If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Is God in control? 2nd Attempt
59,205 Views |
605 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by quash
Jinx 2 said:
I'm not replying, because this site has trouble loading posts with too many replies--at least on my Mac.
Right now, the old person in my life is my mother-in-law, a saint who spent a life as a Methodist minister's wife (a hard job for which there's no pay), sung a beautiful alto in some church choirs, played the piano at some small churches then taught a bilingual kindergarten class for 25 years, during which she earned a master's in teaching at A&M, commuting there with 3 other teachers while working full-time while my husband was at Baylor. After she retired, she taught English as a second language to several immigrants, who revered her.
She was and is a good woman, and now that she is in terrible health and in constant pain with arthritis, our goal is to make her remaining days as comfortable as possible. She has more than earned whatever it takes to keep her comfortable--and, sadly, it take some powerful painkillers that make her nauseated and confused. Things are actually better since we moved her from assisted living into full nursing care and from Temple to Dallas, because her medical team has finally managed to find a pain regime that's reasonably effective that doesn't make her too nauseated to eat.
Making sure my much-loved mother-in-law--the only mother I've had for the past 20 years--is safe and comfortable is a much different care challenge that wrestling a profoundly handicapped boy who can really physically injure you in his quest to hurt himself to the ground while you try to knock him out. Those of you who don't understand the difference between loving and caring for a parent in old age and trying to care for a child who is severely handicapped and whose care is so physically demanding you are regularly bruised and beat up and constantly exhausted because of lack of sleep lack empathy. No one would choose that life--for either parents or child--if they knew what was coming.*@%**%&$ you fellas and your staggering lack of comprehensive and empathy.
Classic example of a Jinx post.
A rational beginning, an informative middle.....and just when you are half way thinking the gal is merely life damaged...........' *@%**%&$ you fellas'.
No...**** your incessant double standard. **** your unending self pity. And most of all **** your damn doctor who STILL hasnt found you a workable combination of mood stabilizers.
I believe the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were solely intended for the children of Israel.TexasScientist said:
If I were going to comment, I would ask out of curiosity - Do you believe all laws of the OT are good, valid and should be applied, or only some?
That said, some of them are clearly relevant for the modern world. I don't see how any of the 10 commandments has become "outdated." (With, for the sake of not arguing, excluding the first and second ones.)
I don't follow the pork one--but the book of Daniel does talk about how noticeably healthier Daniel and his friends were when they followed God's diet instead of the Babylonian's.
I don't follow the clothes one.
Nor the Sabbath one--but i do find when I take a day off (even from housework--nothing over the weight of a feather)--the next week tends to be a little easier--so there's some merit to it.
Some of them are obviously dated. Some of them are obviously used to keep certain groups of people down. Some of them are also used to justify this mythical hierarchy of sin a lot of people believe exists. Sin is sin. Humans categorize it into levels--God just sees it as sin.
That's just me.
Explain. I am opposed to those things, but what do those things have to do with being a citizen of the US?LIB,MR BEARS said:
As a Christian, I am opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery because I do not understand why the government is involved in those things.
The above paragraph was actually fadskier's that I took some liberties with. At some point there needs to be a line
and as I have already indicated, there may be some instances where an abortion can be a legitimate choice.Waco1947 said:
Fad "if it is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant." That silly. There are a thousamf reasons she gets pregnant without choosing.
Solely in the case of when a mother's life is in danger. The Bible clearly mandates the right to self defense.fadskier said:and as I have already indicated, there may be some instances where an abortion can be a legitimate choice.Waco1947 said:
Fad "if it is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant." That silly. There are a thousamf reasons she gets pregnant without choosing.
In the case of rape, it is a terrible fate, but if all life really is sacred--then that baby was created for a specific purpose. (Psalm 100:3, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 64:8) Far be it from man to intervene in that purpose because the road will be tough.
That is a legitimate view--and it is the one I hold. I don't make it widely known (yes, I see the irony in saying that on the Internet).
All that said, I have two daughters. If either of them were to become pregnant via a rape--I would keep my opinion to myself and stand behind whatever decision they made.
It's a terrible situation, but not one worth losing friends and family over. The odds of getting pregnant via a rape are about 5%.
I agree you shouldn't eat pork.El Oso said:I believe the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were solely intended for the children of Israel.TexasScientist said:
If I were going to comment, I would ask out of curiosity - Do you believe all laws of the OT are good, valid and should be applied, or only some?
That said, some of them are clearly relevant for the modern world. I don't see how any of the 10 commandments has become "outdated." (With, for the sake of not arguing, excluding the first and second ones.)
I don't follow the pork one--but the book of Daniel does talk about how noticeably healthier Daniel and his friends were when they followed God's diet instead of the Babylonian's.
I don't follow the clothes one.
Nor the Sabbath one--but i do find when I take a day off (even from housework--nothing over the weight of a feather)--the next week tends to be a little easier--so there's some merit to it.
Some of them are obviously dated. Some of them are obviously used to keep certain groups of people down. Some of them are also used to justify this mythical hierarchy of sin a lot of people believe exists. Sin is sin. Humans categorize it into levels--God just sees it as sin.
That's just me.
The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Waco1947 said:
Do you believe it?
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?
I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events via physic
2) relationships via overcoming free will
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)
For those sabotaging my thread. Stop it. At some point I may ask about the rightness or wrongness of theological conclusion, especially in light of physics and faith.
You seem to have a Quantum religion there. You're quite the cultist with that phrase, son.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You don't own the thread, Waco. And you have no right to demand how anyone chooses to address it.Waco1947 said:Waco1947 said:
Do you believe it?
What does it mean to you?
Is God in control of physics?
I am trying to understand how people arrive at this faith statement.
I am not asking because I missed it in seminary but I am asking how disciples on this forum came to believe it.
1) Is God in control of events via physic
2) relationships via overcoming free will
3) physics (physical forces - gravity, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc)
For those sabotaging my thread. Stop it. At some point I may ask about the rightness or wrongness of theological conclusion, especially in light of physics and faith.
Grow up or shut up, you're throwing a tantrum instead of advancing the discussion.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Tx scientist you did it again. But course the stupid also make it about abortion. They think that they are jesus' favorite for how many times they ruducuke me. It is apparently their only Christian witnesss.
Name calling and ignoring the needs of women and their and childcare are on their radar.
Name calling and ignoring the needs of women and their and childcare are on their radar.
"Ruducuke"?Waco1947 said:
Tx scientist you did it again. But course the stupid also make it about abortion. They think that they are jesus' favorite for how many times they ruducuke me. It is apparently their only Christian witnesss.
Name calling and ignoring the needs of women and their and childcare are on their radar.
And seriously, Waco, stop pretending you are some kind of holy martyr. You have caused your own embarrassment, and you are still making evasive noise rather than answering the points made in this thread,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Try the basic Christian virtue of kindness. You may not agree with Waco's philosophy, but his belief and religious quests for good answers to hard questions are genuine. Why be a jerk to him?Oldbear83 said:"Ruducuke"?Waco1947 said:
Tx scientist you did it again. But course the stupid also make it about abortion. They think that they are jesus' favorite for how many times they ruducuke me. It is apparently their only Christian witnesss.
Name calling and ignoring the needs of women and their and childcare are on their radar.
And seriously, Waco, stop pretending you are some kind of holy martyr. You have caused your own embarrassment, and you are still making evasive noise rather than answering the points made in this thread,
Waco started a thread, abandoned it, then mocked the people who cared enough to answer. By the way, if you go back to the start, I posted a nice respectful post, for which Waco thanked me ... but ignored from there on.Jinx 2 said:Try the basic Christian virtue of kindness. You may not agree with Waco's philosophy, but his belief and religious quests for good answers to hard questions are genuine. Why be a jerk to him?Oldbear83 said:"Ruducuke"?Waco1947 said:
Tx scientist you did it again. But course the stupid also make it about abortion. They think that they are jesus' favorite for how many times they ruducuke me. It is apparently their only Christian witnesss.
Name calling and ignoring the needs of women and their and childcare are on their radar.
And seriously, Waco, stop pretending you are some kind of holy martyr. You have caused your own embarrassment, and you are still making evasive noise rather than answering the points made in this thread,
Waco is the prime jerk here, but you don't see that fact because it is not what you want to see, Jinx.
As for 'kindness', that was never what Christ was here to be. Christ could be gentle when He chose, but he rebuked many people harshly, including His own disciples, when they ignored His words and spoke foolishly. A minister who fails to follow Scripture is in need of correction, not coddling, Jinx.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.
The ontological argument and the "quantum theory disproves God" argument are both nonsense. Gentlemen need to up their game.
I brought up the book of 'Job' early on, and Waco seemed to like it, but no one wanted to discuss suffering in the context of Divine purpose, it seems.Sam Lowry said:
The ontological argument and the "quantum theory disproves God" argument are both nonsense. Gentlemen need to up their game.
Everyone's impressed with lightning bolts and turning water to wine, but I find compassion for a stranger to be compelling evidence of God, and a reason why God guides and nurtures humans instead of letting them destroy each other.
And no, Jinx, compassion and kindness are very different qualities in that context.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.
Polanyi says Hi.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.
Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,
Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.
Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I haven't said quantum theory disproves god. I've said it gives us a plausible answer to our existence, which is much more plausible than the god of the gaps theory.Sam Lowry said:
The ontological argument and the "quantum theory disproves God" argument are both nonsense. Gentlemen need to up their game.
Yes, he does. His critique of positivism fits quite nicely here.quash said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.
Polanyi says Hi.
LOLOL. The irony of your last few posts is kind of mesmerizing.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.
Quantum theory does not explain spontaneous creation and you know it. Stop pretending. It's beneath you. The theory that because there is no (known) law that prevents a closed universe, where matter's energy is precisely compensated by gravity (which, itself is a theory, not a law, and a concept upon which all cosmologists do not agree) from being created out of "nothing" . . . does not "explain" how this happened. It merely proposes in theory that "Anything not prohibited by conservation laws happens necessarily with at least some degree of probability." But you have to intentionally ignore and dismiss the self-defeating nature of the theory when using it to explain origin of the universe. That being, for it to provide any kind of solution on this front it must also assume that the very laws of physics being used to explain the possibility of spontaneous creation were "there" before the universe . . . . .which destroys the concept of something coming from "nothingness." If the laws existed, there wasn't "nothing", there was something. Why were these laws in existence? How did they come to exist? You certainly can't argue it from a materialist standpoint, so where does it leave you?
Bending and twisting to rely on quantum mechanics as an explanation for spontaneous creation of a theoretically closed, zero energy, universe . . . and fudging on the definition of "nothingness" in order to do so . . . really puts you in violation of your own Occam's Razor argument. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, your ass, and any other orifice you can think of... ALL in order to try and deny the ONE thing you intuitively know to be true . . . that this isn't all an accident and that an intelligent Maker is self-evident.
Good luck with that. I'm afraid railing against your own intuition and closing your eyes to God's fingerprints will only lead to a lifetime of frustration and discontent. Self-admiration for your "enlightened" status or intellect will get you exactly nothing when you're on your death bed some day. What's crazy (and counter-intuitive) is that denying a Creator is actually the intellectually lazy approach IMO, but I don't suspect you see that yet. I hope it comes to you some day and you open yourself up.
Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.Oldbear83 said:That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
"You're."TexasScientist said:I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.Oldbear83 said:That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
And does this statement mean we're still primitive? Should your creation story be dismissed because it's "trying to make sense of reality?"
bearassnekkid said:"You're."TexasScientist said:I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.Oldbear83 said:That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
And does this statement mean we're still primitive? Should your creation story be dismissed because it's "trying to make sense of reality?"
No, because it does a much better job.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
Thanks for the catch. You're very attentive to what write. I'm impressed. The concepts revealed by science conform to the evidence of reality. Whereas, your view seeks to conform reality to a concept.bearassnekkid said:"You're."TexasScientist said:I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.Oldbear83 said:That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
And does this statement mean we're still primitive? Should your creation story be dismissed because it's "trying to make sense of reality?"
And philosophy is the proper arena for "why".
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Except, the more science reveals to us, the gaps in knowledge filled with the god answer, eventually are filled, and the need for god disappears.Sam Lowry said:Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
You keep repeating the false premise of "god in the gaps" as being the purpose or reason for belief in God. Scientific discoveries do nothing whatsoever to diminish my faith, belief, or relationship with God. I'm fascinated to unravel many of the mechanisms He put in place. None of that removes the reality of HIs existence (even though you really, really want it to).TexasScientist said:Except, the more science reveals to us, the gaps in knowledge filled with the god answer, eventually are filled, and the need for god disappears.Sam Lowry said:Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
Your determined quest to prove God out of existence leads to only one eventuality. Separation from your creator. Which He's granted you the power to do. It's what makes love possible. But the gates you're standing behind that separate you from the truth are locked from the inside, my friend.