TED Conversations

Carlos Marquez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How can God exist beyond space and time?


"You're everywhere and no where, baby
That's where you're at"
Hi Ho Silver Lining


Closing Statement from Carlos Marquez



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Honey child,
      Still argument from authority & evades the question of the thread.Still non-sequitur it does not follows unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary, you may use it as statistical data-but that's about it-

      I was listening to the link of DR. Collins- his evidence-There is something instead of nothing,The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,The Big Bang-Collins claims that since we cannot look to a point before the BB then it "seems" that "something came out of nothing"(against conservation of matter) Dr. Collins asks "if Nature was not able to create itself How did the universe got here? Dr. Collins says that it could not be a natural force because then what created that natural force?-so Dr.Collins drops the hammer concluding that the ONLY plausible explanation is a "Supernatural Force that did the creating" & OF COURSE that "Force needed not to be limited by space or time.Now Dr. Collins calls the creator "God"-supernatural-not bounded by space or time and a "pretty good darn mathematician" then he turns to the fine tuning of the universe,Morals and his thesis that reason and science supports evidence of God.
      1.There is something instead of nothing- Well I don't know of any Physics Lab world wide that holds a jar of "nothing" to compare against "something".Then there is the issue with "Quantum fluctuations"These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time,They produce measurable effects(not enough space to talk about Lambda Shift and the Casimir-Polder force) These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.According to quantum theory, there is no state of "emptiness".Emptiness would have precisely zero energy, far too exacting a requirement for the uncertain quantum world.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2013: Science Major,Honey child
      Dr. Collins- As I was saying-
      2.The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics-The basic problem with the use of mathematics in physics is precisely its unreasonable effectiveness. If you have enough parameters, you can fit a curve, but that really doesn't tell you anything about the underlying reality.Or the existence of any deity- Mathematics is the brainchild of mankind, sometimes right, sometimes wrong but is it evidence for a deity-No.
      3." Nature was not able to create itself How did the universe got here? see Big bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
      4. A "Supernatural Force that did the creating" no supernatural explanations are needed, Quantum Physics, BB explain in natural terms the universe we live in and with evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
      5. Dr. Collins has not presented evidence for the "Force" that he claims is non-spatial-non-temporal, where is the math behind that assertion?
      6.Fine tuned universe- Life developed within the universe, and so life has to be evolved TO the universe. Life cannot develop dancing to the tune of another universe – this is nonsensical. Therefore, any life that starts in any universe, by definition, must be ‘fine-tuned’ by that universe and thus every life-permitting universe will appear to be fine-tuned for life.Then of course-What are the odds?- Aah, large numbers. Whenever large numbers and stacked odds are mentioned, God is invoked. I wonder what kind of world we would live in if every scientist simply turned to God in the face of something difficult or seemingly unlikely?
      Of course Dr. Collins believes in a Christian God of his particular denomination, making all else"wrong"(Islamism is wrong Jewish are wrong ,Hellenism is wrong, Quetzalcoatl is wrong-too many-).

      Dr. Collins is a fine person, I just do not see the logic in his position

      Malbec w Pasta got to go!

      • Jul 28 2013: Carlos,
        I'm not so interested in defending the beliefs of Dr. Collins, but find this an interesting place to jump back into the discussion. To your points 1-5, it seems to me your assertions work to a very limited extent, but don't really address the concept of infinite regress (I.e. "why" something exists, and if it exists where did it come from, at some point in the the discussion you come to the point where something comes from nothing). If we are being honest, isn't that really the issue for both science and religion? It seems to me me both science and religion work to address the issue just in different ways.
        In point number 2 you state "mathematics is the brainchild of mankind, sometimes right, sometimes wrong...". To which i ask, couldnt the same be said for physics? In point number five you state "Dr. Collins has not presented evidence....where is the math behind that assertion?". It seems to me you are saying that on one hand mathematics (being the "brainchild" of mankind) is "unreasonable" (both to physics and also as a proof for God), but then you turn around and use mathematics as the standard bearer for proof/evidence of God. Which is it?
        Call it God, call it Physics, I appreciate your sense of wonder in the pursuit of meaning. We all come to meaning and wonder in different ways. Stay open and honest to all paths toward meaning and a sense of wonder. You would do well to continue questioning your own beliefs, just as ardently as you question the beliefs of others. And, please, along the way try not to monopolize the experience for others.

        "To whom much is given, much is also required"
        Best regards,
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2013: Steve,
          The infinite regression model does not fit the creator hypothesis because it doesn't' answer: who created the Creator? and so on... The idea that something comes from "nothing" depends on how "nothing" is defined. In Physics there is no-"nothing, as in the metaphysical "nothing"(absence of anything- if you will-). The "nothing" of physics is not nothingness.In my answer, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime(there are others). So creation ex nihilo -out of nothing-bears the underpinning of understanding nihil In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. And I'm being as honest as honest can be.
          I do agree that Science & Religion address the issue in different ways.
          To point #2 reasonable or otherwise Dr. Collins presents no field equations for the fundamental "force " that he postulates(unless he has published a paper that I'm not aware of) good ,bad or indifferent I would Love to see the Math.
          I apologize if in my enthusiasm in pursuing the line of questions, If I've inadvertently offended anyone,- even though I've been attacked personally by many here in TED-It's OK- I knew going in that some folks are hypersensitive to questioning core beliefs. But then again this is TED -open forum- If I wanted to talk to folks that just agree with me-well I don't see progress there- I've learned a lot in the since the opening of this forum and met very nice people on both sides of the aisle(and anywhere in between)

          "Life is a Journey,not a destination"-Emerson

          Thanks, Steve
      • Jul 29 2013: Carlos,
        I disagree with you with regards to infinite regress. You said, "the infinite regression model does not fit the creator hypothesis because it doesn't answer: who created the creator", but that is entirely the point. Infinite regression by definition does not provide an answer (first cause), in much the same way the big bang theory does not provide an answer to who/what created the elements involved in the big bang, or why they existed in the first place. Both models (I.e. creator theory and big bang theory) provide profound meaning and insight to many people, but in order to provide meaning both must presuppose initial existence (I.e. something existed before from whence all other things came forth).
        You find meaning and wonder in physics. I understand and respect that. I find meaning and wonder in physics as well. You have frustrations with closed-minded people and dogma, so do I. What you will find is that dogmas and closed-minded people are not the exclusive birthright of religion, but come in many forms (on both sides of the proverbial aisle). keep yourself open and honest to other people and paths toward meaning and wonder. The world needs more open minded people on both sides of the aisle, and the beauty of it all is that I think the concepts of God and Physics are big enough to handle the debate. One could spend a lifetime and never fully probe the rich depths of either (God or Physics). So many amazing things, so little time!

        "what lies before us and what lies behind us are small matters compared to what lies within us".
        "when you think you have all the answers it's time to find better questions."

        Best regards,

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.