(Ed) A defense of theism/deism

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

You mean something like John Allen Paulos's "Yes" religion? Or perhaps Ronald Plasterk's "Something-ism" ?

Couldn't find anything about the "Yes" religion of Paulos, but the "Something-ism" Plasterk speaks of, is indeed something I have encountered many times, amongst many I have encountered in my life.

"But there must be something" I have heard them plea many a time. This is, from my observation, a desperate cry to find some meaning and purpose in life. Perhaps this is something to be said in defence of theism. It gives those that have the need for purpose a prop.

[Lupus]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I feel like the fact that our newest God Botherer compared his apologetics for the giant invisible sky wizard to Trutherism as a positive hasn't been appropriately addressed yet.

What I said you liar was that people will disagree on everything, even on the most obvious and simple things like "who did 9/11". Is 9/11 really complex for you to understand, is that it? I'll be praying for you.

Originally Posted by IanS

Re the highlight - I cannot agree with that description ... physicists may not have yet found an explanation that is fully accepted by most scientists ... but that is very different from what you just said where you wrote "physics couldn't explain it" ...

... scientific research is always an ongoing process that takes time (often many decades if not centuries); not just for the properties of the universe, space-time, particle-fields, and the big bang etc., but also with everything that science has ever studied and explained - the research takes time before a solid consensus of opinion is reached with a rigorous explanation (and even that is always open to change if new information is discovered) ...

... this is early days with investigations in such difficult studies as things like the complete energetic nature of this universe. This is not an easy field in which to find totally convincing explanations - you do realise that, don't you?

Thinking that everything will be explained later is a stretch of trust. Scientific theories come and go and always hope for the future resolution of faults. What happens a lot of the time though is that the old theory is turned into pseudoscience or a lie to tell to beginners when they start like Newtonian Physics or Bohr's atom. Or things like Ego Depletion and Vitalism are later found to be broken theories to their core. Also, I said it was a FLAW, if it's hard to explain anything as you say, that doesn't change anything about it being a FLAW.

Quote:

Also, when you write "Afterwards, like in all theories, the patchwork happens and an exception is created in the theory. No one has been able to do a good job", that sounds very much like a conspiracy theory by which you are trying to undermine science. But everyone should know by now that science has proved itself over-&-over again as by far mankind's best way of determining answers that are very likely to be correct and distinguishing those from unscientific answers of the past that were nearly always wrong.

BAWWWW, scientists are perfect, you are doubting science!!!

Originally Posted by Thermal

"God has existed forever" is qualitatively dentical to "The Universe has existed forever". One has no more likelihood than the other. Except that the former assumes a supernatural being gratuitously dropped in.

Yes and we know through many ways and we even have a range for how long ago it. We're 99% certain that the physical universe started 13.8 billion years ago and 100% certain that it didn't exist forever.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=75f9515965b8

Originally Posted by Darat

Of course it matters, you don’t know what “power” is required, so all your “reasons” turn into mush i.e.

Something has always existed
Created the Universe
IT IS LOGICALLY SOUND
Something has always existed
Created Dna
IT IS LOGICALLY SOUND

You have no idea if that “something” is or even could be a god that anyone actually believes in and if it isn’t a god anyone believes in then using the word “god” for your something is intellectually dishonest.

The other issue is something that often gets thrown at atheists and those that argue about “logical proofs” of a god existing, and that is your theology is of the very simplistic kind that actual Christian theologians and other religions theologians dispensed with literally centuries ago as they realised the weaknesses in those “arguments”.

It is some being powerful enough to be considered God. I'm using God as a class not as an individual so it is naturally going to be generic. I'm confident in deism, something that didn't exist several centuries ago.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Lupus

I changed my mind and will answer a couple of you.
@IanS What happened is that a theory and made and a flaw was found by evidence where big bang failed and physics couldn't explain it. Afterwards, like in all theories, the patchwork happens and an exception is created in the theory. No one has been able to do a good job.
@GordInToronto There's another razor called Kant's Razor that says "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished". Can you prove that God doesn't exist, that we should rashly diminish him?

Can you prove that the Universe was not created Last Tuesday?

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Can you prove that the Universe was not created Last Tuesday?

Reductio ad absurdum.

I thought something funny was happening last Tuesday.

It gets so tedious at times. We get one of these God Botherers breezing in and hit us with the onus of proof being on us non-believers yet again - as if it's an original approach. The fact that this has been dealt with so comprehensively by so many, so many times in the past, is news to these folk. Shall we bring up Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I thought something funny was happening last Tuesday.

It gets so tedious at times. We get one of these God Botherers breezing in and hit us with the onus of proof being on us non-believers yet again - as if it's an original approach. The fact that this has been dealt with so comprehensively by so many, so many times in the past, is news to these folk. Shall we bring up Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot?

This is like the end of the Dark Tower, when you have a chance to put down the book and go find a new story... or you can turn the page, read the ending, and come back full circle to the same old story, one more time.

By all means, bring up Russel's teapot again. I'm sure its orbit hasn't worn too deep of a rut yet.

[dejudge]

Originally Posted by Lupus

My debating power isn't high enough to argue with 7 of you lol. It's pretty much settled that we know that the universe hasn't existed forever and someone had to have created it. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Well, why have you ridiculously assumed your God existed forever?

[Lupus]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Can you prove that the Universe was not created Last Tuesday?

Reductio ad absurdum.

I don't have to do the same thing because you the one trying to disprove me.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Why being a deist at the minimum is the only thing you can be, in point form

• <snippage>

Puerile, long debunked nonsense.
Learn and you may be able to overcome your acquired prejudices.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Lupus

And those conditions and the concentrated particles came...out of nowhere right?

To you perhaps.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

"The Universe has always existed." You can't disprove that. No god (or God) required.

And at least we know the Universe exists. Np such evidence for god.

Occam's Razor and all that.

Ah, a return to the Pulsating Steady State Hypothesis?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Lupus

My debating power isn't high enough to argue with 7 of you lol.

So you're accepting that you cannot defend your opinions?

Originally Posted by Lupus

It's pretty much settled that we know that the universe hasn't existed forever

Originally Posted by Lupus

and someone had to have created it.

Really? Why?

Originally Posted by Lupus

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Wallpaper words.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

"God has existed forever" is qualitatively dentical to "The Universe has existed forever". One has no more likelihood than the other. Except that the former assumes a supernatural being gratuitously dropped in.

Actually it isn’t - after all we have pretty concrete evidence for one of those things.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Lupus

I don't have to do the same thing because you the one trying to disprove me.

Nope. I'm just suggesting that there are other mutuality contradictory explanations. I'm not trying to prove anything. Do try and keep up.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Ah, a return to the Pulsating Steady State Hypothesis?

One possibility anyway.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by Lupus

I don't have to do the same thing because you the one trying to disprove me.

I don’t think anyone is trying to disprove you. For the most part I think people are trying to point out that a proposition for which there is no evidence deserves no more consideration than any other proposition for which there is no evidence - i.e., It can be safely ignored until some evidence is presented. (and in this case, there is not even any evidence that what you propose is even possible)

And - Debate about details of the Big Bang theory is irrelevant. If the entirety of the Big Bang theory was conclusively disproven tomorrow that would not constitute evidence for god.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Lupus

My debating power isn't high enough to argue with 7 of you lol.

Why treat this like some contest? If you would use this platform simply as a place to test your opinions against contrary opinions, then, irrespective of which side wins, you might better enjoy your time here.

Quote:

It's pretty much settled that we know that the universe hasn't existed forever and someone had to have created it. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

What makes you think either of those ideas is "settled"? Would you like to expand on that?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Couldn't find anything about the "Yes" religion of Paulos,

It involves nothing more than the ritual of saying "Yes", which Paulos claims is compatible with many of the main religions and world views. Except of course the "No" religion.

Probably an overinterpretation on my part, but I interpret it as the view the view that "existence" itself is something to say "Yes" to, a positive thing. I think it is definitely in line with the main monotheistic religions, many forms of paganism, polytheism and humanism. Hinduism and Buddhism though seem "No" religions.

Quote:

"But there must be something" I have heard them plea many a time. This is, from my observation, a desperate cry to find some meaning and purpose in life. Perhaps this is something to be said in defence of theism. It gives those that have the need for purpose a prop.

"Something-ism" is refers to people who positively state "... but I believe there is something." Not some desperate cry, but a positive belief in something undefinable. Plasterk, who identifies as atheist, originally coined the term mockingly, but later came to acknowledge that this stance can be a positive thing for people's emotional need for meaning and purpose, while not necessarily interfering with people's trust in scientific fact.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is like the end of the Dark Tower, when you have a chance to put down the book and go find a new story... or you can turn the page, read the ending, and come back full circle to the same old story, one more time.

By all means, bring up Russel's teapot again. I'm sure its orbit hasn't worn too deep of a rut yet.

I'm trying to figure out who is the author of your disappointment here. Of course Thor 2 and others are pulling out well worn arguments, Lupus has brought nothing new to the table.

There will be Occam and Russel, with turtles all the way down. Once it has been said clearly, do we really have to find a new way to say it?

[JoeMorgue]

Anti-intellectuals are trying their best to turn being wrong into a virtue

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lupus

I don't have to do the same thing because you the one trying to disprove me.

That's not how the burden of proof works. Disproven is your default state. It's up to you to prove something.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

What I said you liar was that people will disagree on everything, even on the most obvious and simple things like "who did 9/11". Is 9/11 really complex for you to understand, is that it? I'll be praying for you.

Thinking that everything will be explained later is a stretch of trust. Scientific theories come and go and always hope for the future resolution of faults. What happens a lot of the time though is that the old theory is turned into pseudoscience or a lie to tell to beginners when they start like Newtonian Physics or Bohr's atom. Or things like Ego Depletion and Vitalism are later found to be broken theories to their core. Also, I said it was a FLAW, if it's hard to explain anything as you say, that doesn't change anything about it being a FLAW.

BAWWWW, scientists are perfect, you are doubting science!!!

Yes and we know through many ways and we even have a range for how long ago it. We're 99% certain that the physical universe started 13.8 billion years ago and 100% certain that it didn't exist forever.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=75f9515965b8

It is some being powerful enough to be considered God. I'm using God as a class not as an individual so it is naturally going to be generic. I'm confident in deism, something that didn't exist several centuries ago.

OK, so you are religious and you have to deny science because what we have discovered from science has undermined so much of religious faith. But it won't work ... you can cast doubts on science as much as you want, but that just makes you look foolish.

It's not a matter of thinking that "everything will be explained later". It's simply a fact (as you must very well know) that it takes years, decades, or even centuries, to investigate and explain many things in science, and especially the exceptionally complicated things such as precisely what happened to space & time 13.8billion years ago with all of the various particle-field interactions ... do you think that should be easy? ... do you think you could do that? ... take something simpler such as confirming the Higgs Field - could you have done that? ... how long would that have taken you to build something like the LHC, design all of the particle-field experiments, and then analyse all the results to show the existence of a mathematically predicted Higgs field?

But OK, so you are religious, and you now have a problem whereby you are forced to deny science. Well we all understand your difficulty (that has been a huge problem for religion ever since Darwin published On The Origin of Species, if not in fact since the time of Galileo and the discovery that the Earth is not the centre of the universe).

What proportion of non-religious scientists do you think deny that the Big Bang happened?

What proportion of them deny that it occurred around 13.8billion years ago (which is something that Young-Earth Creationists can't accept, of course)? Evolution?

Do you think scientists are wrong when they say that Man evolved from earlier apes? How many non-religious biologists do you think deny human evolution?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's not how the burden of proof works. Disproven is your default state. It's up to you to prove something.

Have you never looked into a baby's eyes? Seen the sunrise after a stormy night? Held a banana firmly in your hand? That's all the proof of God a man really needs.

(Sorry, I'm a sucker for the classics.)

[JoeMorgue]

"Tell you what. You keep guessing different versions of God and I'll keep telling you 'No that's not the one I'm thinking of.'" - Religious Apologists.

[Myriad]

"Did God create the harmful viruses, diseases, parasites, and pests that have afflicted countless billions of people?
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God send that hurricane to destroy our city?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God give that child cancer?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God create the universe?"
"Of course! It's the simplest answer."

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Myriad

"Did God create the harmful viruses, diseases, parasites, and pests that have afflicted countless billions of people?
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God send that hurricane to destroy our city?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God give that child cancer?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God create the universe?"
"Of course! It's the simplest answer."

It's not even that.

Ted: "Is there a dragon in my garage?"
Steve: "Of course not."
Ted: "Is there a teapot orbiting Saturn?"
Steve: "Of course not."
Ted: "Is there a God?"
Steve: "Oh well... I mean... who can say... I mean how do you define God? Are you asking do I believe there isn't a God, believe there isn't a God, don't not believe there is a God or don't not don't not don't believe there is a God? (Continues rambling for the next 30 minutes, hedging his bets, softening his language, and screeching at anyone who tries to get a straight answer out of him)"

And even that is actually not really comparable because nobody is actually asking questions 1 and 2 outside of rhetorical use.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Myriad

"Did God create the harmful viruses, diseases, parasites, and pests that have afflicted countless billions of people?
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God send that hurricane to destroy our city?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God give that child cancer?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God create the universe?"
"Of course! It's the simplest answer."

From my experience (when talking to the Christian religious), the Devil and demons are shoved in here, to explain all these bad things. The implication, that the 3 part god is all powerful, is compromised of course but some meaningless verbiage, is given to explain this contradiction. A similar spiel results from the suggestion that God made the nasty Satan in the first place.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

From my experience (when talking to the Christian religious), the Devil and demons are shoved in here, to explain all these bad things. The implication, that the 3 part god is all powerful, is compromised of course but some meaningless verbiage, is given to explain this contradiction. A similar spiel results from the suggestion that God made the nasty Satan in the first place.

Either he made Satan or he isn't the creator.

Which, really only proves that he can't be the creator, because you can't have something from nothing and yet we are supposed to believe that god created himself from nothing. An ego like that would take billions of years to create, minimum.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

My debating power isn't high enough to argue with 7 of you lol. It's pretty much settled that we know that the universe hasn't existed forever and someone had to have created it. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

OK, I had not noticed the above post from you. That is 100% laughable rampant religious delusion lol.

Well, anyone who as seen as many religious posts as I have on forums like this over the last 15 years (as well listening to hundreds of theist callers on YouTube programs like Atheist Experience, Talk Heathen, and Truth Wanted etc.) will recognise the above highlight as a very common statement made by many if not most committed theists, with whom it's almost impossible to have any sort of intellectually honest rational conversation ...

... on which basis - a meaningful adult conversation is obviously out of the question right from the start. But just for the record -

1. It is most definitely not as you just said "pretty much settled that we know that the universe hasn't existed forever and someone had to have created it" ... on the contrary, AFAIK most published research in this field (big bang cosmology and theoretical/mathematical physics) is now pointing towards precisely that conclusion of our universe always existing in one energetic form or another (I'll explain that below). And also -

2. whether our universe (or "the" universe) had a beginning or not, it most definitely does not follow that "Someone" must have created it. That conclusion from you just shows how woefully short your powers of accurate logical judgement and your understanding of science are.

OK, on the universe having a beginning - what had a beginning as far as we can honestly tell, and as far as all theoretical physicists agree, is the Big Bang ... THAT, had a beginning. And we might also add that, if Alan Guth and many others are right in concluding that the Big Bang was directly preceded by an initial phase of sudden massive inflation, then that Inflation stage also had a beginning …

… but to have a “beginning”, you have to have the existence of “Time”, and as we found out from Einstein and Relativity, that also means “Space”, or in fact “Space-time”. That is – when Inflation begins, you must have the sudden emergence of space-time. What happens “before” that? The answer is that, there is really no persistent increasing space-time until Inflations begins. So what has happened to cause the sudden massive Inflation and the subsequent Big Bang? OK, well …

… what exists in the absence of persistent expanding space-time, i.e. in that sense of saying “before” inflation begins, is a set of eternal interacting energy fields, which cancel one-another to precisely zero overall effect, i.e. no space and no time and nothing else. And that is effectively what we should really means when we use a term like “Nothing” (as in describing a so-called “Universe from Nothing”). However, each of those fields is so strongly compressed and with such high energy density, that quantum effects are highly dominant … and that means each of the fields is in a constant state of producing so-called “quantum fluctuations” on a very large scale - i.e. the magnitude and direction of the field components is liable to suddenly become highly asymmetric such that it momentarily overcomes the pressure of all the surrounding opposing fields and produces a spike of emerging space-time, i.e. a momentary tiny embryo universe begins to form from each fluctuation … however, because of the pressure of all the surrounding fields, those embryo universes are all rapidly quenched back into the overall set of fields so that the embryo universes and their emergent space-time are nearly always very short-lived (say, just lasting a trillion trillionth of a second) …

… that process keeps happing at random, with embryo universes suddenly appearing with random acceleration and random amounts of energy, and hence persisting for various lengths of time, until at one point one or more of those field fluctuations increases so rapidly and with so much energy that the surrounding fields can no longer cancel it out, and instead the rapidly increasing fluctuation then sucks out all the energy from the surrounding fields to produce the almost instantaneous appearance of the massive Inflationary phase of the Big Bang with what is then persitently emerging space-time … immediately & inevitably after that comes the main phase of the Big Bang itself with it's production of ultra high-energy exotic short-lived “Particles/fields", which then quite rapidly cool to form a mass of more familiar sub-atomic particles where from that point onwards all of the physics is then quite well understood & eventually progresses to produce dust clouds, stars, galaxies and finally planets like the Earth and the others in our solar system …

… notice in that description/model – (a) the universe always exists as that “nothingness” of the primordial mutually cancelling energy fields, (b) continuous space-&-time only emerges when the mass of random fluctuations finally results in an unstoppable mass Inflation of space-time, (c) before that unstoppable Inflation stage, time and space keep being momentarily produced, but they are quickly cancelled out by a vastly greater mass of opposing fields …

… but also just on a philosophical basis (I don't really like philosophical arguments/claims/postulates, but anyway …), (d) it should not be possible to have a stage where literally “Nothing” exists prior to the Big Bang, because that is like using the word and the concept of “Nothing” as if it were an actual thing, i.e. as if “nothing” could be a state in existence prior to the Big Bang … or to help with that concept, as someone once put it, it's as if when you said “I had nothing to eat today”, you meant that you actually ate a thing called “nothing”! … but the point is that, in that concept of Nothing as the complete absence of literally everything, that sort of “nothing” is the very definition of a thing which is imaginary and does not exist at all … IOW; that sort of “nothing” is impossible (by it's own definition) ;- it's just a man-made word to describe something that has no existence at all …

… so IOW – there can be no such thing as “nothing” … on which basis (a philosophical type basis) it would seem we can therefore conlude that there must always be “something” (because that sort of literal complete “nothingness” is an impossibility by it's own definition. Hence, in that scenario our universe must always exist, and there is simply no alternative option) …

… so in summary - it (the universe) exists as that aforementioned/described set of interacting energy fields that are dominated by random quantum fluctuations which must inevitably (because of their random nature) lead to an unstoppable appearance of space-time and a big Bang which is the “beginning” (13.8 billion years ago) of what we now detect as the universe around us.

[Delvo]

I'm confuzzled by the physicotheology we're being given here.

When religious people say that we have proof/certainty/whatever that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago, they usually say that's the Big Bang. But here we have somebody saying the finite-time-ago thing also saying that the Big Bang is wrong. Without the Big Bang, what else is there to tell us that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I'm confuzzled by the physicotheology we're being given here.

When religious people say that we have proof/certainty/whatever that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago, they usually say that's the Big Bang. But here we have somebody saying the finite-time-ago thing also saying that the Big Bang is wrong. Without the Big Bang, what else is there to tell us that the universe has a time of origin a finite amount of time ago?

The Bible.

[Lupus]

@IanS
You would you test that the theory is true? Is there any proof for it? How does Quantum mechanics create energy and matter if they can't be can't be created or destroyed by physical means? I mean nothing by actually being Nothing, not your deconstruction word game. Has quantum mechanics ever acted in the same way in experiments. Does this mean that you consider quantum mechanics to be God?

Originally Posted by Myriad

"Did God create the harmful viruses, diseases, parasites, and pests that have afflicted countless billions of people?
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God send that hurricane to destroy our city?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."
"Did God give that child cancer?"
"We can't say so. It might have been the result of unavoidable consequences, cause and effect. If God did do it He must have had good reasons, which we cannot appreciate because no human can possibly hope to comprehend the vast intricacies of the mind of God or His plans."

What God did is that he didn't prevent them from happening and that is because he doesn't care. He knows that our time on Earth is temporary and far better/worse things await in the afterlife. God only starts caring about you once you've finished your life as someone who loves him in the end.

[Lplus]

Those who need a god will find one somewhere. Those who don't won't care.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Lupus

@IanS
You would you test that the theory is true? Is there any proof for it? How does Quantum mechanics create energy and matter if they can't be can't be created or destroyed by physical means? I mean nothing by actually being Nothing, not your deconstruction word game. Has quantum mechanics ever acted in the same way in experiments. Does this mean that you consider quantum mechanics to be God?

.

You need to read it more carefully - when you asked "how does quantum mechanics create energy and matter if they can't be can't be created or destroyed by physical means?" , I did not say that QM created any matter or energy (I said nothing remotely like that ... read again what I actually said).

And what you described as a "deconstruction word game", was no such thing (not even remotely). Again please read more carefully what I said in that post.

And your last question "Does this mean that you consider quantum mechanics to be God?"- no, of course not. QM is not really a physically existing thing at all ... it's a mathematical theory by which we can describe, quantify and predict (very accurately as it turns out) processes & events that occur most noticably/strongly at the smallest subatomic scales ...

... QM does not produce the primordial energy fields that give rise to the Big Bang ... those fields simply exist anyway regardless of whether any humans ever devised a mathematical framework called "QM" (or more accurately now; quantum field theory "QFT") ... if you want to know why those fields exist anyway, regardless of any maths or any science, then that is exactly what that above post offers to explain.

And finally - when above you asked for "proof", you are asking for something which science very specifically never claims to be able to provide for anything. In science we simply try to show why one explanation is very likely to be far closer to the truth than some other explanation (such as a God explanation). Scientists do try to find the truth, and they hope to get close to doing that, but they never (or should never) claim to have done that as a matter of proven certainty; because as far as we can tell from QFT, absolute certainty of that sort is probably impossible in a universe like ours which, at it's most fundamental level, appears to be governed by laws of probability ... i.e., by using QM/QFT we can calculate what any individual particle, i.e. a specific pattern of "field disturbance", will probably do under any given set of conditions, to an accuracy of as much as 8 or 9 decimal places ..., but what we cannot do, and which is inherent in the formulation of QM/QFT, is calculate exactly what that field/particle will do as a matter of literal exact certainty, i.e. a “proof” (we can't ever get to that stage of a 100% certainty of "proof").

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The Bible.

Well just the parts that don't contradict the other parts.

And the general religious "fandom" that isn't in the Bible.

Oh and of course not the parts in the Bible that are obviously vile and wrong.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by Lupus

@IanS
You would you test that the theory is true? Is there any proof for it? How does Quantum mechanics create energy and matter if they can't be can't be created or destroyed by physical means? I mean nothing by actually being Nothing, not your deconstruction word game. Has quantum mechanics ever acted in the same way in experiments. Does this mean that you consider quantum mechanics to be God?

Seriously? – you ask about testing and proof and then post this -

Originally Posted by Lupus

What God did is that he didn't prevent them from happening and that is because he doesn't care. He knows that our time on Earth is temporary and far better/worse things await in the afterlife. God only starts caring about you once you've finished your life as someone who loves him in the end.

OK - How would you test that the theory is true? Is there any proof for it?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well just the parts that don't contradict the other parts.

And the general religious "fandom" that isn't in the Bible.

Oh and of course not the parts in the Bible that are obviously vile and wrong.

I was of course referring to the specific part of the Bible that tells us that the universe has a time of origin a finite time ago.

[Lupus]

Originally Posted by IanS

You need to read it more carefully - when you asked "how does quantum mechanics create energy and matter if they can't be can't be created or destroyed by physical means?" , I did not say that QM created any matter or energy (I said nothing remotely like that ... read again what I actually said).

And what you described as a "deconstruction word game", was no such thing (not even remotely). Again please read more carefully what I said in that post.

And your last question "Does this mean that you consider quantum mechanics to be God?"- no, of course not. QM is not really a physically existing thing at all ... it's a mathematical theory by which we can describe, quantify and predict (very accurately as it turns out) processes & events that occur most noticably/strongly at the smallest subatomic scales ...

... QM does not produce the primordial energy fields that give rise to the Big Bang ... those fields simply exist anyway regardless of whether any humans ever devised a mathematical framework called "QM" (or more accurately now; quantum field theory "QFT") ... if you want to know why those fields exist anyway, regardless of any maths or any science, then that is exactly what that above post offers to explain.

And finally - when above you asked for "proof", you are asking for something which science very specifically never claims to be able to provide for anything. In science we simply try to show why one explanation is very likely to be far closer to the truth than some other explanation (such as a God explanation). Scientists do try to find the truth, and they hope to get close to doing that, but they never (or should never) claim to have done that as a matter of proven certainty; because as far as we can tell from QFT, absolute certainty of that sort is probably impossible in a universe like ours which, at it's most fundamental level, appears to be governed by laws of probability ... i.e., by using QM/QFT we can calculate what any individual particle, i.e. a specific pattern of "field disturbance", will probably do under any given set of conditions, to an accuracy of as much as 8 or 9 decimal places ..., but what we cannot do, and which is inherent in the formulation of QM/QFT, is calculate exactly what that field/particle will do as a matter of literal exact certainty, i.e. a “proof” (we can't ever get to that stage of a 100% certainty of "proof").

Let's say that proof is over 65% likely. Do you have a good answer for the question now? I know already how science is based on induction and will never be 100% certain. Don't particles exist, your explanation of why you don't consider quantum mechanics to be God doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by Finster

OK - How would you test that the theory is true? Is there any proof for it?

The evidence is that God doesn't solve all the worlds problems, but could solve at least part of them. My explanation of why he doesn't care is just one reason why he might not.

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's not how the burden of proof works. Disproven is your default state. It's up to you to prove something.

No, the default state is always unknown. Absence of proof doesn't equate the proof of absence and blankly saying God doesn't exist is logically equivalent to blankly saying he does. Again, can you prove that God doesn't exist?

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Lupus

Let's say that proof is over 65% likely. Do you have a good answer for the question now? I know already how science is based on induction and will never be 100% certain. Don't particles exist, your explanation of why you don't consider quantum mechanics to be God doesn't add up.



The evidence is that God doesn't solve all the worlds problems, but could solve at least part of them. My explanation of why he doesn't care is just one reason why he might not.



No, the default state is always unknown. Absence of proof doesn't equate the proof of absence and blankly saying God doesn't exist is logically equivalent to blankly saying he does. Again, can you prove that God doesn't exist?

Far as the highlighted, and the last paragraph:

Yes, we can indeed say that some specific Gods don't exist, because the specificities associated with such Gods have, by now, been clearly disproven.

Some other God ideas, and especially a generic deist-ish God, can obviously not be disproven. However, the point of science, and of skepticism, is that you don't 'believe' stuff unless there's evidence to believe them. The whole burden of proof thing. Because otherwise, there's whole hosts of things that you can believe in, all kinds of fantastic stuff, none of which can be actually disproven.

Besides, like I'd asked before, it isn't clear why you're assuming your deist-ic God is singular (as opposed to, say, 227 billion of them, each existing eternally), or for that matter even conscious -- even should you, for some reason, wish to believe He exists. On what evidence, for what reason?

If you're given to believing random things without evidence, unless such have been actively disproved, then while you're free to do that, obviously, that's not ...not scientific, not skeptical, not reasonable.

And besides, if one might go ferreting out for some kind of method within even that kind of evidence-free randomness, there's the special-pleading thing: if you're to believe in a God, without evidence, why not whole hosts of other fantastic things as well, also without evidence, as long as they're not actively disproved? For instance, that creepy crawly thing that sleeps in Joe's garage, that he's kidnapped from Sagan and refuses to return to his heirs?

[arthwollipot]

No, no-one can prove that God doesn't exist, but if God did exist, there would be distinct signs in the physical world that we wouldn't see if God didn't exist. The complete lack of these signs is circumstantial evidence that God doesn't exist, and it allows us to draw a pretty firm conclusion.

And if a god doesn't leave signs, what advantage do we gain in believing that it exists? Clearly such a being does not manifest themself in the world, so there's no reason to believe that they are real.

[Lupus]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, no-one can prove that God doesn't exist, but if God did exist, there would be...

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Far as the highlighted, and the last paragraph:

Yes, we can indeed say that some specific Gods don't exist, because the specificities associated with such Gods have, by now, been clearly disproven.

Some other God ideas, and especially a generic deist-ish God, can obviously not be disproven. However, the point of science, and of skepticism, is that you don't 'believe' stuff unless there's evidence to believe them. The whole burden of proof thing. Because otherwise, there's whole hosts of things that you can believe in, all kinds of fantastic stuff, none of which can be actually disproven.

Besides, like I'd asked before, it isn't clear why you're assuming your deist-ic God is singular (as opposed to, say, 227 billion of them, each existing eternally), or for that matter even conscious -- even should you, for some reason, wish to believe He exists. On what evidence, for what reason?

If you're given to believing random things without evidence, unless such have been actively disproved, then while you're free to do that, obviously, that's not ...not scientific, not skeptical, not reasonable.

And besides, if one might go ferreting out for some kind of method within even that kind of evidence-free randomness, there's the special-pleading thing: if you're to believe in a God, without evidence, why not whole hosts of other fantastic things as well, also without evidence, as long as they're not actively disproved? For instance, that creepy crawly thing that sleeps in Joe's garage, that he's kidnapped from Sagan and refuses to return to his heirs?

For all the kinds of fantastic stuff, we don't know whether they exist or not. It's just uncertain and all you can do is ignore it. I personally never really think about them nowadays. On the other hand of it not being skeptical, it isn't skeptical to think that you can actually deny things that aren't disproven. You can pretend that you can and it can be a helpful tool, but in reality it just isn't known.

I don't think it really matters whether its a pantheon or just God. God here is just a descriptive word. Would using "The Creator(s)" be more clear?

There's this phenomenon in astronomy called the "Axis of Evil" that is too much of a coincidence to happen naturally. The consequences of this being true may be scary. It is where the Cosmic Microwave Background that covers the entire universe is perpendicular to our Solar System's ellipse and also moves in the same direction and speed of our Solar System. It pretty much shows that the Earth via the Sun is in the center of the Universe. They tested it again in 2020 and got the same result. I'll copy paste the abstract.

"We apply the multipole vector framework to full-sky maps derived from the first year WMAP data. We significantly extend our earlier work showing that the two lowest cosmologically interesting multipoles, ℓ = 2 and 3, are not statistically isotropic. These results are compared to the findings obtained using related methods. In particular, we show that the planes of the quadrupole and the octopole are unexpectedly aligned. Moreover, the combined quadrupole plus octopole is surprisingly aligned with the geometry and direction of motion of the solar system: the plane they define is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane and to the plane defined by the dipole direction, and the ecliptic plane carefully separates stronger from weaker extrema, running within a couple of degrees of the null-contour between a maximum and a minimum over more than 120◦ of the sky. Even given the alignment of the quadrupole and octopole with each other, we find that their alignment with the ecliptic is unlikely at > 98% C.L., and argue that it is in fact unlikely at > 99.9% C.L. Most of the ℓ = 2 and 3 multipole
vectors of the known Galactic foregrounds are located far from those of the observed sky, strongly suggesting that residual contamination by such foregrounds is unlikely to be the cause of the observed correlations. Multipole vectors, like individual aℓm, are very sensitive to sky cuts, and we demonstrate that analyses using cut skies induce relatively large errors, thus weakening the observed correlations but preserving their consistency with the full-sky results. Similarly, the analysis of COBE cut-sky maps shows increased errors but is consistent with WMAP full-sky results. We briefly extend these explorations to higher multipoles, noting again anomalous deviations from statistical isotropy and comparing with ecliptic asymmetry manifest in the WMAP team’s own analysis. If the correlations we observe are indeed a signal of non-cosmic origin, then the lack of lowℓ power will very likely be exacerbated, with important consequences for our understanding of cosmology on large scales."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0508047.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)