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?
LOLOL. The irony of your last few posts is kind of mesmerizing.
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.