dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 23:32:24 GMT
I can grant you some of those, although I'm not sure what unmoved mover means in this context. God is not necessary (see Occam's Razor,) and obviously, if nothing caused the universe to come into being, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but that's like saying water is wet. Of course, all this is assuming the universe doesn't regress infinitely, which it might, and is something which we may have no real way of knowing. And "quantum fluctuations in a vacuum" is hardly self-explanatory. But...you left out a number of qualities most people attribute to a big G God, that a natural (for lack of a better term) uncaused cause does not share; sentience, intelligence, willfulness, intent, purpose, the ability to subvert the inherent properties of the universe...I could keep going with a whole list of emotions most believers also attach to the notion of God, but I think I've made my point.
It's not that "God" is necessary, it's that a "First Cause" is necessary. Before attempting to define something, you should probably first ensure that there's something to define. And yes, water is indeed wet. It's that simple, for I'm not arguing anything that shouldn't be obvious. An infinitely regressive universe is a supernatural universe, which I reckon means that we're wrong about some of those "natural laws" we use to dispute God. Who claims this?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 0:26:37 GMT
It's not that "God" is necessary, it's that a "First Cause" is necessary. Before attempting to define something, you should probably first ensure that there's something to define. And yes, water is indeed wet. It's that simple, for I'm not arguing anything that shouldn't be obvious. An infinitely regressive universe is a supernatural universe, which I reckon means that we're wrong about some of those "natural laws" we use to dispute God. Who claims this? It's a causal universe that neither created itself nor moved itself. Have you any evidence that it is eternal?
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 18, 2021 0:53:12 GMT
It's a causal universe that neither created itself nor moved itself. Have you any evidence that it is eternal? I never claimed that it was, merely suggested it as a possibility. You claimed that an infinitely regressive universe was supernatural, the onus is on you to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 0:56:49 GMT
It's a causal universe that neither created itself nor moved itself. Have you any evidence that it is eternal? I never claimed that it was, merely suggested it as a possibility. You claimed that an infinitely regressive universe was supernatural, the onus is on you to back it up. Who said an object at rest stays at rest until moved by an external force?
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 18, 2021 1:25:30 GMT
I never claimed that it was, merely suggested it as a possibility. You claimed that an infinitely regressive universe was supernatural, the onus is on you to back it up. Who said an object at rest stays at rest until moved by an external force? That would be Isaac Newton, some 400 years ago. There are limitations to his laws of motion, however, which is why we have relativity and quantum mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 1:35:19 GMT
Who said an object at rest stays at rest until moved by an external force? That would be Isaac Newton, some 400 years ago. There are limitations to his laws of motion, however, which is why we have relativity and quantum mechanics. Newton was wrong, then? A rock is an inanimate object, so when you see one moving, odds are it did not move itself. Are you really trying to dispute this with quantum mechanics? Occam’s Razor indeed.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 18, 2021 1:56:30 GMT
That would be Isaac Newton, some 400 years ago. There are limitations to his laws of motion, however, which is why we have relativity and quantum mechanics. Newton was wrong, then?
A rock is an inanimate object, so when you see one moving, odds are it did not move itself. Are you really trying to dispute this with quantum mechanics? Occam’s Razor indeed. See the part where I said there are limitations. Doesn't mean he was wrong, but there are frames of reference where his laws are not reliable, especially the 1st law. Are you really trying to compare a rock to matter at a sub-atomic level? Or at relativistic speeds? Do better.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 2:30:19 GMT
Newton was wrong, then?
A rock is an inanimate object, so when you see one moving, odds are it did not move itself. Are you really trying to dispute this with quantum mechanics? Occam’s Razor indeed. See the part where I said there are limitations. Doesn't mean he was wrong, but there are frames of reference where his laws are not reliable, especially the 1st law. Are you really trying to compare a rock to matter at a sub-atomic level? Or at relativistic speeds? Do better. But I don't have to do better. If I drop a feather and it floats away, I wouldn't conclude that the feather defied gravity. So when you "see" quantum particles where there weren't any a nanosecond before, why should the conclusion be even a remote possibility that it merely popped itself into existence from literally nothing at all with no cause?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2021 12:10:12 GMT
It's a causal universe that neither created itself nor moved itself. Have you any evidence that it is eternal? I never claimed that it was, merely suggested it as a possibility. You claimed that an infinitely regressive universe was supernatural, the onus is on you to back it up. Well, I guess the onus is on the Vatican to prove that God exists. I dont think theyve done a terribly good job so far
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2021 12:29:31 GMT
So, first thing-I entered this thread mostly because of the use of the term intelligent designer, something that to me has very specific connotations of the insidious creationist movement to get their religious beliefs taught in science classes as an alternative explanation to evolution. That, and the suggestion that the universe is somehow violating it's own laws (don't know of a less anthropomorphic way to put it, sorry) without some intelligent force to do so. If something seems to be defying entropy, as you put it, then either the observer is mistaken or his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is.
As to the whole first cause question, asking what caused god is less an argument made by atheists than it is a response to the claim that everything needs a cause, except for the deity one happens to believe in. That's what is known, I believe, as "special pleading," and to me seems more than a tad hypocritical. Due to it's very nature, the question of what caused the universe we live in, may be unknowable-in fact, the question might even be meaningless, but that is no reason to insert some supreme being into the equation. If I'm still missing your point, then i apologize, these are simply my thoughts on the subject.
Briefly back to the natural synchronization thing; yes, some might see that as evidence of a god, but that would be another argument from ignorance; "I don't understand x, therefore God." Since there are natural forces that can explain theses observations, there is no logical need to jump to that conclusion. Thank you, Occam's Razor.
This is true. Although I may be contradicting myself here re citing a point from the conservation laws but I neglected to question those. I feel they carry some weight but I could be confusing them with theories ie relativity. At one stage, the Earth was everything. Then it became other planets and the Sun. The solar system. Galaxies and so forth. Who knows how future science could affect those laws? I believe quantum mechanics was 'created' to explain what Einstein's ideas couldnt. Anyway knowledge is constantly evolving but yes to just say that the rules apply to everything except God and for us not to question it, is silly
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 21:31:44 GMT
So, first thing-I entered this thread mostly because of the use of the term intelligent designer, something that to me has very specific connotations of the insidious creationist movement to get their religious beliefs taught in science classes as an alternative explanation to evolution. That, and the suggestion that the universe is somehow violating it's own laws (don't know of a less anthropomorphic way to put it, sorry) without some intelligent force to do so. If something seems to be defying entropy, as you put it, then either the observer is mistaken or his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is. As to the whole first cause question, asking what caused god is less an argument made by atheists than it is a response to the claim that everything needs a cause, except for the deity one happens to believe in. That's what is known, I believe, as "special pleading," and to me seems more than a tad hypocritical. Due to it's very nature, the question of what caused the universe we live in, may be unknowable-in fact, the question might even be meaningless, but that is no reason to insert some supreme being into the equation. If I'm still missing your point, then i apologize, these are simply my thoughts on the subject. Briefly back to the natural synchronization thing; yes, some might see that as evidence of a god, but that would be another argument from ignorance; "I don't understand x, therefore God." Since there are natural forces that can explain theses observations, there is no logical need to jump to that conclusion. Thank you, Occam's Razor.
This is true. Although I may be contradicting myself here re citing a point from the conservation laws but I neglected to question those. I feel they carry some weight but I could be confusing them with theories ie relativity. At one stage, the Earth was everything. Then it became other planets and the Sun. The solar system. Galaxies and so forth. Who knows how future science could affect those laws? I believe quantum mechanics was 'created' to explain what Einstein's ideas couldnt. Anyway knowledge is constantly evolving but yes to just say that the rules apply to everything except God and for us not to question it, is silly It isn’t “special pleading” because that isn’t the argument.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 19, 2021 0:19:22 GMT
See the part where I said there are limitations. Doesn't mean he was wrong, but there are frames of reference where his laws are not reliable, especially the 1st law. Are you really trying to compare a rock to matter at a sub-atomic level? Or at relativistic speeds? Do better. But I don't have to do better. If I drop a feather and it floats away, I wouldn't conclude that the feather defied gravity. So when you "see" quantum particles where there weren't any a nanosecond before, why should the conclusion be even a remote possibility that it merely popped itself into existence from literally nothing at all with no cause? Apologies for the delayed reply, my job still requires my physical presence to get done. Here's an article from Fermilab Today concerning "quantum foam" that might help answer your second question.
Meanwhile, I can only reiterate, Newton's first law is not applicable at the quantum level, no matter how many analogies you can come up with. Any decent modern physics text will tell you this, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2021 0:29:28 GMT
But I don't have to do better. If I drop a feather and it floats away, I wouldn't conclude that the feather defied gravity. So when you "see" quantum particles where there weren't any a nanosecond before, why should the conclusion be even a remote possibility that it merely popped itself into existence from literally nothing at all with no cause? Apologies for the delayed reply, my job still requires my physical presence to get done. Here's an article from Fermilab Today concerning "quantum foam" that might help answer your second question.
Meanwhile, I can only reiterate, Newton's first law is not applicable at the quantum level, no matter how many analogies you can come up with. Any decent modern physics text will tell you this, I'm sure.
When a physics text tells me things can be in two different locations simultaneously or that matter can just spontaneously materialize from literally nothing at all or that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, I'm not very quick to label it "decent."
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 19, 2021 1:00:12 GMT
Apologies for the delayed reply, my job still requires my physical presence to get done. Here's an article from Fermilab Today concerning "quantum foam" that might help answer your second question.
Meanwhile, I can only reiterate, Newton's first law is not applicable at the quantum level, no matter how many analogies you can come up with. Any decent modern physics text will tell you this, I'm sure.
When a physics text tells me things can be in two different locations simultaneously or that matter can just spontaneously materialize from literally nothing at all or that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, I'm not very quick to label it "decent." So, you don't understand quantum mechanics, and don't want to. Willful ignorance it is, then.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2021 1:38:59 GMT
When a physics text tells me things can be in two different locations simultaneously or that matter can just spontaneously materialize from literally nothing at all or that the cat is indeed both dead and alive, I'm not very quick to label it "decent." So, you don't understand quantum mechanics, and don't want to. Willful ignorance it is, then. Vacuous, childish retorts it is, then. Thanks for the chat and welcome to the forum. I'll leave you with this: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Neils Bohr
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 19, 2021 12:55:43 GMT
That would be Isaac Newton, some 400 years ago. There are limitations to his laws of motion, however, which is why we have relativity and quantum mechanics. Newton was wrong, then?A rock is an inanimate object, so when you see one moving, odds are it did not move itself. Are you really trying to dispute this with quantum mechanics? Occam’s Razor indeed. More of a situation where Newton knowledge was incomplete. That's when you have Einstein. And the knowledge of Einstein is also incomplete so here we are waiting for the next Newton/Einstein to revolutionize physics as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 19, 2021 18:38:49 GMT
Never heard of him. So i doubt he was the world leader of anything. Holy Narcissism Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 19, 2021 21:21:50 GMT
So, first thing-I entered this thread mostly because of the use of the term intelligent designer, something that to me has very specific connotations of the insidious creationist movement to get their religious beliefs taught in science classes as an alternative explanation to evolution. That, and the suggestion that the universe is somehow violating it's own laws (don't know of a less anthropomorphic way to put it, sorry) without some intelligent force to do so. If something seems to be defying entropy, as you put it, then either the observer is mistaken or his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is. As to the whole first cause question, asking what caused god is less an argument made by atheists than it is a response to the claim that everything needs a cause, except for the deity one happens to believe in. That's what is known, I believe, as "special pleading," and to me seems more than a tad hypocritical. Due to it's very nature, the question of what caused the universe we live in, may be unknowable-in fact, the question might even be meaningless, but that is no reason to insert some supreme being into the equation. If I'm still missing your point, then i apologize, these are simply my thoughts on the subject. Briefly back to the natural synchronization thing; yes, some might see that as evidence of a god, but that would be another argument from ignorance; "I don't understand x, therefore God." Since there are natural forces that can explain theses observations, there is no logical need to jump to that conclusion. Thank you, Occam's Razor.
Either the universe regresses infinitely, or there is a "First Cause." What that First Cause that may be is anyone's guess, but it shares many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God" (big G intentional this time). Yep. Either way the supernatural exists.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2021 21:47:15 GMT
Either the universe regresses infinitely, or there is a "First Cause." What that First Cause that may be is anyone's guess, but it shares many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God" (big G intentional this time). Yep. Either way the supernatural exists. Bite your tongue! We don't call it the s-word; we call it unexplained until we revise natural laws to fit. Enter quantum mechanics where the rules don't seem to apply. Apparently we can compare sub-atomic particles to a rock, but we can't compare a rock to sub-atomic particles. Doesn't seem very honest to me, especially given that Schroedinger's Cat was designed to illustrate the absurdity of using quantum theory to explain the "real world." We laugh at those in the past who claimed the world was flat just as those in the future will laugh at us for claiming the cat is both dead and alive.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 19, 2021 21:48:11 GMT
[post deleted after I realized who I was responding to]
|
|