Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.
Oh, one more question: why MUST the Universe had to have been created through magic?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Isn't the emergence of something out of nothing by definition magic? However mathematical or couched in scientific terminology, with the Big Bang aren't we essentially positing a state of existing appearing from nowhere--from beyond spacetime? That's sounds pretty supernatural to me. And if something can come from nothing initially, what keeps it from happening all the time?
Yes they do!!!!!!!!. All personal observations are subjective and meaningless unless confirmed through independent tests by others knowledgeable in the field of inquiry. It is called "The Scientific Method".
Not to those who have actually studied the subject in depth. You may want to look up "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" (CDT)
Ill save you the time and link wiki here:
Finally, the concept of "supernatural" cannot be used as proof of anything. It is by definition outside the scope of obsrevation of the natural world. To claim knowledge of such a being is pure indoctrinated hubris.
The anticipated question is: "how can you disprove a supernatural aspect to the Wholeness?"
The scientific reply is: "how can you prove a supernatural aspect to the Wholeness?"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in all areas of human knowledge, except theism. How convenient.
Noone consults scientists to find out if something is real or true in their own experience. They just don't. And the much vaunted "Scientific Method" is a load of crap. There's no such thing:
"You might have learned about or participated in such activities as part of something your teacher described as the “scientific method.” It’s a sequence of steps that take you from asking a question to arriving at a conclusion. But scientists rarely follow the steps of the scientific method as textbooks describe it.
“The scientific method is a myth,” asserts Gary Garber, a physics teacher at Boston University Academy.
The term “scientific method,” he explains, isn’t even something scientists themselves came up with. It was invented by historians and philosophers of science during the last century to make sense of how science works. Unfortunately, he says, the term is usually interpreted to mean there is only one, step-by-step approach to science.
That’s a big misconception, Garber argues. “There isn’t one method of ‘doing science.’”
In fact, he notes, there are many paths to finding out the answer to something. Which route a researcher chooses may depend on the field of science being studied. It might also depend on whether experimentation is possible, affordable — even ethical.
In some instances, scientists may use computers to model, or simulate, conditions. Other times, researchers will test ideas in the real world. Sometimes they begin an experiment with no idea what may happen. They might disturb some system just to see what happens, Garber says, “because they’re experimenting with the unknown.”====https://student.societyforscience.org/article/problems-‘-scientific-method’
"Causal dynamic triangularization" is outside the scope of observation of the natural world as well. To claim knowledge of such is pure indoctrinated hubris.
I'm not a theist. I believe in the Big Bang, with all the magic and transcendental dimensionality that it assumes. If there is an "outside space/time" then, then there's one now as well. And we have no idea what is possible betwixt this and our physical veil.
The OP states a presumed fact, not as a question, but as Truth. OK, now provide the PROOF without resorting to circular reasoning.
That is not true. Scientist have tremendous imaginations of things that might be true. Some scientists are also great sci-fi writers with intricate story plots and twists. But a "formal proposition" requires the scientific method, the step by step demonstration that predicts a result. If the result is produced and can be repeatedly demonstrated, only then the proposition merits the term "theory".
Did he explain any other method which may be labeled as "doing science"?
And that is surprising to you?
Oh, the collider in Cern was just a waste of time and money?
Science does not consider ethics at all. It is concerned only with finding out how things work in Reality. Ethics belongs in the discipline of philosophy.
Religions have an agenda, seeking believers in a mythological tale. Science's agenda seeks only knowledge of things that can be proven true or carry the promise that something may be shown to be true.
You seem to confuse "that which is yet unknown" with "that which is unknowable"
Gravity was unknown until Newton explained it. Only then did we "understand" why an apple falls down toward the earth instead of up into the wild blue yonder.
Well then (according to mysticism) it must be true, prove me wrong.
But no one is claiming that CDT is truth, it is a "proposition" based on existing real evidence. This is why it has been dubbed "promising" in the scientific world. If it is true remains to be proved through the scientific method.
OTOH. all 1000 religions are (have been) PROCLAIMED TRUTH and inquiry is strictly forbidden. Can you not see the difference?
Why the magic and transcendental dimensionality? How about a simple "permittve condition"?
You keep seeking "purpose", but why does there need to be a purpose at all?
I already explained this on page 56 #1104 in the thread "Proof of the existence of God"
of which this thread is just a rehash.
That hard to explain eh? Doesn't say much for it does it? I have no idea how to look up page 56 #1104. What does that even mean?
Go to the Religion Forum
Look for a previous thread titled "Proof of the existence of God"
Go to page 56 of that thread
Find post # 1104
Read what I wrote.
So you admit a timeless state with infinite potential preexisting the universe. What makes this different from magic, or a divine omnipresent creative substrate? Sounds like magic to me.
You call it magical, but then you go one step further and invent a magician, completely destroying your own argument of "nothingness".
I do not call it "a divine omnipresent creative substrate". Again that is your attempt to assign purpose and intent. With "timeless permittive condition" I mean exactly that, no bells no whistles, no magic tricks, no sleight of hand. A zero state condition where nothing happens because for a timeless moment it was in perfect zero state balance (equilibrium). A perfect singularity with infinite dynamic mathematical potential (energy).
Here is where the inquiry into this as yet unknown permittive condition (God) begins. Draw your own conclusions, where and how the scientific evidence relates to OT scripture.
a) the universe IS mathematical.
I challenge you to listen and view this as objectively as possible. In exchange I promise to read any paper that argues persuasively for the "necessity" of a sentient spernatural god.
A single quantum event may have triggered a mathematical function, leading to a sequentially caused imbalance in the mathematical perfection. I believe this is known a "symmetry breaking" and the start of a chronology of mathematical functions, resulting in the initial creation and later evolution of the universe. Such an event can be imagined if say, all this latent energetic potential was released in a single mega-quantum event, the BB.
In the greater permittive condition mathematics are just a potential itself. The result was a momentary "inflationary epoch" where mathematical laws were overwhelmed by the infinite mathematics of chaos. Then we entered the cooling period and things began to fall in place mathematically. However the imbalance and resulting dynamic functions was created and could not be restored. Bohm called this the "holomovement" andlater refined this concept into the "pilot wave" (along with deBroglie).
One of the known imbalances in the universe is that there are fewer antiparticles than particles which might well be causal to the dynamics of the newly created universe.
The answer must be that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe, which may account for "dark matter" and "dark energy". If these unknowns turn out to be sentient and motivated, then we can begin to talk about God and if it merits worship.
Until then I'll stick with the maths., but then I am an old accountant, so I may be prejudced in favor of "balancing the books".
What magician? Where have I said there's a magician. I already told you I'm not a theist.
Then what are you arguing, if not ID?
I dispute this. First, a) doesn't make sense because a dynamic system implies time, and cannot be timeless. Moreover, you're position is that if a) is true, then the BB is inevitable. However, zero-state conditions require external inputs in order to derive responses. If you want a) to be cohere to your position, it would need to simply be a "permittive dynamic zero input condition with unlimited potential." This would make sense, as time would be required for the eventuality of the inevitable BB to actually occur.
The theistic position is something like "a timeless permittive static zero state condition with unlimited potential" with an external input causing the forced response of the BB.
I know you do. That's why you're so gullible to all kinds of woo rubbish.
It isn't about whether you saw "something" or not. It's about what you saw. Was it something woo or is there a better explanation? You're better off consulting somebody who isn't so susceptible to woo.
Nobody promised you that real knowledge would be easy.
IMO, tThe term dynamic potential does not necessarily indicate physical change and involve time if an internal zero state (equilibrium) is maintained within the singularity. In a timeless condition, a singularity needs not exist apart from the wholeness of the permittive condition, which may be considered as a metaphysical singularity itself. A zero state condition of pure infinite potential (Bohm).
The fundamental definition of Potential: "That which may become reality", an inherent quality of everything, including any definition of God.
The term "timeless zero state" does not preclude the concept of "inevitable" metaphysical instability, eventually resulting in physical expression. IMO, it reinforces it, based on the fact that physical reality does exist today.
But then that begs the question where did this external input come from? In the absence of space there is no "external" something. Whatever caused the symmetry breaking had to be "internal" to the singularity. If an external force did exist outside the zero state condition we end up with a circular argument.
Except, that begs the question. If no physical change is occurring, how does the "eventuality" come to take place? If it is timeless, it really has to be static.
I would postulate that if a zero state condition of pure infinite potential can have existed, an infinite state condition of pure zero potential can have existed also. The universe, as it is, is a mix of potential and actual. If all you have is a state of pure potentiality, and absolutely zero actuality, then there's nothing to activate that potential, internal or external. Potentiality cannot self-actualize.
Optical illusions are a perfect example of that argument. The human brain, for all it's sophistication is not
infallible and limited in what information it can process. The brain is easily fooled into seeing (experiencing)something which does not exist in reality.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True as long as the condition is static (zero state condition of pure potential).
But that timelessness exists only until an anomaly causes it to be no longer static. This symmetry breaking can be "instantaneous" setting in motion a metaphysical mathematical process "eventually" resulting in expression in reality (note my proposition of a single mega-quantum event, a single instant) creating the universe and its physical evolution thereafter.
And therein lies the crux. In his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", Bohm proposed an "enfolded order" and that the combination of suitable potentials may form an implication which may express itself in reality.
Below is a review:
Here is more on Bohm's work: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm
Separate names with a comma.