Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good but the point was I was correcting the misinterpretation of what Dawkins was saying. When he said "serious" he did not say it as "Good, valid, convincing, credible" or any of that. He meant "serious" in the sense of "not stupid and ludicrous".
In other words, "reasonable", right? I'm sorry, but you seem to think that "serious case" is somehow less than "reasonable argument". If there's a "serious case" for God, then you can't say there isn't a "reasonable argument" for God.
And most people who play the lottery don't win. That doesn't mean that the lottery isn't specifically set up so that there are occasional winners.
And many people who jump off bridges die. That doesn't mean that the universe isn't specifically set up so that occasionally people who do don't. Or does it? You confusing chance with design.
If the data is not recorded how can you know that you observed it?
I suppose given a single iteration that is a reasonable question, but it's been done so many times, that assuming the equipment is faulty every single time is unreasonable.
Quote:
quantum physics is all very understandable to me as an objective reality.
That makes one of us.
Quote:
The universal projection idea has been around for a long while, I'm not sure how that is relevant unless we can use the knowledge that its a projection to conquer it or leave it to the "real" objective reality... I hope no one is going to wait for the aliens to take them. Doesn't seem to me like physicists think there is much legitimacy or need for the projection hypothesis to be believed, why do you?
Did you read the pdf that I posted earlier in the thread? It's an idea that's getting more and more credibility in the halls of mainstream science. And it's not that I care whether or not anyone "believes", it simply is what it is.
Quote:
Anyway, I'd mostly would like you to explain how can know something is being measured if it is not recorded... and how that relates to virtual realities.
As a hypothetical example, the equipment required to run the experiment and measure the "Which Slit" data is in place and functional. The data is measured, and sent to a tape drive where it is recorded. Except in this hypothetical case, the tape is intentionally removed, so the data is measured, but the measurement is lost when the tape heads apply the data to nothing.
As for how that relates to virtual reality, it's the same as if the data were never recorded in the first place. When we don't know 'which slit', the electrons behave as though their paths are being CALCULATED, not traveled.
Quote:
that is a very reasonable and possible hypothesis, but why should I believe it? Is it going to give me eternal life if I believe it? is it at least going to give me the HOPE or self-assurance of eternal blissful life? I mean, if your going to start selling snake oil you might as well do a good job of it. Maybe then the snake oil will work like an opiate or a placebo. what is the point if this is just a virtual reality? what should I do now? should I refrain from eating pork? what will be different now that I know this? What are its implications?
The implications are profound. It means the whole question of mind/brain duality is answered, because your brain is but a projection and doesn't actually exist. It means that whatever this Universe is, and whatever it's purpose, we can say with certainty that it was designed by an intelligence, as simulated realities don't just pop up on their own. And it says that there is in fact a larger reality, as this is just a subset of something else.
This larger reality, BTW, can be explored. I have done so myself, though I'm a rank amateur compared to others. But I did so in a way that satisfied myself that it was real. Even were you to hear the story and believe me, you may or may not be convinced, but that's okay for you don't have to be. You can do it yourself.
And what I'm asking you is how we would test and falsify the idea that the universe had a naturalistic origin. You keep saying that we can do so, so I'm asking you how.
If it were shown that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was not evidence for the big bang, that would go a long way towards falsifying it. Get busy now, and dig up evidence refuting the CMBR. I can't wait for your scholarly report. Now doubt it will be a hit.
Quote:
I've already answered this question. You can't. It's impossible to use testing and falsification to determine whether the universe had a naturalistic origin or if "god did it", since the creation of the universe isn't a repeatable event. You're the only one of us making the ridiculous claim that it is testable and falsifiable, so please stop avoiding the question and tell us how we would do so. Or admit you were wrong.
See above. Did you know that bearing false witness is still a mortal sin, according to your own religious tenents? As is "lying for Jesus".
You're right. It's more a "strawman argument" than a red herring. "Rainbows are naturally caused, therefore the entire universe is naturally caused" is a pretty good example of such an argument.
When Newton discovered the cause of rainbows, it was very much thought to be an act of god. Sadly, many today still see it that way. Yes, rainbows are a natural phenomenon, as is every other detectable natural process. Can you name a single one that isn't? If you can't, then why would you think that all of the natural processes in the universe are derived from a universe that isn't itself naturally derived? What evidence do you have that they aren't?
Quote:
Rainbows and cancer are scientifically repeatable phenomena. Creations of universes are not.
Actually, several phyisicsts believe that it can be repeated. And many of the processes that are thought to have been involved are being run in computer simulations. Whether it is ethical to actually create another universe and possibly destroy ours in the process just to satisfy your unreasonable demand is the real question.
Even if, hypothetically, we could, how would this prove that our current universe had a naturalistic origin?
First of all, science doesn't prove anything. It is a process of discovery that helps us find natural explanations for the natural processes that occur in our universe. Proofs are for math and philosophy, not science. Secondly, it is not unreasonable to assume that a universe that operates by natural processes and laws also originated by natural processes. As I asked earlier, can you think of a single process in this universe that is not naturally occurring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
If you're talking about the ability of purposeful beings (in this case, scientists) taking steps to cause a universe to exist, how would this, in any way, say that our current universe wasn't created by any sort of purposeful being? So, again, how can we test and falsify the idea that our universe had a naturalistic origin?
Repeating the long agorefuted watchmaker analogy is not helping you make your case.
I answered your question earlier.
Quote:
Right, but what caused the Big Bang to happen (God or naturalistic processes) is not testable and predictable.
And you know this how?
Quote:
I do accept the scientific method as it applies to astrophysics, but I'm just smart and honest enough to admit that we can't use the scientific method to determine whether the universe was created by God or had a naturalistic origin.
We certainly cannot use it to determine whether or not it was created by your god. But then, neither can you. That's a given. Science only deals with natural phenomena. An since nothing in this universe has been demonstrated to have anything other than natural processes involved, asking whether something other than a natural process involved is beyond the realm of science, since science is, by definition, a method of determining natural processes.
And how is any of this evidence for a naturalistic origin for the universe?
Once again, since all of these are readily determined to be naturally produced, there is no reason to assume that the space/time that contains them does not also have a ntraul origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
That the universe has a propensity for creating and sustaining life.
The fine-tuned Universe argument is nonsense. It is anything but fined tuned. As I've pointed out numerous times, the universe is far and above completely hostile to life. In fact, the vast bulk of it is utterly incapable of sustaining any life whatsoever.
Doesn't this statement sound a lot like my hypothesis? In my theory, the electron doesn't physically exist until observed. In yours it becomes "denatured" whatever that means. How is that different?
And perhaps more importantly, how does a single electron, which is not alive and has no power to think or observe, make a "choice" to behave differently under different observational environments?
Except that the particle/wave nature of electrons has been unambiguously demonstrated countless times.
No, natural processes only refer to natural processes.
Can you name a process that isn't natural?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
