quash said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.

---

"You're."

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.

---

Great post.

I respond with "it does a far worse job." Now, we've really gotten somewhere. Thanks your input.

Any time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

You don't own the thread, Waco. And you have no right to demand how anyone chooses to address it.

Grow up or shut up, you're throwing a tantrum instead of advancing the discussion.

---

. OK my humble apologies. Sabotage away. But Your ability to disrespect humans seems less than Christian.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.

---

I think you're in denial. That attempt to spin scientific support for the 'Poof, the universe appeared like magic out of nothing with no prior cause' fairy tale is weak, even for you, TS.

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

You don't own the thread, Waco. And you have no right to demand how anyone chooses to address it.

Grow up or shut up, you're throwing a tantrum instead of advancing the discussion.

---

. OK my humble apologies. Sabotage away. But Your ability to disrespect humans seems less than Christian.

---

Poor Waco, I don't "disrespect" people, I simply rebuke arrogance and hypocrisy.

Now with that reminder, you seemed to enjoy the aspect of Job. Care to share your thoughts along that theme, or are you just going to throw poo at whatever someone else posts?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

"Ruducuke"?

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,

---

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?

---

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.


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.

---

For Waco's consideration, should he wish to actually discuss the topic.

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

. From the time humans woke up and said "I am human. I can communicate ; I can remember; I can learn; I can think; I will die;" humans saw a powerful earth and heavens - wind, sun, light, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, floods, gravity (?).
In this dangerous world of forces they saw gods and thought that they could control these gods with
1) special knowledge (some of it science based like equinoxes)
2) , ritual (right dances, songs, movements) or
3) right sacrifices. Religion was an effort to control god.
4) Then of course there is death. We know we die so myths and rituals were developed for an "afterlife." And there gods controlled that life too
Every ancient culture had priests, rituals, notions of afterlife.
As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.
This new thinking began to associate "God" with love, justice, hope, morals, forgiveness. This God (who is present in all cultures but with different names) is the God that people experience and place their faith in.
BUT the old God sure is hard to let go of. HE has to be charge of everything so I can continue to manipulate him with prayers, gifts to the church, hating the right people, so I can be rich or happy or loved.
BUT God is so far above our simple understanding of love and justice and forgiveness and hope that we soon discover that God can't be manipulated. If God could be manipulated then that god is to woryhlesss.
BUT is - God is in love, in hope, in justice, in forgiveness. God is present in these forms. God showed at least us Christians that the truest form of God's presence with us is Jesus - immanuel.
Our presence to one another in love is the greatest sign of God's existence.
God is not the god of gaps but the transcendent/spiritual here and beyond in all the power of God's love. .

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.

---

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.

---

Except when it doesn't, because some questions are outside the scope of science.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.

---

That is counterfactual history. Wiser humans have always asked the same basic questions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.

---

That is counterfactual history. Wiser humans have always asked the same basic questions.

---

But the answers changed.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.

---

That is counterfactual history. Wiser humans have always asked the same basic questions.

---

But the answers changed.

---

Not the correct answers.

""Prime Jerk". More of your faith revealed to us. Are you your evangelism team at your church? That's a Winning conversation starter.

Growing up in the late '30's my mother reminded me I could go to hell if I wasn't a good kid. Now, decades later I realized she was just frightened of Global Warming lol.

Waco1947 said:

---

""Prime Jerk". More of your faith revealed to us. Are you your evangelism team at your church? That's a Winning conversation starter.

---

Don't like your title, Waco? Then advance the discussion instead of showing so much hubris.

Shall we speak of Job? Or is suffering too difficult to consider as an aspect of compassion?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

""Prime Jerk". More of your faith revealed to us. Are you your evangelism team at your church? That's a Winning conversation starter.

---

Don't like your title, Waco? Then advance the discussion instead of showing so much hubris.

Shall we speak of Job? Or is suffering too difficult to consider as an aspect of compassion?

---

. Of course I don't your childish title but the question was "Is Jesus proud of you?" Feel free to site scripture by Jesus.

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

. From the time humans woke up and said "I am human. I can communicate ; I can remember; I can learn; I can think; I will die;" humans saw a powerful earth and heavens - wind, sun, light, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, floods, gravity (?).
In this dangerous world of forces they saw gods and thought that they could control these gods with
1) special knowledge (some of it science based like equinoxes)
2) , ritual (right dances, songs, movements) or
3) right sacrifices. Religion was an effort to control god.
4) Then of course there is death. We know we die so myths and rituals were developed for an "afterlife." And there gods controlled that life too
Every ancient culture had priests, rituals, notions of afterlife.
As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.
This new thinking began to associate "God" with love, justice, hope, morals, forgiveness. This God (who is present in all cultures but with different names) is the God that people experience and place their faith in.
BUT the old God sure is hard to let go of. HE has to be charge of everything so I can continue to manipulate him with prayers, gifts to the church, hating the right people, so I can be rich or happy or loved.
BUT God is so far above our simple understanding of love and justice and forgiveness and hope that we soon discover that God can't be manipulated. If God could be manipulated then that god is to woryhlesss.
BUT is - God is in love, in hope, in justice, in forgiveness. God is present in these forms. God showed at least us Christians that the truest form of God's presence with us is Jesus - immanuel.
Our presence to one another in love is the greatest sign of God's existence.
God is not the god of gaps but the transcendent/spiritual here and beyond in all the power of God's love. .

---

What are your thoughts on the history of god and religions? That's premise Right or wrong?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

""Prime Jerk". More of your faith revealed to us. Are you your evangelism team at your church? That's a Winning conversation starter.

---

Don't like your title, Waco? Then advance the discussion instead of showing so much hubris.

Shall we speak of Job? Or is suffering too difficult to consider as an aspect of compassion?

---

. Of course I don't your childish title but the question was "Is Jesus proud of you?" Feel free to site scripture by Jesus.

---

Translation - no, Waco still refuses to advance the discussion.

Unfortunate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.

---

I think you're in denial. That attempt to spin scientific support for the 'Poof, the universe appeared like magic out of nothing with no prior cause' fairy tale is weak, even for you, TS.

---

I don't have to spin scientific support. Scientific publications by numerous leading physicists in the field of quantum theory have demonstrated the premise. That's more than you can say for the existence of a creator, for whom there is no empirical evidence. The problem for you is that science draws its beliefs from the evidence of reality, whereas religion seeks to conform reality to irrational beliefs. Unfortunately, many religious people make decisions based upon irrational beliefs, which is dangerous to all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.

---

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.

---

Except when it doesn't, because some questions are outside the scope of science.

---

On the contrary. No questions are outside the scope of science. That's what science does. It asks questions. A few years ago no one knew there was a universe beyond our galaxy. Now we know there are 400 billion galaxies, much the same as ours. We can see back to 300 thousand years after the Big Bang. It wasn't that long ago that we thought atoms were the smallest division of matter, now we know that quantum particles exist. Things that were once explained as caused by God, we now can explain with no need for involvement of any god. Religion doesn't ask questions - it assigns the answers to a god before the question is even asked.

I've got a question.

Are any of us any better, more valuable than a spec of space dust? Why or why not?

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Bearass "God in the Gaps" or "God in the Margins" is a concept that states as long God exists to explain the unexplainable in miracles for instance and science discovers "Oh that's not a mystery but can be scientifically explained." then God is reduced to the margins of the unexplainable.

---

As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.

---

That is counterfactual history. Wiser humans have always asked the same basic questions.

---

But the answers changed.

---

Not really. There was a profound change from religions of manipulation and control to a religion of morals, love, and justice, but it had nothing to do with science. Rather it was a product of Judaism during the Bronze Age.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

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."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

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.

---

I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,

---

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.")

---

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.

---

Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.

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.

---

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,

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.

---

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.

---

".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)

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.

---

Not diminished, only deferred. The basic problem here is the same one philosophers have always struggled with.

---

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.

---

Except when it doesn't, because some questions are outside the scope of science.

---

On the contrary. No questions are outside the scope of science. That's what science does. It asks questions. A few years ago no one knew there was a universe beyond our galaxy. Now we know there are 400 billion galaxies, much the same as ours. We can see back to 300 thousand years after the Big Bang. It wasn't that long ago that we thought atoms were the smallest division of matter, now we know that quantum particles exist. Things that were once explained as caused by God, we now can explain with no need for involvement of any god. Religion doesn't ask questions - it assigns the answers to a god before the question is even asked.

---

Causation without divine intervention is hardly a new idea. As Hume pointed out, though, it can never be directly observed. Causation is only an inference.

TexasScientist said:

---

On the contrary. No questions are outside the scope of science. That's what science does. It asks questions.

---

Why was the universe created?
Why is it wrong to kill an innocent person?
What test did you determine that science can answer everything?

Please let me know what scientific tests that you run to determine these answers and include which scientific instrument that you derived the answer (thermometer, microscope, etc.)

You partially correct. Science can answer all questions. Some will argue that Philosophy is a branch of science.

And Mesoamerica? China? India? Africa? Malaysia? Indonesia? The Nordic countries? Sam you have a limited world view. ?

1) Is this review of religious historybanfvgods correct? If not? Why not?
2). Why is our historical Christian God thecright God and not Marduk or Quetzalcoatl?
3). Do God's control physics?
4) If so what moves the Christian God to changes physics?
From the time humans woke up and said "I am human. I can communicate ; I can remember; I can learn; I can think; I will die;" humans saw a powerful earth and heavens - wind, sun, light, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, floods, gravity (?).
In this dangerous world of forces they saw gods and thought that they could control these gods with
1) special knowledge (some of it science based like equinoxes)
2) , ritual (right dances, songs, movements) or
3) right sacrifices. Religion was an effort to control god.
4) Then of course there is death. We know we die so myths and rituals were developed for an "afterlife." And there gods controlled that life too
Every ancient culture had priests, rituals, notions of afterlife.
As scientific knowledge increased the power of priests decreased. People began to discover its out of our control.
God was reduced to the occasional miracle a "god of the gaps" to explains the unexplainable.
BUT then wiser humans began to re-contemplate who God might be because science was explaining away their old gods.
This new thinking began to associate "God" with love, justice, hope, morals, forgiveness. This God (who is present in all cultures but with different names) is the God that people experience and place their faith in.
BUT the old God sure is hard to let go of. HE has to be charge of everything so I can continue to manipulate him with prayers, gifts to the church, hating the right people, so I can be rich or happy or loved.
BUT God is so far above our simple understanding of love and justice and forgiveness and hope that we soon discover that God can't be manipulated. If God could be manipulated then that god is to woryhlesss.
BUT is - God is in love, in hope, in justice, in forgiveness. God is present in these forms. God showed at least us Christians that the truest form of God's presence with us is Jesus - immanuel.
Our presence to one another in love is the greatest sign of God's existence.
God is not the god of gaps but the transcendent/spiritual here and beyond in all the power of God's love. .
What are your thoughts on the history of god and religions? That's premise Right or wrong?

Waco1947 said:

---

And Mesoamerica? China? India? Africa? Malaysia? Indonesia? The Nordic countries? Sam you have a limited world view. ?

---

Their perspectives also changed to the extent they were reached by Christianity. How do you not know this?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

And Mesoamerica? China? India? Africa? Malaysia? Indonesia? The Nordic countries? Sam you have a limited world view. ?

---

Their perspectives also changed to the extent they were reached by Christianity. How do you not know this?

---

Because they existed 30, 000 years before they ever heard about the Christian God? And it's acstupid question. It's assumes a "God" capable of not only overcoming physics but time and history and logic. If that's true then one can not argue anything about god because he makes all the rules Willy Nilly according to some internal sovereignty we are not privy to. It becomes nonsense like the Easter Bunny. God is either subject to physics or God is not. If God is not subject to physics then it's nonsense to talk of God's Power. BUT God's power is over love, hope, justice, faith, ethics hence one can make a case for God and a strong one.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

And Mesoamerica? China? India? Africa? Malaysia? Indonesia? The Nordic countries? Sam you have a limited world view. ?

---

Their perspectives also changed to the extent they were reached by Christianity. How do you not know this?

---

Because they existed 30, 000 years before they ever heard about the Christian God? And it's acstupid question. It's assumes a "God" capable of not only overcoming physics but time and history and logic. If that's true then one can not argue anything about god because he makes all the rules Willy Nilly according to some internal sovereignty we are not privy to. It becomes nonsense like the Easter Bunny. God is either subject to physics or God is not. If God is not subject to physics then it's nonsense to talk of God's Power. BUT God's power is over love, hope, justice, faith, ethics hence one can make a case for God and a strong one.

---

I can't make much sense of your post above. My only point is that God has not been reduced to a "god of the gaps," nor has science fundamentally changed the way we think about God.

Is God subject to physics or not?

(My apologies it was not a well thought out or typed paragraph).
So is God, as you understand God, subject to physics?

Waco1947 said:

---

Is God subject to physics or not?

---

No.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

I've got a question.

Are any of us any better, more valuable than a spec of space dust? Why or why not?

---

Interesting question. In the scheme of the Universe, or in regard to the Universe overall, we are in consequential it seems. However, as a living cognizant species we have intrinsic value to ourselves and among ourselves. We may or may not have value to other living species, and may be detrimental to other species and even to ourselves. So yes, we have meaning and value to our species, but the Universe is indifferent and even hostile.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

On the contrary. No questions are outside the scope of science. That's what science does. It asks questions.

---

Why was the universe created?
Why is it wrong to kill an innocent person?

Quote:

---

What test did you determine that science can answer everything?

---

Please let me know what scientific tests that you run to determine these answers and include which scientific instrument that you derived the answer (thermometer, microscope, etc.)

You partially correct. Science can answer all questions. Some will argue that Philosophy is a branch of science.

---

Quote:

---

Why was the universe created?

---

There is no evidence of why or purpose to the Universe. But the question of how the Universe was created is solvable through science.

Quote:

---

Why is it wrong to kill an innocent person?

---

It is wrong because society tells us it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent person. Evidence of reality - the harm caused to someone - and rational thought and reasoning about this observation tells us it is wrong to take someone's life, and that it is better for an ordered rational society to prohibit the indiscriminate taking of innocent life. Neuroscience tells us that rational thought processes tend to cause societies to place moral and value judgments upon the interactions of the members within the social group and even those outside the group for common good.

Quote:

---

What test did you determine that science can answer everything?
Please let me know what scientific tests that you run to determine these answers and include which scientific instrument that you derived the answer (thermometer, microscope, etc.)

---

We don't need a test or instrument per se. Reasoning and the history of science tells us that questions can be answered. Given enough time for knowledge to build upon knowledge, there is no reason science can't resolve any question. That said, we may never answer all questions that we have as a people, because solving one question often leads to questions not thought of, and our time on this planet and possibly in the Universe is finite. It is likely that our species will come to an end before all questions are answered.

TexasScientist said:

---

There is no evidence of why or purpose to the Universe. But the question of how the Universe was created is solvable through science.

---

That's my point. Science can't answer WHY.

TexasScientist said:

---

It is wrong because society tells us it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent person. Evidence of reality - the harm caused to someone - and rational thought and reasoning about this observation tells us it is wrong to take someone's life, and that it is better for an ordered rational society to prohibit the indiscriminate taking of innocent life. Neuroscience tells us that rational thought processes tend to cause societies to place moral and value judgments upon the interactions of the members within the social group and even those outside the group for common good.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

We don't need a test or instrument per se. Reasoning and the history of science tells us that questions can be answered. Given enough time for knowledge to build upon knowledge, there is no reason science can't resolve any question. That said, we may never answer all questions that we have as a people, because solving one question often leads to questions not thought of, and our time on this planet and possibly in the Universe is finite. It is likely that our species will come to an end before all questions are answered.

---

Careful TS, you are dangerously close to philosophy. Society said that slavery was OK in this country for over 100 years. Slave owners could kill their slaves. Our society says that it's OK to kill a baby in the womb. (Not trying to derail this thread even more ...) My point is that Society can't provide the answers for morality. Morals have to come from somewhere. There is not scientific test for morals. I will argue that morals are written on the hearts of all men by God.

Can science calculate how much you love your wife or kids? It can't and that's OK. It doesn't have to. That's not the job of science.

Science is NOT the end all. Science is one amazing tool that we have to understand the universe around us. It is not the only tool.

Many of here are science geeks, too. We know that we can use science to understand this universe that we live in.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

There is no evidence of why or purpose to the Universe. But the question of how the Universe was created is solvable through science.

---

That's my point. Science can't answer WHY.

TexasScientist said:

---

It is wrong because society tells us it is immoral and wrong to kill an innocent person. Evidence of reality - the harm caused to someone - and rational thought and reasoning about this observation tells us it is wrong to take someone's life, and that it is better for an ordered rational society to prohibit the indiscriminate taking of innocent life. Neuroscience tells us that rational thought processes tend to cause societies to place moral and value judgments upon the interactions of the members within the social group and even those outside the group for common good.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

We don't need a test or instrument per se. Reasoning and the history of science tells us that questions can be answered. Given enough time for knowledge to build upon knowledge, there is no reason science can't resolve any question. That said, we may never answer all questions that we have as a people, because solving one question often leads to questions not thought of, and our time on this planet and possibly in the Universe is finite. It is likely that our species will come to an end before all questions are answered.

---

Careful TS, you are dangerously close to philosophy. Society said that slavery was OK in this country for over 100 years. Slave owners could kill their slaves. Our society says that it's OK to kill a baby in the womb. (Not trying to derail this thread even more ...) My point is that Society can't provide the answers for morality. Morals have to come from somewhere. There is not scientific test for morals. I will argue that morals are written on the hearts of all men by God.

Can science calculate how much you love your wife or kids? It can't and that's OK. It doesn't have to. That's not the job of science.

Science is NOT the end all. Science is one amazing tool that we have to understand the universe around us. It is not the only tool.

Many of here are science geeks, too. We know that we can use science to understand this universe that we live in.

---

Science can influence society's views and morals, the same as can any religion. Society makes its moral rules based upon consensus. That consensus can change with enlightenment. You know as well as I that morality is not universally the same across societies. What God has written in the hearts of Muslims is different from other religions, and therefore their laws are different from those of other locales. Religious morals change with time, and there often is no agreement as to what is moral within a religion. So, like it or not, "Society" does provide the answer as to what is moral. Science can provide an opportunity for society to transcend religious dogma and assess what is moral in light of rational observation. Religious tenets are written by men. I do agree that science is one amazing tool that we have to understand the Universe around us.