For athiests/evolutionists -- How can you have physical laws and random selection? What do you see the universe as? My imperfect view
1 Corinthians 13:12 "Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me."
- I see it as an constantly expanding creation. God can exist apart from it. Some view creation as a closed environment. [moderator/rpenner: If this is in another thread feel free to move.]
1st Colossians 1:17 KJV
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Never heard of random selection. 
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 27 2009, 01:37 AM)
Never heard of random selection.
good
use chaos, molecules to man, or rna
good
use chaos, molecules to man, or rna
It's natural selection not random selection.
If you want to find the truth start, believing nothing.
If you want to find the truth start, believing nothing.
What do I see the universe as???
Well, it's a really BIG place.
It is also, apparently, our creator. We are part of it and it is in us. "We are stardust."
It is also amazingly beautiful and awe inspiring.
Where it came from, I cannot say. (And neither can you.) Personally, I suspect it has been here forever... whatever that means.
Being temporary beings, it's difficult to wrap our minds around "forever"... On the other hand, people have to invent "immortality" and "afterlife" because we also have a hard time wrapping our minds around the fact the WE are temporary.
Well, it's a really BIG place.
It is also, apparently, our creator. We are part of it and it is in us. "We are stardust."
It is also amazingly beautiful and awe inspiring.
Where it came from, I cannot say. (And neither can you.) Personally, I suspect it has been here forever... whatever that means.
Being temporary beings, it's difficult to wrap our minds around "forever"... On the other hand, people have to invent "immortality" and "afterlife" because we also have a hard time wrapping our minds around the fact the WE are temporary.
The divine concealment is not simply a matter of God playing hide-and-seek with humanity, much less of God not wanting to be involved with the world. It is, in a profound way, an expression of divine grace for it means that we can live in the world as mature adults, can know what is happening, and can act responsibly on the basis of our knowledge. We do not inhabit a nightmare universe in which anything at all might happen at any moment, nor are we like babies in a nursery who are provided with the necessities of life but have no idea from where they come. Creation is so good that we can understand it on its own terms, "from the inside." The fact that scientific investigation can understand the world is a gift which results from the divine self-limitation.
QUOTE (Mark Dawson+Jun 26 2009, 09:49 PM)
... we can live in the world as mature adults, can know what is happening, and can act responsibly on the basis of our knowledge. We do not inhabit a nightmare universe in which anything at all might happen at any moment, nor are we like babies in a nursery who are provided with the necessities of life but have no idea from where they come. Creation is so good that we can understand it on its own terms, "from the inside."
On this, we agree.
On this, we agree.
QUOTE (Mark Dawson+Jun 26 2009, 09:49 PM)
The divine concealment is not simply a matter of God playing hide-and-seek with humanity, much less of God not wanting to be involved with the world. It is, in a profound way, an expression of divine grace for it means that we can live in the world as mature adults, can know what is happening, and can act responsibly on the basis of our knowledge. We do not inhabit a nightmare universe in which anything at all might happen at any moment, nor are we like babies in a nursery who are provided with the necessities of life but have no idea from where they come. Creation is so good that we can understand it on its own terms, "from the inside." The fact that scientific investigation can understand the world is a gift which results from the divine self-limitation.
You do realize that you've just presented a theistic argument in favor of an entirely secular lifestyle, right?
To summarize:
"God made the world a certain way, and left us alone to live in it, so we have to live in it the way we would if God didn't exist."
You do realize that you've just presented a theistic argument in favor of an entirely secular lifestyle, right?
To summarize:
"God made the world a certain way, and left us alone to live in it, so we have to live in it the way we would if God didn't exist."
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 04:10 AM)
You do realize that you've just presented a theistic argument in favor of an entirely secular lifestyle, right?
To summarize:
"God made the world a certain way, and left us alone to live in it, so we have to live in it the way we would if God didn't exist."
How do you explain newtons laws and physics then? Do you believe in them?
To summarize:
"God made the world a certain way, and left us alone to live in it, so we have to live in it the way we would if God didn't exist."
How do you explain newtons laws and physics then? Do you believe in them?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 27 2009, 10:56 AM)
How do you explain newtons laws and physics then? Do you believe in them?
The same way you explain god... They just are.
Major difference is that I can observe and test the laws of nature.
The same way you explain god... They just are.
Major difference is that I can observe and test the laws of nature.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 27 2009, 10:56 AM)
How do you explain newtons laws and physics then? Do you believe in them?
1. Those questions have absolutely nothing to do with my post.
2. See gmilam's post.
1. Those questions have absolutely nothing to do with my post.
2. See gmilam's post.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 27 2009, 04:27 PM)
The same way you explain god... They just are.
Major difference is that I can observe and test the laws of nature.
Big Bangs are testable and repeatable. Bet you can guess what happens!
Major difference is that I can observe and test the laws of nature.
Big Bangs are testable and repeatable. Bet you can guess what happens!
Newton observed that bodies in motion remain in motion…
Isaac: Revelations
There is a mote in space known as Earth,
A pale blue dot of fluff orbiting a hearth,
Due but to Newton’s laws of motion, there’s
No Godly hand guiding it safe around the sun.
Isaac: Revelations
There is a mote in space known as Earth,
A pale blue dot of fluff orbiting a hearth,
Due but to Newton’s laws of motion, there’s
No Godly hand guiding it safe around the sun.
Values, morals and civial laws came from humanity itself, a long long time ago, as being common human natural law. But what about physical laws? Were they natural, too? Or Supernatural?
The Laws of the Universe
(Some of this is from reading Victor J. Stenger)
The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics. Many Theists who may have happily come this far along in the disproofs of God that have been shown, necessarily conceding all the points…
…but then say, “Fine, but where did the laws of physics come from?”
There were perhaps no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.
The laws of physics were not handed down from above, like the Ten Commandments. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.
Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.
This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time.
The principle must be true for all points of views. And, so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.
That, of course, has been tried, but has ever failed. Here is a religious example:
A law was made (made up) that all objects move toward us. Now, that is not objective, but that was precisely what a whole lot of people on Earth once thought—that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the natural motion of the bodies was ever toward Earth: the sun, the other planets… everything!
The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and so that was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.
As Noether proved in 1915, this actually leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.
Later it was realized that Einstein’s special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time.
These are called symmetries, such as when a spinning sphere doesn’t single out a particular direction in space.
These four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void of ‘nothing’. !!!
The laws are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from ‘nothing’. What place, then for God?
Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and he various force laws, arise from the generalizations of space-time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematical models. These are called gauge invariance—the principle of point-of-view invariance.
So, when generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance—and is indeed of a much better wording of the concept.
Thus, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally. Others can arise by spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles.
So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from near ‘nothing’ (the quantum fluctuation). They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere!
Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.
To review, the conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus, practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.
1. Noether’s Theorem
In 1915, mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the generators of continuous space-time transformations are conserved when those transformations leave the system unchanged. These generators were identified with energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. The implications can be summarized as follows:
• In any space-time model possessing time translation invariance, energy must be
conserved.
• In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved.
• In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved.
So, again, when physicists formulate mathematical models they must do so in such a way that those models are independent of the point of view of the observer. That is, they must be point- of-view invariant. Otherwise they cannot expect the models to describe an objective reality.
Noether showed that any model that does not depend on a specific moment in time, position in space, and direction in space will automatically conserve energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. Classical mechanics is thus derived from point-of- view invariance.
When the directional invariance is extended to space-time, Lorentz invariance and special relativity follow.
Gauge invariance is another name for the invariance under transformations of the coordinate system in the abstract space of mathematical functions such as the quantum mechanical state vector.
Quantum mechanics itself can be seen as the mathematics of gauge transformations in which the generators of transformations correspond to various physical observables. By a generalization of Noether’s theorem, global gauge invariance leads to conservation of electric charge and the electric and magnetic fields are introduced to preserve local gauge invariance.
Gauge principles also lead to the standard model of particle and fields, with the weak and strong forces also introduced in order to preserve local gauge invariance.
The broken gauge symmetry of the electroweak force can be viewed as an attempt to describe events from a special point-of-view—that of current “low energy” experiments. The underlying theory, applicable at high energies such as those in the early universe, remains gauge symmetric.
What place, then, for a Anyone Else creating laws?
The Laws of the Universe
(Some of this is from reading Victor J. Stenger)
The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics. Many Theists who may have happily come this far along in the disproofs of God that have been shown, necessarily conceding all the points…
…but then say, “Fine, but where did the laws of physics come from?”
There were perhaps no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.
The laws of physics were not handed down from above, like the Ten Commandments. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.
Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.
This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time.
The principle must be true for all points of views. And, so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.
That, of course, has been tried, but has ever failed. Here is a religious example:
A law was made (made up) that all objects move toward us. Now, that is not objective, but that was precisely what a whole lot of people on Earth once thought—that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the natural motion of the bodies was ever toward Earth: the sun, the other planets… everything!
The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and so that was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.
As Noether proved in 1915, this actually leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.
Later it was realized that Einstein’s special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time.
These are called symmetries, such as when a spinning sphere doesn’t single out a particular direction in space.
These four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void of ‘nothing’. !!!
The laws are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from ‘nothing’. What place, then for God?
Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and he various force laws, arise from the generalizations of space-time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematical models. These are called gauge invariance—the principle of point-of-view invariance.
So, when generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance—and is indeed of a much better wording of the concept.
Thus, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally. Others can arise by spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles.
So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from near ‘nothing’ (the quantum fluctuation). They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere!
Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.
To review, the conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus, practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.
1. Noether’s Theorem
In 1915, mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the generators of continuous space-time transformations are conserved when those transformations leave the system unchanged. These generators were identified with energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. The implications can be summarized as follows:
• In any space-time model possessing time translation invariance, energy must be
conserved.
• In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved.
• In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved.
So, again, when physicists formulate mathematical models they must do so in such a way that those models are independent of the point of view of the observer. That is, they must be point- of-view invariant. Otherwise they cannot expect the models to describe an objective reality.
Noether showed that any model that does not depend on a specific moment in time, position in space, and direction in space will automatically conserve energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. Classical mechanics is thus derived from point-of- view invariance.
When the directional invariance is extended to space-time, Lorentz invariance and special relativity follow.
Gauge invariance is another name for the invariance under transformations of the coordinate system in the abstract space of mathematical functions such as the quantum mechanical state vector.
Quantum mechanics itself can be seen as the mathematics of gauge transformations in which the generators of transformations correspond to various physical observables. By a generalization of Noether’s theorem, global gauge invariance leads to conservation of electric charge and the electric and magnetic fields are introduced to preserve local gauge invariance.
Gauge principles also lead to the standard model of particle and fields, with the weak and strong forces also introduced in order to preserve local gauge invariance.
The broken gauge symmetry of the electroweak force can be viewed as an attempt to describe events from a special point-of-view—that of current “low energy” experiments. The underlying theory, applicable at high energies such as those in the early universe, remains gauge symmetric.
What place, then, for a Anyone Else creating laws?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 29 2009, 02:45 PM)
Big Bangs are testable and repeatable. Bet you can guess what happens!
Unlike your belief in god... I am open to other possibilities.
Do you have another hypothesis that explains the current evidence?
Unlike your belief in god... I am open to other possibilities.
Do you have another hypothesis that explains the current evidence?
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 29 2009, 08:08 PM)
Unlike your belief in god... I am open to other possibilities.
Do you have another hypothesis that explains the current evidence?
I wouldn't recommend any, I couldn't understand the Victor J. Stenger stuff, some of it seemed fallacy on authority. If there is no truth, no way, then why would you care to debate me?
Do you have another hypothesis that explains the current evidence?
I wouldn't recommend any, I couldn't understand the Victor J. Stenger stuff, some of it seemed fallacy on authority. If there is no truth, no way, then why would you care to debate me?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 29 2009, 06:21 PM)
I wouldn't recommend any, I couldn't understand the Victor J. Stenger stuff, some of it seemed fallacy on authority. If there is no truth, no way, then why would you care to debate me?
Who is Victor J Stenger? What are you talking about?
Who is Victor J Stenger? What are you talking about?
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 29 2009, 11:25 PM)
Who is Victor J Stenger? What are you talking about?
I was talking to ToeQuestor about the link he brought up as well as talking to you.
I was talking to ToeQuestor about the link he brought up as well as talking to you.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Jun 29 2009, 06:34 PM)
I was talking to ToeQuestor about the link he brought up also.
Sorry, you quoted me - so I assumed you were responding to me.
Sorry, you quoted me - so I assumed you were responding to me.
Victor J. Stenger wrote 'God: The Failed Hypothesis', in which he disproves God by science.
Thus, theists may not use 'authority' but must bring the observation of the real via science to debate what Victor says if one wants to show 'God'.
He thoroughly disproves God, thus even eliminating the one in a zillion chance that 'God did it', which, by the way should only have been stated as a theory, not as a truth. Of course, now that God has been disproved, we know that the theory of God is surely false.
Thus, theists may not use 'authority' but must bring the observation of the real via science to debate what Victor says if one wants to show 'God'.
He thoroughly disproves God, thus even eliminating the one in a zillion chance that 'God did it', which, by the way should only have been stated as a theory, not as a truth. Of course, now that God has been disproved, we know that the theory of God is surely false.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 29 2009, 07:55 PM)
Victor J. Stenger wrote 'God: The Failed Hypothesis', in which he disproves God by science.
Thus, theists may not use 'authority' but must bring the observation of the real via science to debate what Victor says if one wants to show 'God'.
He thoroughly disproves God, thus even eliminating the one in a zillion chance that 'God did it', which, by the way should only have been stated as a theory, not as a truth. Of course, now that God has been disproved, we know that the theory of God is surely false.
You cannot disprove the existence of god, or invisible pink unicorns, or ethereal dragons in my garage. Anyone who claims to do so is behaving with as little regard for science as any fundie.
Thus, theists may not use 'authority' but must bring the observation of the real via science to debate what Victor says if one wants to show 'God'.
He thoroughly disproves God, thus even eliminating the one in a zillion chance that 'God did it', which, by the way should only have been stated as a theory, not as a truth. Of course, now that God has been disproved, we know that the theory of God is surely false.
You cannot disprove the existence of god, or invisible pink unicorns, or ethereal dragons in my garage. Anyone who claims to do so is behaving with as little regard for science as any fundie.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 30 2009, 01:07 AM)
You cannot disprove the existence of god, or invisible pink unicorns, or ethereal dragons in my garage. Anyone who claims to do so is behaving with as little regard for science as any fundie.
Until recently, this would have been true.
First he disproves the theist God, by noting no effects but the natural and nothing at all supernatural. (in God: The Failed Hypothesis) The absence of evidence totally applies when there should be evidence, since the theist God intervenes and all that.
Then he goes on in 'Quantum Gods' to disprove any Deity, an admittedly tougher case, plus any and all quantum-type Gods.
I'll put more, I guess, in the other thread about God's existence, where I put a summary of Stenger's proof.
Until recently, this would have been true.
First he disproves the theist God, by noting no effects but the natural and nothing at all supernatural. (in God: The Failed Hypothesis) The absence of evidence totally applies when there should be evidence, since the theist God intervenes and all that.
Then he goes on in 'Quantum Gods' to disprove any Deity, an admittedly tougher case, plus any and all quantum-type Gods.
I'll put more, I guess, in the other thread about God's existence, where I put a summary of Stenger's proof.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 29 2009, 08:26 PM)
Until recently, this would have been true.
It is immutably and eternally true. You cannot possibly prove that something does not exist. You can only prove that it may not have certain properties. Any attempt to do so is called an argument from ignorance, and is a formal fallacy.
It is immutably and eternally true. You cannot possibly prove that something does not exist. You can only prove that it may not have certain properties. Any attempt to do so is called an argument from ignorance, and is a formal fallacy.
QUOTE
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
First he disproves the theist God, by noting no effects but the natural and nothing at all supernatural.
1. Again, you cannot disprove the existence of something, as I've already explained.
2. Anything observable is by definition, natural. Therefore, it is impossible to observe the supernatural. Any entity, phenomenon or concept which is currently considered supernatural would be by definition, natural should it actually exist.
3. There is no requirement that any god or gods be observable. God is a philosophical construct and thereby is not constrained by the known laws of nature, and is often defined in such a way as to reinforce this.
No-one has ever been able to produce a good reason why there should be evidence of god's existence. Many many philosophical works have, however, given numerous good reasons why no evidence of god would exist, despite the existence of god.
No-one has ever been able to produce a good reason why there should be evidence of god's existence. Many many philosophical works have, however, given numerous good reasons why no evidence of god would exist, despite the existence of god.
Then he goes on in 'Quantum Gods' to disprove any Deity, an admittedly tougher case, plus any and all quantum-type Gods.
Again, utterly impossible.
First he disproves the theist God, by noting no effects but the natural and nothing at all supernatural.
1. Again, you cannot disprove the existence of something, as I've already explained.
2. Anything observable is by definition, natural. Therefore, it is impossible to observe the supernatural. Any entity, phenomenon or concept which is currently considered supernatural would be by definition, natural should it actually exist.
3. There is no requirement that any god or gods be observable. God is a philosophical construct and thereby is not constrained by the known laws of nature, and is often defined in such a way as to reinforce this.
QUOTE
(in God: The Failed Hypothesis) The absence of evidence totally applies when there should be evidence, since the theist God intervenes and all that.
No-one has ever been able to produce a good reason why there should be evidence of god's existence. Many many philosophical works have, however, given numerous good reasons why no evidence of god would exist, despite the existence of god.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (in God: The Failed Hypothesis) The absence of evidence totally applies when there should be evidence, since the theist God intervenes and all that. |
No-one has ever been able to produce a good reason why there should be evidence of god's existence. Many many philosophical works have, however, given numerous good reasons why no evidence of god would exist, despite the existence of god.
Then he goes on in 'Quantum Gods' to disprove any Deity, an admittedly tougher case, plus any and all quantum-type Gods.
Again, utterly impossible.
The actions and effects of a theist God are observable. For example, by a study on the efficacy of prayer, a miracle outside of any natural law, non conservation of energy, a specific and detailed biblical prediction of future events exactly coming true, healing an amputee, etc. We will see that in every area—and we only need one tiny instance—that there is no trace of God.
When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural.
Only invisible things that purportedly have no effects at all cannot be proved. But then they might as well not exist, as either they left or they have no influence or wish to have none at all. A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
It must be that the causeless eternal bottom can only be an indeterminate chaos of disorder such as we see in the quantum realm, plus there is proof that this realm is random with no hidden variables.
On the other hand, there are no proofs of God whatsoever. Can anyone supply? No. This alone takes care of it, really. I am just double doing it.
When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural.
Only invisible things that purportedly have no effects at all cannot be proved. But then they might as well not exist, as either they left or they have no influence or wish to have none at all. A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
It must be that the causeless eternal bottom can only be an indeterminate chaos of disorder such as we see in the quantum realm, plus there is proof that this realm is random with no hidden variables.
On the other hand, there are no proofs of God whatsoever. Can anyone supply? No. This alone takes care of it, really. I am just double doing it.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 29 2009, 11:44 PM)
The actions and effects of a theist God are observable.
prove it.
Come on, now you've made a positive claim, let's see some proof that this is true. You understand that the person asserting a positive claim holds the burden of proof, right?
Such study would only serve to evince the efficacy or lack thereof of prayer.
Such study would only serve to evince the efficacy or lack thereof of prayer.
miracle outside of any natural law, non conservation of energy,
Again, that would only serve to evince or falsify the specific thesis being tested, E.G. "this miracle happened," or "the conservation of energy holds true/false in this circumstance."
For the last time: This would only serve to prove or disprove the accuracy of the particular prophecy being tested.
For the last time: This would only serve to prove or disprove the accuracy of the particular prophecy being tested.
We will see that in every area—and we only need one tiny instance—that there is no trace of God.
No, in order to disprove god we must disprove every possible attribute of god, not "one tiny" attribute.
Do you even know what logic and methodological naturalism are? You're giving atheists a bad name with this illogical, fallacy-ridden diatribe.
So the supernatural was proven the first time spontaneous abiogenesis (the hypothesis that different animals come into being not through sexual reproduction, but from chemical processes occurring in natural settings, such as forests, ponds and swamps) was falsified? Spontaneous abiogenesis was once considered a part of nature.
You are implying that the supernatural was proven when astronomical observations demonstrated the accuracy of general relativity, and when laboratory experiments confirmed the non deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, do you even understand that? Natural laws are never immutable. Never. They are by definition, subject to change as new information becomes available. Many so called "natural laws" have been disproven, including the three examples I gave above (the natural law being disproven by my mention of General Relativity was Newton's laws of motion).
Nature is what is observed, the supernatural is by definition, non-existent.
So the supernatural was proven the first time spontaneous abiogenesis (the hypothesis that different animals come into being not through sexual reproduction, but from chemical processes occurring in natural settings, such as forests, ponds and swamps) was falsified? Spontaneous abiogenesis was once considered a part of nature.
You are implying that the supernatural was proven when astronomical observations demonstrated the accuracy of general relativity, and when laboratory experiments confirmed the non deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, do you even understand that? Natural laws are never immutable. Never. They are by definition, subject to change as new information becomes available. Many so called "natural laws" have been disproven, including the three examples I gave above (the natural law being disproven by my mention of General Relativity was Newton's laws of motion).
Nature is what is observed, the supernatural is by definition, non-existent.
Only invisible things that purportedly have no effects at all cannot be proved. But then they might as well not exist, as either they left or they have no influence or wish to have none at all. A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
That is an accurate position. Try to stick to it.
This is another fallacy... This time it's called the is-ought problem. Simply because a watch is designed does not mean all complex objects are designed. This is a fundamental argument against ideals such as ID, yet you refute it without a second thought...
This is another fallacy... This time it's called the is-ought problem. Simply because a watch is designed does not mean all complex objects are designed. This is a fundamental argument against ideals such as ID, yet you refute it without a second thought...
It must be that the causeless eternal bottom can only be an indeterminate chaos of disorder such as we see in the quantum realm, plus there is proof that this realm is random with no hidden variables.
No, it must not be anything in particular.
I've already linked and quoted a page showing the fallacy in this statement.
I am normally loathe to neg an atheist on this forum, however you are sorely tempting me. Valid arguments for the non-existence of god abound, and carry as much weight as the many valid arguments for god's existence, and I have no problem with anyone using any of them. I will however, not fail to call out anyone who abuses logic with the wantonness with which you insist upon doing so with.
That proves nothing.
God(s) could have used natural laws... not bothered interfering.. or simply made it look like it was natural.... or made us all think it was natural.
That proves nothing.
God(s) could have used natural laws... not bothered interfering.. or simply made it look like it was natural.... or made us all think it was natural.
A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
You are discounting the major points without reason.... creation of the Universe and life after death. Even if God(s) have no other effects than those.. it's more than enough.
Nope.. there are a number of thought experiments you can go over easily that show possible loss of causality.
Here's one...
You design an electrical circuit with the remarkable attribute of being able to go back in time. It simply lights a light bulb but the current can go back in time five minutes.
Here is what happens.
The light turns on... indicating that in five minutes you have turned on the current.
However, you decide to not turn the current on and see.
You have both paradox and loss of causality. If you didn't turn on the circuit.. how did the light turn on.
Normally this is not a situation that is possible. However.. before time began.. who knows.
Again I will reiterate what Mjolnir is trying to explain.
You can't prove God(s) exists.
You can't prove God(s) don't exist.
Period.
I know. I was speaking as a theist would have to speak in the last sentence if s/he carried the argument forward. Sorry for the confusion.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
How can you truly speak as, for a theist when you not a theist? Do you mean you speak for an atheist? That I could believe. If this is a chaos theory, where is the chaos in the universe, if you want to go the whole route? Where are all of the random events, why do we seek order in chaos if chaos is in-fact order?
Are quantum mechanics uncertain or chaotic in principle ... not caused, or is that our perception and principle of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
prove it.
Come on, now you've made a positive claim, let's see some proof that this is true. You understand that the person asserting a positive claim holds the burden of proof, right?
QUOTE
For example, by a study on the efficacy of prayer
Such study would only serve to evince the efficacy or lack thereof of prayer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For example, by a study on the efficacy of prayer |
Such study would only serve to evince the efficacy or lack thereof of prayer.
miracle outside of any natural law, non conservation of energy,
Again, that would only serve to evince or falsify the specific thesis being tested, E.G. "this miracle happened," or "the conservation of energy holds true/false in this circumstance."
QUOTE
a specific and detailed biblical prediction of future events exactly coming true
For the last time: This would only serve to prove or disprove the accuracy of the particular prophecy being tested.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| a specific and detailed biblical prediction of future events exactly coming true |
For the last time: This would only serve to prove or disprove the accuracy of the particular prophecy being tested.
We will see that in every area—and we only need one tiny instance—that there is no trace of God.
No, in order to disprove god we must disprove every possible attribute of god, not "one tiny" attribute.
Do you even know what logic and methodological naturalism are? You're giving atheists a bad name with this illogical, fallacy-ridden diatribe.
QUOTE
When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural.
So the supernatural was proven the first time spontaneous abiogenesis (the hypothesis that different animals come into being not through sexual reproduction, but from chemical processes occurring in natural settings, such as forests, ponds and swamps) was falsified? Spontaneous abiogenesis was once considered a part of nature.
You are implying that the supernatural was proven when astronomical observations demonstrated the accuracy of general relativity, and when laboratory experiments confirmed the non deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, do you even understand that? Natural laws are never immutable. Never. They are by definition, subject to change as new information becomes available. Many so called "natural laws" have been disproven, including the three examples I gave above (the natural law being disproven by my mention of General Relativity was Newton's laws of motion).
Nature is what is observed, the supernatural is by definition, non-existent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural. |
So the supernatural was proven the first time spontaneous abiogenesis (the hypothesis that different animals come into being not through sexual reproduction, but from chemical processes occurring in natural settings, such as forests, ponds and swamps) was falsified? Spontaneous abiogenesis was once considered a part of nature.
You are implying that the supernatural was proven when astronomical observations demonstrated the accuracy of general relativity, and when laboratory experiments confirmed the non deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, do you even understand that? Natural laws are never immutable. Never. They are by definition, subject to change as new information becomes available. Many so called "natural laws" have been disproven, including the three examples I gave above (the natural law being disproven by my mention of General Relativity was Newton's laws of motion).
Nature is what is observed, the supernatural is by definition, non-existent.
Only invisible things that purportedly have no effects at all cannot be proved. But then they might as well not exist, as either they left or they have no influence or wish to have none at all. A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
That is an accurate position. Try to stick to it.
QUOTE
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
This is another fallacy... This time it's called the is-ought problem. Simply because a watch is designed does not mean all complex objects are designed. This is a fundamental argument against ideals such as ID, yet you refute it without a second thought...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER. |
This is another fallacy... This time it's called the is-ought problem. Simply because a watch is designed does not mean all complex objects are designed. This is a fundamental argument against ideals such as ID, yet you refute it without a second thought...
It must be that the causeless eternal bottom can only be an indeterminate chaos of disorder such as we see in the quantum realm, plus there is proof that this realm is random with no hidden variables.
No, it must not be anything in particular.
QUOTE
On the other hand, there are no proofs of God whatsoever. Can anyone supply? No. This alone takes care of it, really. I am just double doing it.
I've already linked and quoted a page showing the fallacy in this statement.
I am normally loathe to neg an atheist on this forum, however you are sorely tempting me. Valid arguments for the non-existence of god abound, and carry as much weight as the many valid arguments for god's existence, and I have no problem with anyone using any of them. I will however, not fail to call out anyone who abuses logic with the wantonness with which you insist upon doing so with.
QUOTE
When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural.
That proves nothing.
God(s) could have used natural laws... not bothered interfering.. or simply made it look like it was natural.... or made us all think it was natural.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When natural laws are violated, then it comes from the supernatural. |
That proves nothing.
God(s) could have used natural laws... not bothered interfering.. or simply made it look like it was natural.... or made us all think it was natural.
A God who hides is of no concern, nor can He expect anything from us.
You are discounting the major points without reason.... creation of the Universe and life after death. Even if God(s) have no other effects than those.. it's more than enough.
QUOTE
The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
Nope.. there are a number of thought experiments you can go over easily that show possible loss of causality.
Here's one...
You design an electrical circuit with the remarkable attribute of being able to go back in time. It simply lights a light bulb but the current can go back in time five minutes.
Here is what happens.
The light turns on... indicating that in five minutes you have turned on the current.
However, you decide to not turn the current on and see.
You have both paradox and loss of causality. If you didn't turn on the circuit.. how did the light turn on.
Normally this is not a situation that is possible. However.. before time began.. who knows.
Again I will reiterate what Mjolnir is trying to explain.
You can't prove God(s) exists.
You can't prove God(s) don't exist.
Period.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 30 2009, 06:10 AM)
prove it.
Come on, now you've made a positive claim, let's see some proof that this is true. You understand that the person asserting a positive claim holds the burden of proof, right?
Right.
It's continuing in the 'existence' thread where you and some many responded, there being 5 parts so far, and more to go. I'll try to pace it so it doesn't come all at once, unless you want it to go faster.
Come on, now you've made a positive claim, let's see some proof that this is true. You understand that the person asserting a positive claim holds the burden of proof, right?
Right.
It's continuing in the 'existence' thread where you and some many responded, there being 5 parts so far, and more to go. I'll try to pace it so it doesn't come all at once, unless you want it to go faster.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 30 2009, 06:10 AM)
This is another fallacy... This time it's called the is-ought problem. Simply because a watch is designed does not mean all complex objects are designed. This is a fundamental argument against ideals such as ID, yet you refute it without a second thought...
I know. I was speaking as a theist would have to speak in the last sentence if s/he carried the argument forward. Sorry for the confusion.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
I know. I was speaking as a theist would have to speak in the last sentence if s/he carried the argument forward. Sorry for the confusion.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 30 2009, 06:30 AM)
Nope.. there are a number of thought experiments you can go over easily that show possible loss of causality.
I meant that I will be showing no causality—over in the other 'existence' thread. Was saying that theists should really demand a cause for the design of God if they are to go the whole route.
I meant that I will be showing no causality—over in the other 'existence' thread. Was saying that theists should really demand a cause for the design of God if they are to go the whole route.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 30 2009, 02:49 AM)
Right.
It's continuing in the 'existence' thread where you and some many responded, there being 5 parts so far, and more to go. I'll try to pace it so it doesn't come all at once, unless you want it to go faster.
Your posts in those threads contain absolutely no proof that "The actions and effects of a theist God are observable."
Do you even know what evidence, logic and reason are? Jesus H Christ, you're worse than the theists. At least they believe in something irrationally, you just irrationally dismiss beliefs.
It's continuing in the 'existence' thread where you and some many responded, there being 5 parts so far, and more to go. I'll try to pace it so it doesn't come all at once, unless you want it to go faster.
Your posts in those threads contain absolutely no proof that "The actions and effects of a theist God are observable."
Do you even know what evidence, logic and reason are? Jesus H Christ, you're worse than the theists. At least they believe in something irrationally, you just irrationally dismiss beliefs.
QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 30 2009, 03:33 AM)
I know. I was speaking as a theist would have to speak in the last sentence if s/he carried the argument forward. Sorry for the confusion.
Actually, on second thought, what is the eternal causeless prime mover doing being a fully formed complex composite system of perfect order when there was no prior time or parts for His mind/self being designed. Complexity falls at the other end of the spectrum. The Designer needs a DESIGNER.
How can you truly speak as, for a theist when you not a theist? Do you mean you speak for an atheist? That I could believe. If this is a chaos theory, where is the chaos in the universe, if you want to go the whole route? Where are all of the random events, why do we seek order in chaos if chaos is in-fact order?
Are quantum mechanics uncertain or chaotic in principle ... not caused, or is that our perception and principle of them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
QUOTE
A fair coin has an entropy of one bit. However, if the coin is not fair, then the uncertainty is lower (if asked to bet on the next outcome, we would bet preferentially on the most frequent result), and thus the Shannon entropy is lower. Mathematically, a coin flip is an example of a Bernoulli trial, and its entropy is given by the binary entropy function. A long string of repeating characters has an entropy rate of 0, since every character is predictable. The entropy rate of English text is between 1.0 and 1.5 bits per letter,[1] or as low as 0.6 to 1.3 bits per letter, according to estimates by Shannon based on human experiments.[2]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.