Craig & Krause - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

I think you're the one who is confused. It's a well-known fact that QFT and GR aren't compatible with each other, so that "this framework" doesn't exist.

Well they are not compatible in 4 dimensions. The whole idea of extra dimensions pops out of trying to reconcile these two theories. We don't have a consistent quantum theory of gravity yet, but we know that no matter how it will look space and time will have quantum properties. That's all that is needed for what Krauss is saying.

Quote

09-30-2013 , 10:36 AM

#127

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerFederer7

Well they are not compatible in 4 dimensions. The whole idea of extra dimensions pops out of trying to reconcile these two theories. We don't have a consistent quantum theory of gravity yet, but we know that no matter how it will look space and time will have quantum properties. That's all that is needed for what Krauss is saying.

Knowing that space and time have quantum properties does not imply what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by you

In this framework space and quantum vacuum and everything can pop in existence where there literally was nothing before. NOTHING.

So even if Krauss is talking about a hypothetical framework which doesn't even exist at the moment, it still does not contain the properties that you need for it to meet your claim.

Quote

10-07-2013 , 02:30 AM

#128

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Pod #3:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/exami...bates-part-one

Quote

10-11-2013 , 12:57 AM

#129

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,204

Don't all these arguments about what if anything started the universe rely on the unproven assumption that if you go back (or forward) in time far enough you won't hit 2013?

Quote

10-11-2013 , 07:03 AM

#130

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Don't all these arguments about what if anything started the universe rely on the unproven assumption that if you go back (or forward) in time far enough you won't hit 2013?

Doesn't it stick in your craw just a little that the point you just made referenced the Christian calendar?

Quote

10-12-2013 , 12:25 PM

#131

neeeel

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,731

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

Doesn't it stick in your craw just a little that the point you just made referenced the Christian calendar?

Ye, we should all immediately convert to the Tranquility calender, any reference to the christian calendar should be punishable by death. Use of the year 2013 is just another indication of the insidiousness of religion and christianity. Hell, even seemingly innocuous numbers actually serve to remind us all of jesus and subconsciously indoctrinate everyone into accepting christianity.

I for one am glad that you brought this to our attention, and helped to further push back the evil influence of religion.

Quote

10-12-2013 , 02:59 PM

#132

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by neeeel

Use of the year 2013 is just another indication of the insidiousness of religion and christianity. Hell, even seemingly innocuous numbers actually serve to remind us all of jesus and subconsciously indoctrinate everyone into accepting christianity.

You're saying this like it's too ridiculous to be true, but then you would think that if those types of techniques were effective, which they clearly are

Imagine telling a Martian, 'yes, we work our date system off the estimated year of the birth of the alleged son of a god that nearly 2/3 of the population don't believe in, eh? ..what do you mean that's weird?'

I wonder if it bugs Muslims that they have to use the calender of a false religion.

Quote

10-12-2013 , 03:11 PM

#133

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

Imagine telling a Martian, 'yes, we work our date system off the birth year of the alleged son of a god that nearly 2/3 of the population don't believe in, eh? What do you mean that's weird?'

Axiomatic disdain of religion + a poor sense of history = Mightyboosh has no clue what he's talking about.

Quote:

I wonder if it bugs Muslims that they have to use the calender of a false religion.

Why don't you ask a Muslim and find out? It's not really that hard to get an answer to your question if you actually cared. (But we all know you don't care about the answer. You would rather live in the blissfully ignorant world inside your head instead of facing reality.)

Quote

10-12-2013 , 03:15 PM

#134

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Don't all these arguments about what if anything started the universe rely on the unproven assumption that if you go back (or forward) in time far enough you won't hit 2013?

If I understand your point you are saying they assume time had a beginning. I'm pretty sure most Big Bangers agree with that, though there's a lot of wiggle room. For theism, the idea is that God existed eternally, without time, and that the creation marks the beginning of time. So no matter how far back in time you go, you still come forward to now. But if you go to the state without time, then 2013's existence depends on God's creation. If time had no beginning but is infinite in the past, then you run into the paradoxes of actual infinities.

Quote

10-12-2013 , 04:52 PM

#135

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,204

I'm saying time may be curved.

Quote

10-12-2013 , 07:39 PM

#136

NotReady

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 10,519

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I'm saying time may be curved.

Oh. Above my pay grade.

Quote

10-18-2013 , 11:22 AM

#137

carlo

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,016

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I'm saying time may be curved.

Its too pat. Using space endowed geometry as the basis for time doesn't follow. Time and space can be connected in some way, in the same way as a bird is connected to the air but the bird is not air, nor is time=space.

Quote

10-23-2013 , 01:25 PM

#138

blackchilli

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 5,027

Grunching. Just finished watching the first part of the series. Krauss is seriously going ham. Awesome.

Quote

10-25-2013 , 05:24 PM

#139

Naked_Rectitude

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,312

I find Krauss to be somewhat immature in his style of debating. He seems to purposely insult and demean at times, which I think does him more harm than good. Content aside, I find him disagreeable. Although Craig and Kagan was a completely different debate, I found it much more enjoyable to watch. Even Hitchens which could often be insulting is much more interesting to watch, something about Krauss' style is irritating. Just my opinion of course.

Quote

10-25-2013 , 05:35 PM

#140

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude

Agreed

Quote

10-31-2013 , 05:52 PM

#141

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Call it jingoism if you will, but I think that insults hurled in a sonorous English accent sound witty where an American accent (particularly that slightly nasal tone that Krauss has) just sounds brash.

Quote

10-31-2013 , 06:20 PM

#142

LEMONZEST

Guest

Posts: n/a

^^^Mere Jingoism

but seriously I would rather be raked over the coals by Hitchens than insulted by Krauss

edit:

Kagan debate was great. Helped to crystallize many concepts for me

Quote

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last