stupid conversation.


Then stop posting your stupid conversation. Does somebody have a gun
to your head?


>Should i go ahead and killfile you?


Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with this kind
of irrational crap.


>It's that what you're wanting?


Since you asked, what I am wanting is a reasoned reply from a
reasoning adult, not from a spoiled brat stomping his feet, or from a
deranged lunatic off his meds.

You're welcome.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:10:08 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am not interested in carrying on long dumb conversations with you evvery time you get offended by the idea of God or the lack of atheists in the world.
>Rant all you want. I will not read anything you write for a while, and if I see you are responding to me on every post I will kill-file you in 7 days.


Not on GG you won't. But do what you think is best. You don't need
my permission. All the better if you don't reply to me with your
irrational crap.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:35:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:00:04 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Wonderful. Rot in hell, bitch.


I must have hit a nerve. Poor baby.

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:05:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> Then stop posting your stupid conversation. Does somebody have a gun
> to your head?

This just keeps getting funnier & funnier...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:10:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> It's

You still didn't deal with it, you may have
noticed. Or, your mental "Issues" may allow
you to conceal this fact from yourself.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168658548153

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:55:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yes it did hit a nerve you are THE most dispicable person I have ever encountered on line. You got your panties in a wad the first time I came back to this forum about describing EXACTLY what you have just done. Your little bitty mind can't even grasp what Harshman and Eric have been explaining to you enough to make a logical argument. You sound like a junior high school kid trying to sound smart.

I am sorry the idea of a God scares your tiny self-righteous mind so bad but no matter how vile you want to be, ALL explanations for the Big Bang right now are not much better than a smart stoner's late night musings.

The stupidity it must take to only consider the various explanations in wikipedia for the absolute UNKNOWN of what's beyond the singularity is unimaginable.

We don't fucking know, bitch. Live with it. Deal with it. I'm sorry if the mere idea that a God might exist terrifies you to the bones. I'm sorry it makes you so angry that you have to apply confusion and bullshit to try and win an argument. I'm sorry I tried to re-explain the same thing to a child over and over and over again for days.

I am allowed an opinion. When someone debates the same boring shit with you for 3 fucking days and you still can't grasp their position, but instead continue to labor the same bullshit drivel, expect them to get a little miffed.

I told you I didn't want to debate it anymore. what makes you so brain-dead that you continue? What was the expected result? Just shear hatred of the world for being born with a dog's face and a little mind?


jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 2:50:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:51:39 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:00:04 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Wonderful. Rot in hell, bitch.
>>
>>
>> I must have hit a nerve. Poor baby.
>
>Yes it did hit a nerve you are THE most dispicable person I have ever encountered on line. You got your panties in a wad the first time I came back to this forum about describing EXACTLY what you have just done. Your little bitty mind can't even grasp what Harshman and Eric have been explaining to you enough to make a logical argument. You sound like a junior high school kid trying to sound smart.
>
>I am sorry the idea of a God scares your tiny self-righteous mind so bad but no matter how vile you want to be, ALL explanations for the Big Bang right now are not much better than a smart stoner's late night musings.
>
>The stupidity it must take to only consider the various explanations in wikipedia for the absolute UNKNOWN of what's beyond the singularity is unimaginable.
>
>We don't fucking know, bitch. Live with it. Deal with it. I'm sorry if the mere idea that a God might exist terrifies you to the bones. I'm sorry it makes you so angry that you have to apply confusion and bullshit to try and win an argument. I'm sorry I tried to re-explain the same thing to a child over and over and over again for days.
>
>I am allowed an opinion. When someone debates the same boring shit with you for 3 fucking days and you still can't grasp their position, but instead continue to labor the same bullshit drivel, expect them to get a little miffed.
>
>I told you I didn't want to debate it anymore. what makes you so brain-dead that you continue? What was the expected result? Just shear hatred of the world for being born with a dog's face and a little mind?



For someone who insists long and loud about how he's not interested in
debating it anymore, you sure are posting a lot to debate it. Is
there a gun to your head?

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:05:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I have a renewed interest in making fun of you, sad little loser angry at the world. Now I understand why you were described as a sociopath and why JTEM makes you look like a fool all day.

No I'm not interested in debating you anymore. I have heard more intelligent thoughts from the local crackhead. I don't have a problem joining in on the fun, though, since you' volunteered for forum fool.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:15:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:10 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:51:39 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:00:04 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
>> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Wonderful. Rot in hell, bitch.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I must have hit a nerve. Poor baby.
>> >
>> >Yes it did hit a nerve you are THE most dispicable person I have ever encountered on line. You got your panties in a wad the first time I came back to this forum about describing EXACTLY what you have just done. Your little bitty mind can't even grasp what Harshman and Eric have been explaining to you enough to make a logical argument. You sound like a junior high school kid trying to sound smart.
>> >
>> >I am sorry the idea of a God scares your tiny self-righteous mind so bad but no matter how vile you want to be, ALL explanations for the Big Bang right now are not much better than a smart stoner's late night musings.
>> >
>> >The stupidity it must take to only consider the various explanations in wikipedia for the absolute UNKNOWN of what's beyond the singularity is unimaginable.
>> >
>> >We don't fucking know, bitch. Live with it. Deal with it. I'm sorry if the mere idea that a God might exist terrifies you to the bones. I'm sorry it makes you so angry that you have to apply confusion and bullshit to try and win an argument. I'm sorry I tried to re-explain the same thing to a child over and over and over again for days.
>> >
>> >I am allowed an opinion. When someone debates the same boring shit with you for 3 fucking days and you still can't grasp their position, but instead continue to labor the same bullshit drivel, expect them to get a little miffed.
>> >
>> >I told you I didn't want to debate it anymore. what makes you so brain-dead that you continue? What was the expected result? Just shear hatred of the world for being born with a dog's face and a little mind?
>>
>>
>>
>> For someone who insists long and loud about how he's not interested in
>> debating it anymore, you sure are posting a lot to debate it. Is
>> there a gun to your head?
>
>I have a renewed interest in making fun of you, sad little loser angry at the world. Now I understand why you were described as a sociopath and why JTEM makes you look like a fool all day.


Liar.


>No I'm not interested in debating you anymore.


You never even started to debate. You just posted noise.


>I have heard more intelligent thoughts from the local crackhead.


You wouldn't recognize an intelligent thought if it bit you on your
ass.


>I don't have a problem joining in on the fun, though, since you' volunteered for forum fool.


Sorry, you and JTEM already share that position.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:20:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:50:02 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:51:39 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:35:03 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 18:00:04 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
> >> <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Wonderful. Rot in hell, bitch.
> >>
> >>
> >> I must have hit a nerve. Poor baby.
> >
> >Yes it did hit a nerve you are THE most dispicable person I have ever encountered on line. You got your panties in a wad the first time I came back to this forum about describing EXACTLY what you have just done. Your little bitty mind can't even grasp what Harshman and Eric have been explaining to you enough to make a logical argument. You sound like a junior high school kid trying to sound smart.
> >
> >I am sorry the idea of a God scares your tiny self-righteous mind so bad but no matter how vile you want to be, ALL explanations for the Big Bang right now are not much better than a smart stoner's late night musings.
> >
> >The stupidity it must take to only consider the various explanations in wikipedia for the absolute UNKNOWN of what's beyond the singularity is unimaginable.
> >
> >We don't fucking know, bitch. Live with it. Deal with it. I'm sorry if the mere idea that a God might exist terrifies you to the bones. I'm sorry it makes you so angry that you have to apply confusion and bullshit to try and win an argument. I'm sorry I tried to re-explain the same thing to a child over and over and over again for days.
> >
> >I am allowed an opinion. When someone debates the same boring shit with you for 3 fucking days and you still can't grasp their position, but instead continue to labor the same bullshit drivel, expect them to get a little miffed.
> >
> >I told you I didn't want to debate it anymore. what makes you so brain-dead that you continue? What was the expected result? Just shear hatred of the world for being born with a dog's face and a little mind?
>
>
>
> For someone who insists long and loud about how he's not interested in
> debating it anymore, you sure are posting a lot to debate it. Is
> there a gun to your head?


No reason to debate with an angry harpy with a stunted brain. I've decided that making fun of the resident witch is more fun. Pretty soon we'll be running the train on you, so pick a few more people to badger.

If I have been speaking to a mentally handicapped person all this time I apologize. I knew something was up. But if you are just this way because of your own self-hatred, I don't feel sorry for you at all. Once you've alienated the world it will eat you up. Hopefully, you don't reproduce before then. We don't need your genes.


Message has been deleted

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:25:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:18:17 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No reason to debate with angry harpy with a stunted brain.
>
>If I have been speaking to a mentally handicapped person all this time I apologize. I knew something was up. But if you are just this way because of your own self-hatred, I don't feel sorry for you at all. Once you've alienated the world it will eat you up. Hopefully, you don't reproduce before then. We don't need your genes.


Works for me. I have you hooked.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:25:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:18:02 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Message has been deleted

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:50:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:43:49 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why are you posting the same thing twice. sweet Killery? Did you have a problem with your newsreader? Or did you just do the same thing you faulted me for? You know you have to wait a minute or two to see if it posted before you try again, right?
>
>I just realized something about you. Your name is Jill, but you're a Hillary Clinton fan-girl. I said something bad about your god, so your having a temper spat. That's why you like Marxists and why you made your little cutesy name. Your hero stole the election from Bernie and gave the nation to freakin' Donald Trump! You're following in her footsteps well. Sabotaging yourself and everything you believe in. Well carry on, my dumb angry friend!


So you have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 4:00:03 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You just responded to three separate posts with that same sentence.

And you talk about irony-meters?


Bahahahaha! What a waste of the world's resources.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 4:15:02 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:56:24 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Wow, nothing gets past you.


>And you talk about irony-meters?
>
>
>Bahahahaha! What a waste of the world's resources.


So you still have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 11:10:05 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Why are you posting the same thing twice. sweet Killery? Did you have a problem with your newsreader? Or did you just do the same thing you faulted me for? You know you have to wait a minute or two to see if it posted before you try again, right?

I just realized something about you. Your name is Jill, but you're a Hillary Clinton fan-girl. I said something mildly critical about your god, so you're having a temper spat. That's why you like Marxists and why you made your little cutesy name. Your hero stole the election from Bernie and gave the nation to freakin' Donald Trump! You're following in her footsteps well. Sabotaging yourself and everything you believe in. Well carry on, my dumb angry friend!

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 11:10:05 AM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Have you just snapped and are repeating that same sentence over and over with your hands closed over your ears, little Jillery? "So you have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised. So you have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised. So you have nothing intelligent to say. Is anybody surprised."

Snap your little slippers together and get your ass back to Kansas.


Or we can keep taking up everybody's time with your mindless aggression for all eternity, since infinity is so easy for you to conceptualize anyway.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 12:30:02 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/17/17 8:54 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
>>
>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical concept, not a theory. It has
>> never been scientific in the modern understanding of science. I doubt
>> any cosmologists take it seriously at all. It is worthless as an
>> explanation.
>
>
> I consider philosophy a science.

It's not, at least not in the modern sense of testing hypotheses with
objective data. That you consider it a science puts you a couple
millennia behind the times.

> I have read all the theories on the cause of the Big Bang. None of them seem any more plausible to me. I have told Jillery that I don't care to discuss this. If you would like to think I'm stupid for not favoring one of the theories you think is more plausible, that is fine with me. I assure you I have read them and understood them to the best of my ability. You guys have fun.

None of the theories on the cause of the Big Bang seem plausible to me,
either. But "unmoved mover" is not a theory. It's not even a
hypothesis. It is a name to use in place of "I don't know" to fool
oneself into thinking you answered something.

If you said that abiogenesis explains how the first life originated, I
would have the same complaint. It is just a word acknowledging that the
first life originated; it says nothing about how, so it is not an
explanation.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:00:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/17/17 8:54 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
> >>
> >> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical concept, not a theory. It has
> >> never been scientific in the modern understanding of science. I doubt
> >> any cosmologists take it seriously at all. It is worthless as an
> >> explanation.
> >
> >
> > I consider philosophy a science.
>
> It's not, at least not in the modern sense of testing hypotheses with
> objective data. That you consider it a science puts you a couple
> millennia behind the times.


That's fine with me. I also accept the "undetectable" benefits of yoga and the nonplacebo benefits of acupuncture, which puts me even farther behind the times (by western standards).

>
> > I have read all the theories on the cause of the Big Bang. None of them seem any more plausible to me. I have told Jillery that I don't care to discuss this. If you would like to think I'm stupid for not favoring one of the theories you think is more plausible, that is fine with me. I assure you I have read them and understood them to the best of my ability. You guys have fun.
>
> None of the theories on the cause of the Big Bang seem plausible to me,
> either. But "unmoved mover" is not a theory. It's not even a
> hypothesis. It is a name to use in place of "I don't know" to fool
> oneself into thinking you answered something.
>
> If you said that abiogenesis explains how the first life originated, I
> would have the same complaint. It is just a word acknowledging that the
> first life originated; it says nothing about how, so it is not an
> explanation.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. My anger at being badgered about this by Jillery for several days may have led me to misspeak. I thank you for debating politely.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:20:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Of course, nothing Mark Isaak said is different from what I said.
You're still blaming me for your problems. Grow up.

JTEM is my hero

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 1:55:04 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:

> So you have nothing intelligent to say.

Wow. All these "Replies" -- reactions -- just
today, all of them mindless ad hominem, not a
one on topic....

You clearly have a compulsion to splatter your
feelings, and no amount of good advice, therapy
or medication can get you to see how disordered
you look.

Sit on your hands.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168671719283

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 2:15:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:54:48 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> So you have nothing intelligent to say.
>
>Wow. All these "Replies" -- reactions -- just
>today, all of them mindless ad hominem, not a
>one on topic....
>
>You clearly have a compulsion to splatter your
>feelings, and no amount of good advice, therapy
>or medication can get you to see how disordered
>you look.
>
>Sit on your hands.


J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 2:50:04 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'm blaming you for being an irrational bitch who can't understand simple ideas and who gets livid when she doesn't get her way.

Watch. Mark will be a decent human being and allow me to exit the debate once we have both spoken our minds. He will not follow me around shouting "Coward!" like a little girl would do if I happen to stop speaking to him.

jillery

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 3:50:04 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:45:18 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
Yet more baseless personal insults for which you will almost certainly
and cowardly refuse to either back up or retract.


>Watch. Mark will be a decent human being and allow me to exit the debate once we have both spoken our minds.


Mark responds differently when he gets as many baseless personal
insults as you have posted to me.


>He will not follow me around shouting "Coward!" like a little girl would do if I happen to stop speaking to him.


Your momma called, time to change your knappies.

Steven Carlip

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 4:00:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:

[...]
> The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
If I start with the Hartle-Hawking proposal for a universe created
by quantum tunneling from "nothing," I can predict the spectrum of
fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
I can do the same from an ekpyrotic "bouncing" model. What does
your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about those fluctuations?

Again starting from the Hartle-Hawking wave function, I expect to
eventually be able to make predictions about the topology of the
universe. (It's a hard calculation, but some first steps have
been taken.) What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about
the topology of space?

From an ekpyrotic model of the universe, I can predict that
primordial gravitational waves will be strongly suppressed. What
does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about the strength of
primordial gravitational waves?

If I start with the loop quantum gravity model of a universe that
collapses and "bounces," for certain ranges of parameters I can
predict deviations from the usual spectrum of fluctuations of the
CMB at low multipole moments. What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal
predict about such deviations?

If I start with a model of "eternal inflation," for some ranges of
parameters I can predict the presence of circular distortions of the
CMB from past bubble collisions. What does your "Unmoved Mover"
proposal predict about such signatures?

If I start with Penrose's cyclic model, I can predict the presence of
certain particular patterns of concentric circles in the CMB. What
does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about that kind of pattern?

It's true that at the moment we have no strong observational evidence
for any of the existing scientific proposals for the origin of the
universe (although we have been able to rule some out). It's also
true that the correct answer may be something we haven't yet thought
of. But a scientific theory at least attempts to make predictions
that can be tested, if not now then at least in the future. A real
scientific theory should at least point us toward new places to look.

Your "Unmoved Mover" proposal, as far as I can tell, doesn't do that.
Perhaps I'm wrong, though. Can you give an example of *anything* that
we might observe in the future that would be incompatible with your
proposal, that would demonstrate that it was wrong?

Steve Carlip

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 4:25:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well I'm not trying to prove the theory or even find evidence of it. Would you like me to take one of your various theories and spin the roulette wheel on it?
I was responding the Jilleries' incessant badgering. Why would I care about all of the information you just gave me? It's not my field. I know there are lots of conflicting scientific theories. That's very different from evolution, which is one theory that has been more or less proven.



J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 5:10:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
If we observed another universe forming somehow? Is there any possibility we could do that? Like I've said, this isn't really my field or course of study.

Is there something we could find out that would make one of the above more likely than the others?

>
> Steve Carlip

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 5:30:04 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
Here's another thing I'm not getting. Why do you guys want to debate me about this? It's kind of like the paparazi asking actors about politics. They are the most sheltered, politically clueless people on Earth...so why do people care what they think about politics? Is the reason you guys are so interested in my opinion because I picked an explanation instead of saying "Yeah all those sound good. Must be one of 'em."...?

I take Brad Pitt's stance."Why are you asking me? I'm just an actor."

Why are you asking me? I'm just a writer who studies hominid evolution.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 8:05:02 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/2017 8:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2017 5:09 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> On 15/12/2017 08:15, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> Even though most variations don't include it explicitly, there is a
>>>>>> required addenda; "and still explains the evidence".  Without that,
>>>>>> simplistic thinking would almost inevitably select an insufficient
>>>>>> answer. That's the problem with Goddidit; even though some people
>>>>>> think it's the simplest solution (it's not), it doesn't explain
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein is quoted as saying "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme
>>>>> goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple
>>>>> and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate
>>>>> representation of a single datum of experience." This is commonly
>>>>> paraphrased as things should be as simple as possible but no simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Problem is science has moved on since then, and the
>>>> new view is the laws of nature and reality are
>>>> best seen in the most complex the universe has
>>>> to offer.
>>>>
>>>> In a sandpile not a particle of sand.
>>>>
>>> Since this dumbfounded Ray maybe you could do better. At what point do we
>>> go from grains of sand to pile and transcend the grains themselves? Can
>>> emergent properties cope with Sorites? Can you?
>>>
>>>> Just as a larger statistical sample better
>>>> shows the underlying behavior than a
>>>> small sample.
>>>>
>>> Because larger sample is hopefully more representative. Hence the sinister
>>> reductionistic concept of genetic drift the stupid evolutionists stuck in
>>> 20th century still champion.
>>>
>>> And this:
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html
>>>>
>>>> For instance, is stock market behavior
>>>> better understood by looking at a
>>>> very small or barely changing company?
>>>>
>>>> Or by looking at the far more complex
>>>> and dynamic market as a whole?
>>>>
>>> Way OT. More to the point economic theory tends to assume rational actors
>>> and discounts ignorance. Evolutionary theory can show humans carry
>>> distorting psychological biases. But that’s reductionism. Evil specter.
>>>>
>>>> But of course such new ideas are totally lost
>>>> on an ng that can't even define complexity
>>>> and like the Church of the Inquisition
>>>> declares such new ideas blasphemy to be
>>>> ignored and silenced.
>>>>
>>>> And just to save them from having to
>>>> do some homework, pretty sad state
>>>> of affairs.
>>>>
>>> Ever hear of Sewall Wright? If not do some homework and get back to us.
>>> Otherwise you will be stuck reinventing the wheel.
>>>
>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape
>>>
>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You're not only 25 years behind the times but
>> not able to understand that you are.
>>
> You have not shown yourself to be a reliable source of knowledge on
> anything. You are full of bluff and bluster. Or all hat and no cattle. You
> spew copypaste, but when called out you resort to vacuous insult.
>
> If you cannot make substantive commentary you are a waste of time.
>
Jonathan runs away from posts.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 18, 2017, 10:45:03 PM12/18/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/18/17 9:57 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:30:02 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/17/17 8:54 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:35:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
>>>>
>>>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical concept, not a theory. It has
>>>> never been scientific in the modern understanding of science. I doubt
>>>> any cosmologists take it seriously at all. It is worthless as an
>>>> explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>> I consider philosophy a science.
>>
>> It's not, at least not in the modern sense of testing hypotheses with
>> objective data. That you consider it a science puts you a couple
>> millennia behind the times.
>
>
> That's fine with me. I also accept the "undetectable" benefits of yoga and the nonplacebo benefits of acupuncture, which puts me even farther behind the times (by western standards).

I get the impression that you collect ideas in large part *because* they
are weird-looking. It makes me wonder if your home is as filled with
knickknacks, curios, and other clutter as your head is. (Not that that
is a bad thing . . .)

jillery

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 2:25:04 AM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Since you asked, because you brought it up.

You're welcome.

jillery

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 2:25:04 AM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yet another lie. I responded to your asserted equivalence of your
"unmoved mover" to scientific hypotheses. To refresh your convenient
amnesia:
**************************************
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:39:02 -0800 (PST), "J.LyonLayden"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>I'm not talking about explanations. I pointed out that your
>>description of Occam's Razor is inadequate. My impression is people
>>who use your description are the ones who claim Goddidit is a good
>>explanation, when in fact it's no explanation at all.

>Well you're right. But everything else I've seen is "no explanation at all" as well.

****************************************

>Why would I care about all of the information you just gave me? It's not my field. I know there are lots of conflicting scientific theories. That's very different from evolution, which is one theory that has been more or less proven.


J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 10:40:03 AM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:


I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively I wondered what the motivation could be.

The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with physics.

I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"

This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I don't blieve in elves myself.

I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.

It is akin to talking shit about their mamma.

But I'm going to address these topics, even though I am no physicist and would have been much more logical to attack the idea of the Unmoved Mover from other philosophical theories than with those from physics.







>
> [...]
> > The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation.
> If I start with the Hartle-Hawking proposal for a universe created
> by quantum tunneling from "nothing," I can predict the spectrum of
> fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).
> I can do the same from an ekpyrotic "bouncing" model. What does
> your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about those fluctuations?


Hartle-Hawking says that near the "beginning" time became space. A non-mathematician such as me might suspect that this is because the measurement of time requires changes of states in matter, and before BB there was no matter.

If we simulated the Big Bang in a virtual reality, time and space would begin when we turned on the program. This does not mean that there was not time somewhere else besides the program before we ran the program.

How can you predict the spectrum of fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation from the unknown that may have existed before, or for the ekpyrotic "bouncing" model?

And if you prove the Hartle-Hawking theory with your predictions, what does it tell us about why "nothing" came to have quantum tunneling? I cannot conceptualize nothing. Can you describe it for me using English?

>
> Again starting from the Hartle-Hawking wave function, I expect to
> eventually be able to make predictions about the topology of the
> universe. (It's a hard calculation, but some first steps have
> been taken.) What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about
> the topology of space?

Based on the Unmoved Mover theory, I may find out when I die.
According to Einstein's idea of the Big bang we should be able to calculate the topology of space by an amount of force exerted to produce it.


>
> From an ekpyrotic model of the universe, I can predict that
> primordial gravitational waves will be strongly suppressed. What
> does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about the strength of
> primordial gravitational waves?

If the universe is cyclical why is it cycling, and why does that excuse it from time beginning at the Big Bang? If there was never a state of space without spacetime, then how do I envision infinite time? What exactly does this solve for my mortal questions? The origin of the universe seems no less mysterious than before I accept the theory.

>
> If I start with the loop quantum gravity model of a universe that
> collapses and "bounces," for certain ranges of parameters I can
> predict deviations from the usual spectrum of fluctuations of the
> CMB at low multipole moments. What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal
> predict about such deviations?


How can you predict fluctuations when you only have data from one bounce? Wouldn't be based on anything hypothetical would it?

>
> If I start with a model of "eternal inflation," for some ranges of
> parameters I can predict the presence of circular distortions of the
> CMB from past bubble collisions. What does your "Unmoved Mover"
> proposal predict about such signatures?


How does eternal inflation explain the beginning and cause and why does it preclude an unknown force?


>
> If I start with Penrose's cyclic model, I can predict the presence of
> certain particular patterns of concentric circles in the CMB. What
> does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict about that kind of pattern?

I can predict the presence of certain particular patterns of concentric circles in the CMB if Zeus blew the cosmic wind through a certain style horn at such and such a force.



>
> It's true that at the moment we have no strong observational evidence
> for any of the existing scientific proposals for the origin of the
> universe (although we have been able to rule some out). It's also
> true that the correct answer may be something we haven't yet thought
> of. But a scientific theory at least attempts to make predictions
> that can be tested, if not now then at least in the future. A real
> scientific theory should at least point us toward new places to look.


It should but I didn't make up the Unmoved Mover, I just accepted it. It's as good an explanation * for me * as any you have proposed. The others seem like some pretty smart dudes smoking some really good hydro, and one might even be true.



Here is what I really think. You don't have a clue what's adding matter to the universe, so you made up dark matter. You don't know whythe universe is speeding up, so you added dark energy. You didn't know what caused the Big Bang, so you made up some mathematical equations that don't allow us to better conceptualize or visualize it at all. And you did it all to have an excuse for there not being a God.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 1:30:03 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
I would boil my interpretation of the Unmoved Mover down to this.

At some point in reality, one infinite thing existed before or outside of all other things. All actions and things can be traced back to that one single infinite thing.

How can we test this against the idea that at some point multiple infinite things exist(ed) "outside of" or "before" everything else?



>
> Steve Carlip

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 1:40:04 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
>
> I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively I wondered what the motivation could be.
>
> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with physics.
>
> I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
>
> This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I don't blieve in elves myself.
>
> I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.

The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
belief that your belief is stupid.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 1:50:03 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
>>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and
>> decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively
>> I wondered what the motivation could be.
>>
>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with
>> physics.
>>
>> I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at
>> the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your
>> "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
>>
>> This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God
>> would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that
>> people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I
>> don't blieve in elves myself.
>>
>> I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried
>> to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.
>
> The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
> propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
> want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
> belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
> belief that your belief is stupid.
>

It's rather worse than that, isn't it? The post Steven Carlip replied to
had an explicit statement by LyonLayden:
"The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation."

Steven took this claim serious and analysed it the way you would with
every scientific theory, that is to ask for its testable predictions.

For LyonLayden then snip the part where he made that claim, and to
complain that "The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he
attacked it with physics" is what the Romans would have called "venire
contra factum proprium", a rather glaring inconsistency

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 1:55:03 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:40:04 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
> >> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >
> >
> > I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively I wondered what the motivation could be.
> >
> > The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with physics.
> >
> > I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
> >
> > This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I don't blieve in elves myself.
> >
> > I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.
>
> The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
> propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
> want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
> belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
> belief that your belief is stupid.


I don't think the Unmoved Mover is the same as a God. I think it depends on your perspective. I told Jillery I think it's a God, but that isn't a scientific part of my idea of the unmoved mover.

There's supposedly a tribe in S. America that once worshipped Don King. I'm not sure they believe in an unmoved mover or even a Big Bang.

At some point in reality, one infinite thing existed before or outside of all other things: the Unmoved Mover. All actions and things can be traced back to that one single infinite thing.

Can we test this against the idea that at some point multiple infinite things exist(ed) "outside of" or "before" everything else? I don't know.


My problem is when people imply that belief in God or acceptance of an Unmoved Mover goes against science, as Jillery did. Nothing in science is evidence that God does not exist, since God is many things to many people. And science is incapable of proving a negative. I have not seen evidence that the "prime" or "first" thing had equally infinite siblings, even if the prime "thing" were "nothing."

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 2:05:03 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It is. Philosophy is a soft science. It has little to do with physics. It explains an idea of cause and effect originationg at a "prime" or "first" cause.


>
> Steven took this claim serious and analysed it the way you would with
> every scientific theory, that is to ask for its testable predictions.

In philosophy debates in college, we rarely introduced physics.

>
> For LyonLayden then snip the part where he made that claim, and to
> complain that "The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he
> attacked it with physics" is what the Romans would have called "venire
> contra factum proprium", a rather glaring inconsistency

The problem is, none of the theories he provided would disprove the philosophical theory of the Unmoved Mover. I don't see how they are quite compatible to be debated upon.

Now if philosophers and physicists wanted to get together to debate whether or not the universe is virtual, that would make sense. It's a much more specific question than the Unmoved Mover that physicists might be able to help answer. In fact they have, and they did not reach consensus.

Can physicists prove that the first infinite thing was either singular or multiple?

Mark Isaak

unread,
Dec 19, 2017, 11:40:03 PM12/19/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 12/19/17 10:52 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:40:04 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively I wondered what the motivation could be.
>>>
>>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with physics.
>>>
>>> I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
>>>
>>> This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I don't blieve in elves myself.
>>>
>>> I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.
>>
>> The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
>> propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
>> want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
>> belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
>> belief that your belief is stupid.
>
>
> I don't think the Unmoved Mover is the same as a God.

Please specify how I might tell the two apart. If, as I suspect, there
is no way, then the two are the same.

> At some point in reality, one infinite thing existed before or
> outside of all other things: the Unmoved Mover. All actions
> and things can be traced back to that one single infinite thing.

> Can we test this against the idea that at some point multiple
> infinite things exist(ed) "outside of" or "before" everything
> else? I don't know.

All you say is speculation. Personally, I believe neither of those two
alternatives is likely to be true. But I, too, am speculating.

> My problem is when people imply that belief in God or acceptance
> of an Unmoved Mover goes against science, as Jillery did.

I believe Jillery had the same problem I did: Your statement that God or
the acceptance of an Unmoved Mover is scientific. It is not.

And no, calling philosophy "science" does not make it science.

jillery

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 1:40:04 AM12/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:52:47 -0800 (PST), "J.Lyin"
<joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:


<cut to the chase>


>My problem is when people imply that belief in God or acceptance of an Unmoved Mover goes against science, as Jillery did.


This is another example of your dishonest misrepresentation and
strawmen. Jillery implied no such thing.

jillery

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 1:45:02 AM12/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:47:13 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
>>>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and
>>> decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively
>>> I wondered what the motivation could be.
>>>
>>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with
>>> physics.
>>>
>>> I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at
>>> the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your
>>> "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
>>>
>>> This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God
>>> would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that
>>> people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I
>>> don't blieve in elves myself.
>>>
>>> I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried
>>> to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.
>>
>> The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
>> propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
>> want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
>> belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
>> belief that your belief is stupid.


To the best of my knowledge, no one in T.O. told JLyin that his
religious beliefs are stupid. My impression is that's his dishonest
strawman misrepresentation of what others posted. He uses that to
rationalize his knee-jerk overreactions.


>It's rather worse than that, isn't it? The post Steven Carlip replied to
>had an explicit statement by LyonLayden:
>"The Unmoved Mover is a scientific theory and explanation."
>
>Steven took this claim serious and analysed it the way you would with
>every scientific theory, that is to ask for its testable predictions.
>
>For LyonLayden then snip the part where he made that claim, and to
>complain that "The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he
>attacked it with physics" is what the Romans would have called "venire
>contra factum proprium", a rather glaring inconsistency


FTR, the questions Carlip asked are the same questions I asked JLyin,
which initiated his latest multi-post rant. His description of
Carlip's post as "aggressive" is consistent with his comments to me.

jillery

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 1:45:02 AM12/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Your belief above is correct. J.Lyin posted a strawman
misrepresentation of Jillery's comments.

J.LyonLayden

unread,
Dec 20, 2017, 9:35:03 AM12/20/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:40:03 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/19/17 10:52 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 1:40:04 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 12/19/17 7:36 AM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 4:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steven Carlip wrote:
> >>>> On 12/17/17 4:10 PM, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I thought about this thread a few times over the past few days and decided to come back to it. Steven entered the thread so aggressively I wondered what the motivation could be.
> >>>
> >>> The Unmoved Mover is a philosophical idea, and he attacked it with physics.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure you can compare theories from one with the other, but at the end of each summary of each idea he writes "What does your "Unmoved Mover" proposal predict?"
> >>>
> >>> This is aggressive and combatitive. I wonder why the idea of a God would offend someone who doesn't accept a God. I'm not angry that people in Greenland believe in elves, for instance...even though I don't blieve in elves myself.
> >>>
> >>> I can, however, understand why someone would be offended if you tried to prove to them with theories alone why their God doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> The problem is not that you believe in a god; the problem is that you
> >> propose god as an objective answer to a scientific question. If you
> >> want to believe that it is, fine. If you want to tell others about your
> >> belief, then you have no grounds to complain when they tell you *their*
> >> belief that your belief is stupid.
> >
> >
> > I don't think the Unmoved Mover is the same as a God.
>
> Please specify how I might tell the two apart. If, as I suspect, there
> is no way, then the two are the same.


Does your definition of God have to be sentient? Can a quantum tunnel be a god?

>
> > At some point in reality, one infinite thing existed before or
> > outside of all other things: the Unmoved Mover. All actions
> > and things can be traced back to that one single infinite thing.
>
> > Can we test this against the idea that at some point multiple
> > infinite things exist(ed) "outside of" or "before" everything
> > else? I don't know.
>
> All you say is speculation. Personally, I believe neither of those two
> alternatives is likely to be true. But I, too, am speculating.


Me too.

>
> > My problem is when people imply that belief in God or acceptance
> > of an Unmoved Mover goes against science, as Jillery did.
>
> I believe Jillery had the same problem I did: Your statement that God or
> the acceptance of an Unmoved Mover is scientific. It is not.


Well you're pointing it oput now and I'm not mad. If you read what she wrote you might see why I became angered. But you are right. The Unmoved mover is based on logic and conceptual clarity instead of the scientific method.

>
> And no, calling philosophy "science" does not make it science.

Ok I was mistaken. I just read up and most clarifications of this are pointing to a definitive article in the NY times.

"In sum, philosophy is not science. For it employs the rational tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement. And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science, strictly speaking. For scientific measurement is in principle always subject to at least some degree of readjustment based on future observation. Yet sound philosophical argument achieves a measure of immortality."

When you don't have any measurements, how can you use the scientific method? Why use something that makes predictions against something that doesn't make predictions?

How can you use measurements of nothing as evidence that there was no cause for something appearing out of or despite of nothing?
None of the theories from physics do that. There's no cause for the quantum tunnel, no cause for the bounce in the bouncing universe. tyhey are just smart stoney ideas. Nothing should have remained nothing for all eternity.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages