Great post.quash said:bearassnekkid said:"You're."TexasScientist said:I think your on track. Creation stories are works of fiction by a primitive people trying to make sense of reality.Oldbear83 said:That one is simple, at least - it's in the script. Even as a work of fiction, the Avengers universe has a creator. Sad to think, the Sciencism cultist will be more likely to admit the movie universe's creator than the Creator of our very real universe.YoakDaddy said:TexasScientist said:".The only way around this problem of infinite regress that has been suggested so far is the idea that the universe could be spontaneously created out of nothing. We often hear that nothing can come out of nothing. Indeed, matter has positive energy, and energy conservation demands that any initial state should have the same energy. However, it is a mathematical fact that the energy of a closed universe is equal to zero. In such a universe, the positive energy of matter is exactly compensated by the negative energy of the gravitational field, so the total energy is zero. . If all the conserved numbers of a closed universe are equal to zero, then there is nothing to prevent such a universe from being spontaneously created out of nothing. In quantum mechanics, any process which is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen with some probability. . You can ask: "What caused the universe to pop out of nothing?" Surprisingly, no cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time. But if you ask why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not the other, the answer is that there is no cause: the process is completely random. Similarly, no cause is needed for quantum creation of the universe." (Vilenkin, 2011)Sam Lowry said:Vilenkin explains how any number of closed systems could come from an existing state of positive and negative energy governed by the laws of quantum physics. That's far different from explaining how existence came from nothing. His theory only postpones the question.TexasScientist said:bearassnekkid said:Keep reaching, brother. You're going to be left completely empty.TexasScientist said:The ontological argument is nonsense, and you have better concepts to draw upon to support you view than that. My ability to conceive of Zeus in my mind doesn't mean he exists in reality. Quantum theory gives us a plausible explanation for our existence without the need for a god. Occam's razor supports the conclusion there is no need for a god to explain our existence.bearassnekkid said:If I were going to comment on your hypothetical comment, I'd point out that this is a false assumption, and at the very least would require that you support why it would make it unlikely (much less highly unlikely). I'd also demand that such a statement contend with the philosophical and logical objections that attend to it. Things like the ontological argument ("If it is even possible that God exists, it follows logically that He does exist.")TexasScientist said:I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god,Oldbear83 said:^^^ Evasion ^^^TexasScientist said:I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."quash said:Oldbear83 said:
I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.
A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.
But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.
The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.
God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.
There is no science in that perspective.
Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.
Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life, or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc. It also doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever as to why or how that one species would almost universally experience an overwhelming sense of meaning to all this life and matter.
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL. If anything, Occam's Razor applies much more to proposed alternatives than it does to an intelligent Maker.Vilenkin (2011) explains precisely how a universe can come from nothing and will.. There is no "why" to the existence of the universe or our existence. Rather, there is "how," and 'how" is what science is unraveling. The universe is not fine tuned to life. In fact it is very hostile to life. Rather, life is fine tuned to the universe - fine tuned to the environment it is surviving within. Life has evolved by adapting to the environment.Quote:
Dismissing the ontological argument as nonsense is incredibly weak. Quantum theory absolutely does not give a plausible explanation for "our" existence, and inside your heart you know this. It doesn't provide any satisfactory answer to "why", nor does it give answers as to how a universe came to be that is so precisely and immaculately fine-tuned so as to support life,Spontaneous formation of the universe is both probable and plausible in quantum theory. How do you account for the creation of the god you think created the universe? How was god created? What credible evidence do you claim outside of the writings of primitive people?Quote:
The Occam's razor argument is similarly flawed, but again I suspect you know this inside. That fact that you say the entire universe was a spontaneous accident from nothingness does not give you some kind of logical high ground because you deem that position "simpler" than that of design. And an accident or randomness doesn't account for specified complexity AT ALL.Many advanced species to varying degrees show evidence of self awareness etc.Quote:
or how only exactly ONE species of the billions in the history of this planet would evolve into self-consciousness and awareness of immaterial realities like love, or mathematics, etc.
I'll grant you that nothing is more complicated than what you would think. If you take a region of space, empty it of everything, get rid of all the radiation, particles and matter, it still weighs something. We don't know the answer yet, but there is no evidence that there is some god pulling strings. The more we learn about the universe, the area for a god to operate within gets smaller and smaller, and the need to plug a god in as an answer for things unknown is diminished.
All this quantum talk....How does Ant-Man make it out of the quantum realm to help the rest of The Avengers beat Thanos?
And does this statement mean we're still primitive? Should your creation story be dismissed because it's "trying to make sense of reality?"
No, because it does a much better job.
I respond with "it does a far worse job." Now, we've really gotten somewhere. Thanks your input.