Cethin

I have a problem with you acting smarter than you are, not your beliefs, and no I don’t have a problem with how science works. You’re the one who’s claiming it’s something different than it is. I’m not responding after this comment, but you don’t have the information you think you do. I think that’s an issue for you for some reason, but it’s perfectly fine to not know things.

That is an assumption that it never didn’t, not a proof. What are you even doing here?

I use it sometimes, usually just to create boilerplate. Actual functionality it’s hit or miss, and often it ends up taking more time to fix than to write myself.

I have lots of information.

No you don’t. It’s literally impossible as far as our current understand goes. If you do, why have you avoided providing it. You’ve just speculated stuff just as I have. Stop pretending you’re more knowledgeable, smart, or special than you are.

You require that nothing must have happened before big bang for an infinite time.

Our current knowledge points towards heat death of the universe, not a big crunch. If heat death is a possible outcome, and there’s infinite time, it should have happened before. The probability that it’s an option and it hasn’t happened is zero. Other things could happen too, but if anything can happen that prevents it from continuing forever then there’s effectively no chance it didn’t before. Infinite time means we aren’t the first.

Since your standpoint has no scientific evidence, every other must also not. But not so. It’s not untested. It isn’t impossible to know. You just have to research the topic.

Again, you’re making a claim to knowledge. Prove it. It doesn’t exist. We can’t peer past the CMB. That’s the earliest information we have, or can have as far as we know right now. Anything else is unknowable and certainly untestable. If not, prove it. You spoke of burden of proof earlier, and that’s for claims of knowledge. You’re making a claim of knowledge. Provide proof.

You will move the goalpost out of scientific realism forever…

I did not move that goalpost. There are limits to scientific knowledge, correct? Or do you think this isn’t true? If not, you’re not discussing scientific realism. You’re talking about some kind of mysticism. I’m not the one moving the goalposts. You did that if you’re pushing it beyond the definition.

So that’s at least two situations were the performance improvements are present without Proton, hence you cannot logically claim they’re due to Proton, even indirectly.

Except these tests were almost certainly being run on SteamOS using WINE with Proton. We can’t know what the numbers would be with any other setup without doing it. Would a Protonless DXVK for WINE run just as well? We can’t know from these figure.

Also, Proton does not require running through Steam. I play Epic, GoG, and otherwise sources games with Proton not through Steam all the time. It’s also more than just DXVK. That’s a big part of it though.

No one is arguing that DXVK isn’t important or anything like that. They’re just saying Proton is a piece of this, which includes DXVK. I don’t know why you’re arguing.

It’s a bigger leap to consider something came into existence from nothing.

Bigger leap than what? That it existed for infinite time? That a god created it?

Infinite time is just as big a leap as coming into existence at some point. It didn’t start at all? Why does it exist, and how, and why did it only expand when it did since it had infinite time before and didn’t, which doesn’t make sense that it took infinite time to do it if it could happen earlier? Infinity is wild, and causes all kinds of issues.

If a god, then where did they come from? Did they come from nothing? If so, why can an intelligent being do this but not the universe? If they were created, then who created them, and them, ad infinitum?

Your link explicitly explains it for you; “The zero point vacuum of space is proposed to be positive and infinite”. Nothing is created from nothing in science (despite the alluring title of the article) especially not any laws of physics, space & time itself, nor extra dimensions or anything else.

Yes, this is true and part of the article, like you said. However, it was just a starting point to look at. We can’t observe anything related to the universe starting, and we can’t test anything either. Also, the laws of physics do not apply to that, since it must be outside space and time, since it is space and time, and the laws of physics are built on space and time.

The point was to show how things can seemingly come from nothing (yes, it requires something to be happening to do this) even in space-time. Even the thing we do have the ability to observe, crazy things like this can happen. It makes space-time starting from nothing seem plausible, so why would we expect it to instead be something that only raises more questions?

It is of course not neither easier OR as hard to consider the universe to have been created by a conscious entity or as you propose, just spontaneously. They are both infinitely complex and “philosophical” as you say “impossible to prove”. They can be viewed as fundamentally the same metaphysical statement.

Fundamentally the same type of metaphysical question. However, one requires much more complexity. Refer above to “If a god…”. It doesn’t answer any questions and only raises the question of where they came from in its place. One creates a solution, the other creates more questions.

You argue in a circle against yourself when you say it is more complicated; … As time starts, what started it?Nothing is required for it to have always existed. It is more elegant to me, but you may feel differently.

Nothing. Nothing is required to start it. Infinite time seems possibly reasonable but less likely, again because that requires infinite time for nothing to happen, and then suddenly the big bang happens. Why did this take infinite time? Couldn’t it have been any time sooner, which could always be sooner, etc. For it to have not happened before for infinite time and then to happen statistically has a probability of 0.

It certainly does not mean we can’t or shouldn’t advance our understanding of physics.

I never said that. We should obviously study it. However, there’s no way to test for either infinite time or non-existence. We should still try to find answers, but this question cannot be solved, at least based on our current capabilities.

However in science, testing and providing an accurate framework for our environment is instrumental for philosophy.

Again, untestable. Not the realm of science, which requires the ability to disprove a hypothesis.

We often discuss, test and make thorough use of n-D systems, infinity, and many of the concepts you bring up without breaking our minds. You give the fantastic too much credit. We learn how to derive four dimensional proofs as kids. Ironically, zero dimensional problems are the easiest.

Mathematically, yes. Math is a great useful tool. However, as I’m sure you’re aware, a mathematical proof does not prove the existence of anything. It just proves a statement fits the rules. The framework of mathematics let’s us make proofs of arbitrary dimensions, but that doesn’t make them real, and it’s notoriously difficult to intuitively understand what’s happening in higher dimensions. Just because we can work with them mathematically doesn’t mean we can hold them in our mind, and zero is the hardest. It’s basically impossible to hold nothing in your mind. It’s easy to work with, but hard to intuit.

We are capable of proving physical properties of our world and use that to inform our philosophical choice. It’s just that you choose religious philosophy (not to be confused with philosophy of religion) and I chose scientific realism to explore.

Lol. We’re both choosing scientific realism. Literally both of our comments are about it. However, again, we can’t test what we don’t have access to. We don’t have any information from before the big bag. We don’t even have access to information at the beginning, only shortly after it started. You can’t use science to come up with an answer, because science requires falsifiability. I choose scientific realism, but I also know that it’s limited by this. We can use science to make guesses for things, but we can’t use science for the answer to the beginning, at least for the foreseeable future.

It’s just Vulkan outperforming DirectX by translating DirectX to Vulcan. If you’re comparing the default experience with Windows and Linux, how can you say Proton isn’t technically improving performance? What would you call that if a performance increase is caused by running through Proton?

I just don’t think that makes any sense whatsoever. How is it that things can pop into existence from nothing, that is the hypothesis and disproving it is on us?

I linked it somewhere, but it wasn’t this chain.

https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/quantum-prediction-something-is-created-from-nothing/

To me it is a bigger leap to assume time and space came into existence from nothing suddenly.

It’s a bigger leap to consider that space-time came into existence for no reason than that an intelligence that exists outside of that created it? Where did they come from? They must have come from either nothing (which seems more crazy than a random thing like space-time that is not organized), or something created them, which only pushes the question to what created that thing.

It doesn’t simplify it. It only makes it more complicated. The universe just starting at some point is incredibly simple, though fairly crazy to consider since we’re space-time beings that did not evolve to consider a lack of space-time. We can’t imagine four dimensions easily, let alone zero dimensions. (tangent: zero took a long time to develop, because the concept of nothing is so hard to even hold in our minds.)

The universe just appearing/starting is the simplest answer. The other two answers I can think of is that it always existed (in which case, how can it exist for infinite time; that’s as hard to consider as it just starting at zero) or something created it, which then just begs the question: who created them, ad infinitum. Occam’s razor applies and says the most likely (though not necessarily correct) answer is the simplest.

We can’t prove any of this obviously. It’s, I think, literally impossible to prove, and certainly we’re incapable of testing it with existing capabilities. Its a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

How do you have time without space-time? The big bang is actually not the exact start of the universe. It’s pretty close, but not quite. It is the expansion of the universe. Before that it’s in a very dense high energy state, but it does exist. It explains how it went from this state to the current state, but not how it came into existence at all.

I don’t think it’s believed to have sat in this dense high energy state for infinite time before the big bang, so it must have come into existence, not just existed forever. If that’s the case that means space-time came into existence. You can’t have time without space-time, so there is no time before it exists. At some point space-time exists, and as such there is no before, since there is not time.

It seems odd to consider. How do things happen without space-time? We can’t really think about this concept, because we’re space-time beings. It doesn’t even make sense to consider. However, having an intelligence start things doesn’t help. It only then begs the question where they came from. Surely the universe just starting is more likely than an intelligence appearing for some reason, then it deciding to start the universe. That’s a vastly more complex set of circumstances.

Who started or what started the spark something cannot come from nothing…

No, they happen in relation to other things happening, but nothing creates them, especially not a someone. They just pop into existence. Why is that so hard to believe? Is it any less believable than needing some supernatural force to cause it? What created them? That wouldn’t answer any questions anyway, so why would that be more believable.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/

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

If things in the beginning were static, no movement, no input or output…

Things weren’t static. They just weren’t in general. Before the universe started and space-time came into existence, there was no space or time. There is no before, and there’s no where to be static. At some point it just existed, not at any time, since time didn’t exist. It’s hard, or rather impossible, to really hold the concept in your mind because we can’t imagine a timelessness, but that seems to be the case.

It’s not really a guessing game, it’s a there’s his gospel, we follow his gospel and we’re rewarded, which he will ensure everyone has an opportunity to, or they can choose otherwise and receive the level of reward they so desire. No one’s going to force somebody to live in a specific way; That’s against the point.

It’s my understanding that if we know of it in this world and deny it then that’s the choice we make, correct? If so, and if all other religions claim the same veracity with the same level of proof/evidence, what makes it different than a guessing game?

And God is good because he gives us a choice. Choice means we can become our own individuals, make our own mistakes, learn, and grow. Which to us is the fundamental answer to the purpose of this life. (Buddhism “Life is Suffering”) Otherwise, what’s the point of it all? We’d be hollow machines, always living in a good but un-understanding state of being with no opportunities to grow and move forward.

I’m currently having a discussion with someone else in this thread about this basically. Yes we’re given freedom to choose, but God created the world exactly how he wanted, with the knowledge of everything that would result, with the power to make literally anything happen, right? If he wanted to he could have created a world where we all freely choose the right thing, even when given the ability to choose the wrong thing. Not machines programmed to choose the right thing, just an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent designer who sets things up to fall into place perfectly.

The example I just used in that other comment is like setting up dominos. You don’t decide the physics of how they’ll fall, you just intelligently set them up so they fall the way you want. If you’re omnipotent and omniscient then this is trivial for you, and you must be able to do this for people’s choices such that they just always choose the right thing. If you’re benevolent then this is what you want. You still make just as many choices, but they just all happen to be good.

Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn’t possible.

I think you misunderstand. He could create a world where they freely choose to not fall. It’s not predetermination, like you say. It’s premeditation. He must have wanted them to fall, because that’s what he knew would happen and he set it up so they would choose that. If I set up a tripline that activated a trap then tell someone to go where it’ll be tripped, that’s something I did, even if they chose to follow it.

He’s all powerful, so he must necessarily be able to create a world with free will and free choices, but also one such that we always genuinely choose the right thing. It doesn’t require us to be programmed beings. Rather it requires foreknowledge, planning, and capability of the designer, and a desire for this to be the case. It doesn’t matter if we can’t imagine that world. He’s omnipotent. He can create it, but chose not to.

From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.

Again, he designed it knowing the results, with the ability to create absolutely anything, even things we can’t imagine. The problem with the human perspective is we assume this is the way things must be, but with omnipotence it allows literally anything to be possible, including total freedom, but also where every choice made is good. That is necessarily true, if he is omnipotent.

He can create a world where every person gets into heaven, by choice, even if they have the ability to make choices where they wouldn’t, since he’s omniscient. It’s like setting up domino’s. You don’t program how they fall. You just set things up so they fall as planned, but you’re omniscient and omnipotent, so you never make a mistake. All dominos fall perfectly into place exactly as you want, because you know the outcome of everything you place.

While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it’s trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.

They’re proofs that every religions claims equally, yet (for most) only one can be correct. That’s the big issue.

Furthermore I don’t know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

First, I don’t deny any gods existence. We both lack the brief on most gods. I just don’t believe in one more than you. I don’t claim to have knowledge on any of their existences, except insofar as them not being internally consistent. I’m an agnostic (not knowing) atheist (lack of belief). I don’t actively believe anything about any gods.

The reliability of logic and mathematics are as reliable as the axioms they are founded on. No further and no less. There isn’t a thing universal about them. They are not a part of reality that we wandered across. They’re made up by humans to be useful tools. This seems obvious because both have come into existence in different forms in different places and times. If they were universal they would always appear in the same form.

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify.

All of those are based on axioms. They’re true if the axioms are true, but not otherwise. They are useful, but not self-evident. The axioms seem to hold though.

Only if you can justify the validity of logic in your worldview. But without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally? You’re using a tool (logic) without explaining why it ought to work or why it’s trustworthy in a purely materialistic or skeptical framework.

Why do we need a transcendent source of rationality? We only need to build upon foundations of solid axioms.

Okay well this is just an opinion then. My main point here is that you can’t propose any “oughts” without a justification.

Do I need to spell out why someone who values truth should seek it? It’s not really an opinion, but a statement. I guess it isn’t a complete statement. I guess a more complete statement would be “someone who values truth, and wants to find what they value, should seek truth.” Is that better? I don’t think that middle portion is required to spell out, but whatever.

With that all being said. The biggest misconception and frankly appalling misunderstanding anyone makes in this, is that one person is valued less than another.

Aren’t they though, by definition?

Value: An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

So if some people get more in return (what they get in the afterlife for accepting The Lord), they’re valued higher. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you mean is you don’t think some people are, in essence, better. Just the degrees of glory mean some are valued more though, and that’s not going into the husband/wife aspect.

Kingdom’s of Glory then becomes a choice we can make to get to. Like in my other comment. Some people will prefer pepperoni, some supreme, some pineapple.

Yes, it’s a choice, but some people get nicer outcomes based on their choice, and that choice is not made any more obviously correct than the choice of any other religion.

If God is good, why would he make us make this choice and make it just a guessing game? I know the answer you’re likely to give is that it isn’t, and if we pray the answer will be made clear, but people believe with extreme faith (often more than most in the LDS have) that they’re the ones who believe the truth, and they’re certain that they’ve felt the presence of God(s) and they told them to follow this or that faith.

I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.

I think the questioning of it originally comes from Christians, so obviously that isn’t the case, nor is it what I’m saying.

The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.

The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.

God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.

It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.

But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love.

Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.

I have never seen something come from nothing. I don’t think anyone has ever or this question wouldn’t have been asked or even be in our consciousness.

Well, particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence from nothing all the time actually. They typically annihilate though.

We have facts up to big bang. It (as usual with these things) gives us just more questions than actual answers to how the universe came to exist. I argue that it always did and always will.

I think this is faulty logic. How the universe came to exist is fine, and we don’t know, but that the universe “always existed” is a bit odd. You can’t have anything before space-time exists. In a sense that means yes, it “always” existed, because that’s the start of time, but in another sense it did not exist too, just time didn’t exist, if that makes sense. It obviously doesn’t really make sense because we’re unable to hold that concept in our mind, but time did come into existence.

There is no way to know the truth

Is this true? Because if so it is a contradiction.

Knowledge and truth are two different things, although I should have written it better. There’s no way to know the truth on this particular subject. (Well, there is a way to know theoretically, if a god exists. There isn’t a way to know if one doesn’t exist though. You can’t prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. You can only prove that something exists.)

This is just another way of making a truth claim even though you can’t know the truth.

No, you can use logic to prove certain things can’t exist. If there’s a contradiction, it can’t be correct, for example.

Who says seeking truth is something we ought to do? Particularly if knowing the truth is an impossibility. These are all assertions as to what we should do without any justification as to why we should do them.

I’m not making a universal statement. I’m making the statement that someone who values truth should seek truth. That seems self-evident.

It’s not really “we think we’re lucky or better than anyone else” hell we actually believe that God is a God of fairness that doesn’t value one person over another. Ie. “We are all his children and he loves us equally” is a core belief we hold. And as apart of that belief, we firmly hold it true that God will ensure that all his children who lived or died without hearing his gospel will have the opportunity too.

I’m going to question this a bit if you don’t mind. Doesn’t the LDS church teach that there are different “degrees of glory” and only the followers of the church’s faith can reach the celestial kingdom? Yes, there’s exception for those who haven’t heard, but those who have and didn’t follow the teachings are left out, even though there doesn’t seem to be anything different about proofs of faith provided by followers of the LDS or any other religion. They seem to be the same veracity as followers of any other religion.

And I also tend to lean towards a lot of Buddhist tenants myself btw. The concept of a state of being called Nirvana, that life is suffering (Though I know that’s not exactly what he said) and a few other ideas they hold I agree with.

Yeah, I think it’s great to learn about other religions so we can take pieces of them that help us. Even if I don’t believe any are any more likely to be true than the others, there’s “truths” in all of them that apply whether you follow the faith or not.

I don’t think you’re correct with your argument. Why would someone choose any particular religion? That’s the argument. There is no logical argument for that. There are arguments for choose one in general, although logically very flawed. Still, there’s no logical argument I’m aware of to choose a specific one.