RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 11, 2016 at 6:12 am
73 pages... close mindedness or simple inability to communicate?
Anyway... I think I know what Mario is going on about... he thinks that god is like the thing that is responsible for all and any causation. God is the glue that keeps the Universe in place from one instant to the next. God is the glue that keeps all points of space-time bound together, instead of becoming disjointed.... whatever that may mean in such a context.
Is that it, mario?
Time goes by and space doesn't fall apart - hence, such a glue exists, hence god, which is the glue, exists.
Space goes on without a hiccup, so the glue is in place and god is the glue.
Why call it god?
Why not call it "space-time-glue"?
Remember when I told you to be careful with words? When I answered your 5th point, I said "- Get ready to load up the concept of God with iron-age tales!!"... remember that?
That is the problem of starting with a simple concept such as "space-time-glue" and calling it "god". The word "god" has a lot of baggage. "space-time-glue" is a brand new word, so we can operate with that.
Do note that I haven't proven that such a thing as "space-time-glue" exists. I merely postulated and noted that it is consistent with the observed universe... up to a point: if I forget that space-time is expanding... but one can always postulate further that the glue is flexible and unrelenting.
To properly show that such a glue exists, we now need to look for it. Provide a model under which is works, search for instances where such a model can fail - like black holes. And either refine the model or reject it altogether.
A few words scribbled down as bullet points are not proof. The argument of "we look around and see it happening everywhere" can't ever be valid, as we can't possibly look at everything in the Universe... all it takes is one instance where the model fails.
Good luck winning the Nobel Prize and the James Randi Foundation million dollar prize.
Anyway... I think I know what Mario is going on about... he thinks that god is like the thing that is responsible for all and any causation. God is the glue that keeps the Universe in place from one instant to the next. God is the glue that keeps all points of space-time bound together, instead of becoming disjointed.... whatever that may mean in such a context.
Is that it, mario?
Time goes by and space doesn't fall apart - hence, such a glue exists, hence god, which is the glue, exists.
Space goes on without a hiccup, so the glue is in place and god is the glue.
Why call it god?
Why not call it "space-time-glue"?
Remember when I told you to be careful with words? When I answered your 5th point, I said "- Get ready to load up the concept of God with iron-age tales!!"... remember that?
That is the problem of starting with a simple concept such as "space-time-glue" and calling it "god". The word "god" has a lot of baggage. "space-time-glue" is a brand new word, so we can operate with that.
Do note that I haven't proven that such a thing as "space-time-glue" exists. I merely postulated and noted that it is consistent with the observed universe... up to a point: if I forget that space-time is expanding... but one can always postulate further that the glue is flexible and unrelenting.
To properly show that such a glue exists, we now need to look for it. Provide a model under which is works, search for instances where such a model can fail - like black holes. And either refine the model or reject it altogether.
A few words scribbled down as bullet points are not proof. The argument of "we look around and see it happening everywhere" can't ever be valid, as we can't possibly look at everything in the Universe... all it takes is one instance where the model fails.
Good luck winning the Nobel Prize and the James Randi Foundation million dollar prize.
