You keep trying to put words in my mouth, that I haven't said. Quantum theory describes the behavior of energy and matter at the atomic or subatomic level.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Quantum mechanics is the result of, not the progenitor of the physical laws of the universe. You don't even understand the science. You are putting the cart in front of the horse.TexasScientist said:Quantum theory is what makes it plausible, which makes god irrelevant. There is nothing about quantum theory that requires a supernatural element. He is only speculating about what he doesn't understand or know. There is no evidence that requires a supernatural being, and what we don't know about some aspects is simply that, we just don't know as of yet. He simply is attaching the supernatural to the unknown without any evidence. God of the gaps.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.TexasScientist said:
His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Not that many. More likely it is the otherway around. There are anonymous polls of the National Academy of Sciences that reflect their beliefs. What I believe is based upon empircal evidence - not the word of mystics.
We've been through this before. You don't want to learn, you just want to keep repeating defeated arguments over and over again (just like a religious mantra). The only way scientific theorists can explain the origin of our universe, complete with all its physical laws, is to use mathematics that have an infinitie number of solutions, therefore they have to teleologically constrain their equations to fit our universe. I've already shown this in previous threads. What this shows is that there is a higher order outside of our reality that governed this. This is what Arno Penzias called a "supernatural plan".
It's interesting how the flaw in your thinking here is just like the flaw in your thinking about the origins of morality - you base your argument on quantum mechanics, but fail to explain the science that gave rise to the laws which govern quantum mechanics....just like how you start with and base your moral arguments on "harm", but you fail to explain the science by which you determined "harm" to be morally "right". You are starting with base assumptions, and only starting FROM those assumptions you begin your scientific inquiry - and so you claim that scientific reasoning is all you need, while missing the fact that your base assumptions are merely accepted axiomatically and a priori, without any scientific basis. In other words, on faith. So welcome to your own religion
You don't know what you're talking about. Mathmatics is the language of physics at the quantum level. Quantum theory tells us it is plausible for a spontaneous universe, a universe with the physical properties just like the one we live in. That plausibility makes a higher power irrelevant, and the rest of your so called argument.
I don't think you know or understand what science is. I've explained that a humanistic approach uses reason, rational thought to determine morality. Science is a tool that can be used to assist in that determination. Read up on modern humanism. Your idea of what is moral, right and wrong is based upon primitive mystical beliefs and understandings.