kx000
Valued Senior Member
One day you will too.
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
One day you will too.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
SciWriter,
You are full of yourself.
You are full of yourself.
SciWriter,
You are full of yourself.
The usual ploy of a generalization standing in for a lack of specifics.
Confirmation of Science
Confirmations are everywhere, since scientific laws must match and predict the facts of what really happens. Quantum mechanics, for example, although some of its basis is counter-intuitive, always works out perfectly. We employ and depend on products based on it every day.
The methodology of science is well known, but here’s a little story:
Science ever goes on to astronomical heights.
The first supernova since 1572 appeared in some small galaxies nearby, called the Magellanic Clouds. Though its radiation to us began a while back, we saw it alight upon us in the ‘now’—the immerse quantities of energy of the star-stuff maelstrom.
An astronomical technician in Chile stepped outside for a smoke, and being observant, spotted it! He, a mere human standing around out in the dark under the starry sky, detected it, for the large telescopes only look at a small section of the sky at a time.
He goes in and tells someone in charge. A large burst of never-detected neutrinos is thus expected.
Astrophysicists called their colleagues deep beneath the Earth’s surface in the United States, Japan, and Europe. They said, “Look in your tanks. You have already made a great discovery.”
They were right. Each of the observatories had detected a few tens of neutrinos at about the same time.
Consider the magnitude of this achievement. They had tested all of of physics! They had predicted the events in a star’s death throes by using theories from nearly every part of physics: special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, atomic physics and elementary particles. If any of these theories had been in error, the prediction of neutrinos would have failed.
So, the laws of nature known to us on Earth must be the same hundreds of thousands of light years away and also the same back when that star exploded hundred of thousands of years ago.
Confirmations are everywhere, since scientific laws must match and predict the facts of what really happens. Quantum mechanics, for example, although some of its basis is counter-intuitive, always works out perfectly. We employ and depend on products based on it every day.
The methodology of science is well known, but here’s a little story:
Science ever goes on to astronomical heights.
The first supernova since 1572 appeared in some small galaxies nearby, called the Magellanic Clouds. Though its radiation to us began a while back, we saw it alight upon us in the ‘now’—the immerse quantities of energy of the star-stuff maelstrom.
An astronomical technician in Chile stepped outside for a smoke, and being observant, spotted it! He, a mere human standing around out in the dark under the starry sky, detected it, for the large telescopes only look at a small section of the sky at a time.
He goes in and tells someone in charge. A large burst of never-detected neutrinos is thus expected.
Astrophysicists called their colleagues deep beneath the Earth’s surface in the United States, Japan, and Europe. They said, “Look in your tanks. You have already made a great discovery.”
They were right. Each of the observatories had detected a few tens of neutrinos at about the same time.
Consider the magnitude of this achievement. They had tested all of of physics! They had predicted the events in a star’s death throes by using theories from nearly every part of physics: special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, atomic physics and elementary particles. If any of these theories had been in error, the prediction of neutrinos would have failed.
So, the laws of nature known to us on Earth must be the same hundreds of thousands of light years away and also the same back when that star exploded hundred of thousands of years ago.
I already realize the 'yea'.
In the ‘Beginning’… There Was No Cause!
What! Huh? How the heck is this to be pulled off? Easy, but let’s introduce it through a great scientific-religious insight.
Some Theists use science, too, in ever hoping to obtain an objective proof of God. They recognize the empirical facts of the happening of the big bang, of course, but they say that this big bang demonstrates the existence of a Creator—God.
In 1951, Pope Pius XII was going to make the following statement infallible:
“Creation took place in time, therefore there is a Creator, therefore God exists.”
However, the astronomer/priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre, the very person who had first proposed the idea of the big bang (first calling it a ‘primeval atom’ or a ‘cosmic egg), must have been even more infallible than the Pope, for he wisely advised the Pope not to make the statement infallible.
Lemaitre was indeed as dedicated to science as he was to his priesthood, his big bang theory trying to combine both. He had concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred.
So, then, some Theists think that the universe must have had a beginning and, if so, that this implies a Creator—God. Well, of course it doesn’t, but one such ‘beginning’ argument was based on general relativity, it being thought that a singularity existed at the ‘beginning’.
First, some background about ‘singularity’ notions:
Extrapolating general relativity back to zero time, the universe gets smaller and smaller while the density of the universe and the gravitational field increases. As the size of the universe goes to zero, the density and gravitational field, at least according to the mathematics of general relativity, becomes infinite! This is always bad news for equations, but, at that point, the theists claimed, time must have stopped and, therefore, no prior time could exist.
However, “There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe,” states Stephen Hawking now, for this follows from quantum mechanics, which also is confirmed to great precision, which tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, breaks down (the infinity) even at times less than the Planck time, 6.4 x 10-44 second and distances smaller than the Planck length, so, therefore, general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time, so it really can’t show the proof of a beginning of time, not that this would be any proof of God anyway.
In review, theists claim that if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning, this is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a Creator.
They cast this in terms of the kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.
Theists might retort that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner—what they call “probabilistic causality.” But, in effect, they are thereby admitting that the “cause” in the first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, they destroy their own case for a predetermined creation.
We do have a completely successful theory of probabilistic causes—quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, this shows that individual events are not predetermined.
The exception theory occurred in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm, Einstein, and Bell that assumed the existence of yet undetected sub-quantum forces; however it was not accepted because it requires superluminal connections that violate the principles of special relativity, plus other reasons. More importantly, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has been found.
Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world. There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is dead.
Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. This it can do with high precision. For example, a quantum calculation will tell you how many nuclei in a large sample will have decayed after a given time. Or you can predict the intensity of light from a group of excited atoms, which is a measure of the total number of photons emitted.
But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory—including Bohm’s—can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom.
The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise (1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.).
In the case of radioactivity, the decays are observed to follow an exponential decay “law.” However, this statistical law is exactly what you expect if the probability for decay in a given small time interval is the same for all time intervals of the same duration. In other words, the decay curve itself is evidence for each individual event occurring unpredictably and, by inference, without being predetermined.
Quantum mechanics and classical (Newtonian) mechanics are not as separate and distant from one another as is generally thought. Indeed, quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as masses, distances, and speeds approach the classical regime. When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100 percent, which then gives us certainty at that level.
Note again, that, even if the kalâm conclusion were sound, which it isn’t, and that the universe did had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural? Still, without even this overkill, but just as it is, the kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning.
Nevertheless, to really place the nail into the coffin of the kalâm argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails (2. The universe began to exist.). The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe, for theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called “quantum fluctuations.” The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang. Anyway, we have already seen that no miracle is evident in the big bang.
All is as it would be if there were no God.
In short, the data indicate that the universe did not come about by a purposeful creation. Based on our best current scientific knowledge, we must conclude, yet again, beyond any and all reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist. The quantum realm has saved the day, for quantum events happen without cause, even being random events at that.
Everytime we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. It is causeless. (Some summarized from Stenger)
What! Huh? How the heck is this to be pulled off? Easy, but let’s introduce it through a great scientific-religious insight.
Some Theists use science, too, in ever hoping to obtain an objective proof of God. They recognize the empirical facts of the happening of the big bang, of course, but they say that this big bang demonstrates the existence of a Creator—God.
In 1951, Pope Pius XII was going to make the following statement infallible:
“Creation took place in time, therefore there is a Creator, therefore God exists.”
However, the astronomer/priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre, the very person who had first proposed the idea of the big bang (first calling it a ‘primeval atom’ or a ‘cosmic egg), must have been even more infallible than the Pope, for he wisely advised the Pope not to make the statement infallible.
Lemaitre was indeed as dedicated to science as he was to his priesthood, his big bang theory trying to combine both. He had concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred.
So, then, some Theists think that the universe must have had a beginning and, if so, that this implies a Creator—God. Well, of course it doesn’t, but one such ‘beginning’ argument was based on general relativity, it being thought that a singularity existed at the ‘beginning’.
First, some background about ‘singularity’ notions:
Extrapolating general relativity back to zero time, the universe gets smaller and smaller while the density of the universe and the gravitational field increases. As the size of the universe goes to zero, the density and gravitational field, at least according to the mathematics of general relativity, becomes infinite! This is always bad news for equations, but, at that point, the theists claimed, time must have stopped and, therefore, no prior time could exist.
However, “There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe,” states Stephen Hawking now, for this follows from quantum mechanics, which also is confirmed to great precision, which tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, breaks down (the infinity) even at times less than the Planck time, 6.4 x 10-44 second and distances smaller than the Planck length, so, therefore, general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time, so it really can’t show the proof of a beginning of time, not that this would be any proof of God anyway.
In review, theists claim that if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning, this is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a Creator.
They cast this in terms of the kalâm cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.
Theists might retort that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner—what they call “probabilistic causality.” But, in effect, they are thereby admitting that the “cause” in the first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous—something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, they destroy their own case for a predetermined creation.
We do have a completely successful theory of probabilistic causes—quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, this shows that individual events are not predetermined.
The exception theory occurred in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm, Einstein, and Bell that assumed the existence of yet undetected sub-quantum forces; however it was not accepted because it requires superluminal connections that violate the principles of special relativity, plus other reasons. More importantly, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has been found.
Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world. There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is dead.
Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. This it can do with high precision. For example, a quantum calculation will tell you how many nuclei in a large sample will have decayed after a given time. Or you can predict the intensity of light from a group of excited atoms, which is a measure of the total number of photons emitted.
But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory—including Bohm’s—can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom.
The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise (1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.).
In the case of radioactivity, the decays are observed to follow an exponential decay “law.” However, this statistical law is exactly what you expect if the probability for decay in a given small time interval is the same for all time intervals of the same duration. In other words, the decay curve itself is evidence for each individual event occurring unpredictably and, by inference, without being predetermined.
Quantum mechanics and classical (Newtonian) mechanics are not as separate and distant from one another as is generally thought. Indeed, quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as masses, distances, and speeds approach the classical regime. When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100 percent, which then gives us certainty at that level.
Note again, that, even if the kalâm conclusion were sound, which it isn’t, and that the universe did had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural? Still, without even this overkill, but just as it is, the kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning.
Nevertheless, to really place the nail into the coffin of the kalâm argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails (2. The universe began to exist.). The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe, for theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called “quantum fluctuations.” The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang. Anyway, we have already seen that no miracle is evident in the big bang.
All is as it would be if there were no God.
In short, the data indicate that the universe did not come about by a purposeful creation. Based on our best current scientific knowledge, we must conclude, yet again, beyond any and all reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist. The quantum realm has saved the day, for quantum events happen without cause, even being random events at that.
Everytime we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. This then is the answer. It is causeless. (Some summarized from Stenger)
you showed a refutation with yet another tentative argument ..... as several posters have already pointed out, you are simply talking about your opinions and then extol the glories of logic when someone critiques it.
Its almost comedy.
What if the beginning wasn't "total chaos"?SciWriter said:
What if you don't understand entropy as well as you think?
or even better, by what criteria does one distinguish between something that is chaos and something that one doesn't know in full?
Yes, with science.
Where's your showing that God is not just a simpleton notion? Where's your evolution replacement details? You don't have any. A cosmic joke.
no you didn't
all you have done is talked about your opinions
already did it in my original (tentative) critique of your (tentative) argument
No need to discuss evolution at the moment because you haven't even begun to explain how evolution automatically renders god obsolete ... aside from your hot air and totally tentative ideas about abiogenesis
anyone who esteems tentative arguments as authoritative is a joke, period ... and intellectually dishonest when they attempt to bring scientific discussion to such nonsense
:shrug:
I didn't think you'd have anything else substantial or even tentative, LG, but at least you had that one observation I liked.
So, shall we then go with a Creator Being arranging what we thought was just chaos?
Any thoughts on it whatsoever? I'm not going to yell at you if you participate.
They can be opinions as going on to suggestions to explore.
If not, then I wish you well until we meet again.
So, shall we then go with a Creator Being arranging what we thought was just chaos?
Any thoughts on it whatsoever? I'm not going to yell at you if you participate.
They can be opinions as going on to suggestions to explore.
If not, then I wish you well until we meet again.
OK, I'll consider those comments as if erased. Really.
Try empiricism is necessarily limited in inquiry at the points of macro and microcosm because it is necessarily metonymic (IOW it only has scope to a segment of perception, so "chaos theory", chance, etc fill in the blanks when perception putters out).
IOW think what a gross reductionist might ascribe to chance during the 16th century and compare it to one of today.
OK, no one is putting anything good, but one thing by LG, so we are going to have to derive the Creator; yes! meaning me and whomever wants to help.
The Creator needs to be surmised because it doesn’t even let out a peep about its existence, which is odd, but we’ll go with that since personal testimony can be all over the place.
So, what we thought could have been the chaos of the big bang could either have been an orderly event leading to what we had that the Creator completely planned and foresaw or at least had the right mixture to lead to some human mammal life.
We do know that the species were not made outright, intact, as is, and immutable, so that’s why we’re, and we know of the big bang and the possible inflation, so that’s why we say that the Creator would have been behind the creation of the universe 14 billion years ago. It is no matter where the material came from, whether of Himself or made from nothing, for it is the Creator’s existence that we are attending to, and if He is, then He can certainly do things way beyond just some terra-forming, that is, total universe forming.
Next time, we’ll get into how He became or how He can be eternal.
Who wants to help?
The Creator needs to be surmised because it doesn’t even let out a peep about its existence, which is odd, but we’ll go with that since personal testimony can be all over the place.
So, what we thought could have been the chaos of the big bang could either have been an orderly event leading to what we had that the Creator completely planned and foresaw or at least had the right mixture to lead to some human mammal life.
We do know that the species were not made outright, intact, as is, and immutable, so that’s why we’re, and we know of the big bang and the possible inflation, so that’s why we say that the Creator would have been behind the creation of the universe 14 billion years ago. It is no matter where the material came from, whether of Himself or made from nothing, for it is the Creator’s existence that we are attending to, and if He is, then He can certainly do things way beyond just some terra-forming, that is, total universe forming.
Next time, we’ll get into how He became or how He can be eternal.
Who wants to help?
thats the thing ? we don't know that it was to form a human mammal . That could be just as much a side effect as anything . An out come by circumstance. It could all be for the longevity of a jelly fish and humans are just a stepping stone . We don't know that . It is arrogance of humans that make them think they are the center of creation . We can can all agree maybe that creation occurred probably 14 billion some odd years ago. To what end ? That is what science is starting to figure out . I seen some pretty good modeling of when our very own personal Sun will expand , burn up the earth and kill everything . I hope to be the fuck out of here when that happens . If I live that long . Live on that mega earth 36,ooo Light years away ? Or I will get lucky die and not have to worry about it anymore
i think it was loaded with information . Coded ! Building blocks so to speak . What loaded it is the question in the mind of a zealot. It could be natural occurrence. The code it self . Like in the human perspective of " The Word "
A language of type . Like D.N.A. replication . So no chaos , but a set path of least resistance , except when things go bump in the night . I mean collections or crossroads . The clumping . Intersections in time . Resonance of several factors coming together