The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
Science finds "external" stuff, which becomes "known facts"? Does anyone do any thinking during this change from external to known, and if so, how do they avoid internalising the externals? Does it just "surface" from some "underlying neurology" (blah blah)?SciWriter said:
So, you mean an "external" becomes a "known fact" when it's internalised by "cognizance"? That contradicts what you said earlier me old china.
Really, you're just going around in very similar looking circles, and haven't said anything.
Why have you had this internal 'feeling' or 'sensation' that there is no God? As I asked before, how can you be sure it isn't God?
It's surely not because you 'feel' that way is it? Not because you're deliberately internalising (perish the thought)?
Last edited:
Broad-brush sweeping still fails, along with references to "toilet paper"; however, believers may be used to making ungrounded statements.
If it’s so easy to show that ‘God’ is not a simpleton notion, then I have to wonder what the believers are waiting for.
How about admitting that, while there is no hard evidence, the belief just seemed to come naturally and/or is a comfort.
And for those who claim that ‘God’ is absolutely true, then just explain. Is it so difficult?
I see that your computer or posting device is working, and so do you. It is a fact and science made it, using many formulas and facts. As with anything, reasons and diagrams are available if you wish to double-check anything said to be known.
The Time-Zero Imprint, or Not, of the Hand of God!
The Grand Designer, God the Theity (or even the Deity) supposedly inserted the design of the universe at its creation—so, we should therefore expect to see some degree [even any degree, actually] of order possessed at that zero-time.
This expectation of order is often expressed in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: the total entropy or disorder of a closed system must either remain constant or increase with time.
Now, was the universe always a closed system or was order imparted from the outside by God at the beginning?
Prior to 1929, the ‘necessary’ outside influence was a strong argument for a miraculous creation. Then this stock-market of an idea crashed, for Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, the galaxies moving away from each other. Thus, an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the 2nd law.
But, did it?
Of course, due to this 2nd law, the total entropy of the universe must increase as the universe expands; however, the maximum possible entropy increases even faster, leaving increasingly more room for order to form.
The reason is that the maximum entropy is that of a black hole. The expanding universe is not a black hole. Back at the earliest definable moment, the Planck time, the universe was confined to the smallest definable region of space, it having the radius of the Planck length. As must be the case, the universe at that time had lower entropy that it has now; however, that entropy was as high as it possibly could have been for an object that small. Note that this is because a sphere of Planck dimensions is equivalent to a black hole, from which no information can be extracted.
How is it, then that this ‘maximal’ entropy when the universe began can be ever increasing ever since? It is because the entropy of the universe now is higher for its current size, but not maximal, as we said, since it is no longer a black hole.
Also, remember that there is no time interval that can be defined that is smaller than the Planck time. This is implied by Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle, again showing that no information can escape. Thus, there is no need for a theory of quantum gravity to describe the physics earlier than the Planck time.
The definition of time is: that which is counted off as an integral number of units of the Planck time. This is discrete, but we can, as in calculus, treat it as continuous in mathematical physics since the units are small compared to anything we measure in practice.
So, we extrapolate through the Planck intervals. Because we can do it ‘now’, we can do it at the earliest Planck interval where the big bang’s description begins. At that time, the disorder was complete; it was maximal.
Thus the universe began with no structure. None. The universe has structure today since its entropy is no longer maximal.
The universe thus began with no organization, either designed or otherwise.
In fact it was chaos!
There was no initial design built in to the universe at its beginning!
There was no imprint left by a Creator.
(Some from Stenger)
The Grand Designer, God the Theity (or even the Deity) supposedly inserted the design of the universe at its creation—so, we should therefore expect to see some degree [even any degree, actually] of order possessed at that zero-time.
This expectation of order is often expressed in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: the total entropy or disorder of a closed system must either remain constant or increase with time.
Now, was the universe always a closed system or was order imparted from the outside by God at the beginning?
Prior to 1929, the ‘necessary’ outside influence was a strong argument for a miraculous creation. Then this stock-market of an idea crashed, for Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, the galaxies moving away from each other. Thus, an expanding universe could have started in total chaos and still formed localized order consistent with the 2nd law.
But, did it?
Of course, due to this 2nd law, the total entropy of the universe must increase as the universe expands; however, the maximum possible entropy increases even faster, leaving increasingly more room for order to form.
The reason is that the maximum entropy is that of a black hole. The expanding universe is not a black hole. Back at the earliest definable moment, the Planck time, the universe was confined to the smallest definable region of space, it having the radius of the Planck length. As must be the case, the universe at that time had lower entropy that it has now; however, that entropy was as high as it possibly could have been for an object that small. Note that this is because a sphere of Planck dimensions is equivalent to a black hole, from which no information can be extracted.
How is it, then that this ‘maximal’ entropy when the universe began can be ever increasing ever since? It is because the entropy of the universe now is higher for its current size, but not maximal, as we said, since it is no longer a black hole.
Also, remember that there is no time interval that can be defined that is smaller than the Planck time. This is implied by Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle, again showing that no information can escape. Thus, there is no need for a theory of quantum gravity to describe the physics earlier than the Planck time.
The definition of time is: that which is counted off as an integral number of units of the Planck time. This is discrete, but we can, as in calculus, treat it as continuous in mathematical physics since the units are small compared to anything we measure in practice.
So, we extrapolate through the Planck intervals. Because we can do it ‘now’, we can do it at the earliest Planck interval where the big bang’s description begins. At that time, the disorder was complete; it was maximal.
Thus the universe began with no structure. None. The universe has structure today since its entropy is no longer maximal.
The universe thus began with no organization, either designed or otherwise.
In fact it was chaos!
There was no initial design built in to the universe at its beginning!
There was no imprint left by a Creator.
(Some from Stenger)
I'm afraid that's just wrong.SciWriter said:
The amount of information in the universe is increasing, as it has since the very first "event".
The amount of space is increasing as the universe expands, which means everything has more freedom now than it did before. Therefore the entropy of the universe isn't maximal yet. Information has entropy.
Entropy corresponds to an amount of information "shared" by two or more systems. Two atoms or two parts of space have more mutual information between them than any single atom (or "atom" of space) can contain 'by itself'.
This is why the universe looks random.
Pffft.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't "made by science", and I'm pretty sure my computer works because of ideas people had, not "because science made it". Science wouldn't exist if people didn't have ideas.
OK, people or machines made by people made your computer, using scientific methods discovered by people.
Isn't what saying what?SciWriter said:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I am not afraid to be NOTHING when I die, to find comfort in over 1/3 of the world perishing is sick. God is absolutely true. The evidence you seek is the world you live.
Supposition.
The universe has structure today since its entropy is no longer maximal.
The usual outright pronouncements, among others deflections, generalizations with no specifics, and other neglect of discussion. Unprofessional. Someone even thinks that mentioning "toilet paper" means something. This is expected as a part of the human condition for some and Dywyddyr identifies it right and left, and still people persist, which shows the hold that strong belief can take upon a person.
Zero information content.
Not true.SciWriter said:
The universe has entropy today because its structure is no longer minimal.
When it was a minimal structure, it had more symmetry and less "disorder". Since expanding, the amount of disorder in the universe has increased--matter is not distributed evenly. This is thought to be due to the emergence of gravity some time in the first few minutes of the "breakdown" in symmetry to a less ordered state.
So now (and for 14.7 billion years or so), different parts of the universe 'communicate' more information with each other. Ergo there is more entropy than before, and entropy is increasing as the universe becomes more disordered.
Entropy exists because differences exist, that's what entropy is--a way to describe how different one thing is from another.
Internals/Externals example:
Finding ‘God’ and/or being one with the cosmos via yoga, meditation, chanting, praying, deep introspection, etc?
Science has measured via electrodes in expert meditative Buddhist monks the expected quietus that occurs in the neurological brain areas specifically having to do with the boundaries of the body and the identification of the self. Thus it seems that there is a unity with All.
One's internals are blind to the neurological states beneath, making for but a "second story" of the state of being that sits atop the states of the subconscious first floor, and so to be fully armed, one's internal 'doctrines' needs to be further informed by external information from science.
It is not unexpected that there will be resistance to this, though, as this is a part of the human condition that comes from getting grooved on an internal notion alone. It can even go on to neglect or anger. There are even extreme cases in which it is said that all of science is bunk and that the brain does nothing at all (since the soul does it).
Finding ‘God’ and/or being one with the cosmos via yoga, meditation, chanting, praying, deep introspection, etc?
Science has measured via electrodes in expert meditative Buddhist monks the expected quietus that occurs in the neurological brain areas specifically having to do with the boundaries of the body and the identification of the self. Thus it seems that there is a unity with All.
One's internals are blind to the neurological states beneath, making for but a "second story" of the state of being that sits atop the states of the subconscious first floor, and so to be fully armed, one's internal 'doctrines' needs to be further informed by external information from science.
It is not unexpected that there will be resistance to this, though, as this is a part of the human condition that comes from getting grooved on an internal notion alone. It can even go on to neglect or anger. There are even extreme cases in which it is said that all of science is bunk and that the brain does nothing at all (since the soul does it).
kx000
Valued Senior Member
yea
Thanks for realizing.
The Failures of Biblical Revelation
The Bible's record of prophecy is a miserable failure, for example:
Ezekiel 29,30. The land of Egypt will be laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and all its people killed and rivers dried up. It will remain uninhabited for forty years.
Um, this did not happen.
If the Bible is the product of human beings rather than a Divine Author, we can easily explain its historical, scientific and moral inaccuracies. It’s too bad that it didn’t have an explicit prophecy of somethings like man’s landing on the moon. Just one thing like this would have really been something awesome.
Instead, biblical prophecy is either vague, wrong, coincidence, a matter of ordinary prediction, or it can be more-simply explained as written after the fact.
Getting back to the Bible, “our conscience determines how we read what we regard as a sacred text, my friend Victor says. “In all these cases, believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source. Only a few lunatics nowadays take seriously the Bible's support for genocide or slavery.
“I hope I have make clear that while I wish people were less gullible, less willing to believe in the most preposterous supernatural notions, I still have high regard for the basic decency of most human beings. Many people are good. But they are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion.”
“The Bible is indeed a mixed bag, containing some wisdom, common to humanity at that time, and much cruelty and ignorance, also typical of people at that time. The Bible is not uniquely wise. For laws that govern civil society, we might prefer Solomon to Moses. Humankind’s holy books are what one would expect if they were products of human culture.”
The Bible's record of prophecy is a miserable failure, for example:
Ezekiel 29,30. The land of Egypt will be laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, and all its people killed and rivers dried up. It will remain uninhabited for forty years.
Um, this did not happen.
If the Bible is the product of human beings rather than a Divine Author, we can easily explain its historical, scientific and moral inaccuracies. It’s too bad that it didn’t have an explicit prophecy of somethings like man’s landing on the moon. Just one thing like this would have really been something awesome.
Instead, biblical prophecy is either vague, wrong, coincidence, a matter of ordinary prediction, or it can be more-simply explained as written after the fact.
Getting back to the Bible, “our conscience determines how we read what we regard as a sacred text, my friend Victor says. “In all these cases, believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source. Only a few lunatics nowadays take seriously the Bible's support for genocide or slavery.
“I hope I have make clear that while I wish people were less gullible, less willing to believe in the most preposterous supernatural notions, I still have high regard for the basic decency of most human beings. Many people are good. But they are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion.”
“The Bible is indeed a mixed bag, containing some wisdom, common to humanity at that time, and much cruelty and ignorance, also typical of people at that time. The Bible is not uniquely wise. For laws that govern civil society, we might prefer Solomon to Moses. Humankind’s holy books are what one would expect if they were products of human culture.”