A reasonable argument for God? (bible, quote, believers, verse)
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.
So are you now agreeing that the idea that we can test and falsify a naturalistic origin for the universe was incorrect?
Anything in science can be falsified, David. Otherwise, it isn't science. The Big Bang, which is the natural explanation for the origin of the universe, is no exception. I've explained how it can be falsified.
But they would also be produced if the universe was purposely created, so how are they evidence for naturalistic creation?
Since we have no evidence of a purposely created universe, you are making an unsupported assumption.
Quote:
Yet life is able to thrive in it for billions of years, here and almost certainly elsewhere.
And yet the vast bulk of the universe is utterly incapable of supporting life. You can't wiggle your way out of this fact. Just acknowledge that this is true, and let's move on.
Quote:
Just like most people who play the lottery don't win. That doesn't mean that the lottery isn't set up for people to win now and then.
The lottery isn't set up for people to win. It is set up for the State and the people who run it to make money. That people win is all about chance. So you are agreeing that the universe, and all the life in it is a game of chance?
Are you seriously saying that lotteries aren't set up so that people will win now and then?
Lottery numbers are produced by random number generators. So there are certain (very low) odds that a person will win. Now, unless you believe that random numbers are somehow not truly random, or magically become non-random, I fail to see a point in your argument.
[...]
You seem to think my idea is a bit nutty. That's okay, many ideas once thought nutty are now commonly accepted as fact. But let me ask you this:
Forget everything else about our discussion, and explain how objectively real electrons, shot one at a time through a double slit apparatus, can create an interference pattern? An objectively real electron does one of three things. It goes through the left slit, the right slit, or it bounces off the apparatus and does neither. If it goes throught the left slit, it should impact directly (more or less) behind it. Ditto for the right slit.
Yet they do not. Explain how an objectively real electron manages to go through both slits and interfere with itself.
I don't think your idea is a bit nutty, its quite possible... I just think you could be a bit mistaken. I suggest you have some scientists confirm your (I assume) involuntary power, at least to see if it is statistically significant, then perhaps in later generations some of your descendants might be able to control it completely voluntarily and it will be even more scientifically evident.
The explanation for the double slit experiment's results are easy: being as waves are objectively real, and they create interference patterns when fired through double slits, Beta particles are as real as photons, or any other wave-particle. From this I will predict that positrons also exhibit wave-particle characteristics. However, Alpha particles (Helium Cations) will not show wave characteristics because they are composed of both Neutrons and Protons. Neutrons and Protons should not show wave characteristics because they are composed of quarks.
science is about explaining observations reasonably and in an applicable way.
Oddly enough though, glancing over Wikipedia, it has been revealed that firing small balls of carbon (sixty carbon atoms) through double slits also creates an interference-like pattern. So much for my molecules (composed of protons and neutrons) not behaving like waves idea.
Oh, it even says protons behave the same way.
We must NOT forget however, that all slits must have DEPTH and that could interfere with the characteristics we might expect from the classical particle idea.
The odd thing about the double slit experiment, is that if you fire a SINGLE particle, it might not end up behind the slits, but it will end up as a particle in a seemingly random place on the screen. Then, once you fire enough particles, they will clearly show an interference-like pattern.
So it seams that instead of space and time, it is space-time and instead of wave and particle, it is wave-particle.
REMIND me again how the double-slit experiment shows that all objective existence which we experience is merely a virtual simulation using probability equations to calculate everything "insentient" yet all that is sentient is not part of the virtual simulation but in fact part of the "Higher Reality"...
I predict that in the future robots will think they think. And this will show that consciousness is possible naturally, even though the consciousness of the robots will have been designed, design of consciousness will show that it is possible naturally given probability and thus bound to happen sooner or later in a very long evolutionary process where energy is introduced (like by the Sun).
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-11-2011 at 06:11 PM..
Wave/particle duality makes no sense if one assumes objective existence. An electron either exists or it does not.
The digital reality theory explains the experimental results. The objective reality theory is contraindicated by them. Unless you have some other theory that explains duality. Young didn't. Einstein didn't. Neither does Hawking. They just accept the seeming paradox because they couldn't (or wouldn't) think outside the box.
Did you read the pdf I posted over the weekend? It has many other examples.
I know that you think this argument makes sense, but it's no different than someone pointing to a top spinning on a table and pointing out how it remains spinning without any guiding hand, and then determining that no guiding hand set it spinning in the first place.
I'm not asking anyone to do it, just for you to explain how naturalistic creation is testable and falsifiable. Saying that purposeful beings (physicists) can hypothetically cause universes to exist doesn't suggest that our own universe wasn't caused by any purposeful being. So even if, hypothetically, scientists were to purposefully cause a universe to exist, how would this prove that ours was created naturalistically?
Ah with the metaphors, lets take the metaphor a little bit further. The man having commented the anti-Deist idea of how the top spins, is then met by a woman, and she says: "No my good man, the top MUST have been set into motion by someone like us, a sentient being... And this being, unlike us, requires no cause." but then her young boy interjects: "No mother, the top is SENTIENT look how it now CHOOSES to dance instead!" With the horror that people are just like spinning tops, and will eventually die and cease their cognition, the man and woman completely ignore the young boy... a Parrot on the shoulder of the man squawks out: "Woman! Don't ever show this boy fire! He'll try to be it's friend, and think himself to thus so live forever! Oh the tragedies that will occur, 'cuz of the sickness of desire!"
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 10-11-2011 at 06:49 PM..
Wave/particle duality makes no sense if one assumes objective existence. An electron either exists or it does not.
The digital reality theory explains the experimental results. The objective reality theory is contraindicated by them. Unless you have some other theory that explains duality. Young didn't. Einstein didn't. Neither does Hawking. They just accept the seeming paradox because they couldn't (or wouldn't) think outside the box.
Did you read the pdf I posted over the weekend? It has many other examples.
No, i haven't yet, and I think you are the one thinking inside the box. Your box that is... because you simply refuse to find better, more applicable explanations... Besides, I believe waves exist objectively, I'm not sure why you don't. And Wikipedia, whom I think is more authoritive than you, says that the double slit experiment does not contradict scholarly philosophy, because the particles cannot be waves at the same time. Just because particles follow some hard to comprehend probability rules does not mean they are virtual. There are other explanations for the results of the double slit experiment other than, "I'm done! it must all be fake!" I really don't understand how any objective reality could exist if this one MUST be virtual. Do you think that in the "Higher Reality" waves, probability, and physical rules don't exist?
Are you seriously saying that lotteries aren't set up so that people will win now and then?
Are you seriously suggesting that people set up lotteries SO that OTHER people can win now and then? Buddy, people set up lotteries so that THEY win all the time. Its just by lucky chance that a lot of saps WANT to redistribute their wealth through gambling. I really don't understand why this means that I should worship God the director, out to eat his fill of souls...(reference is about Faust play and the Evil Demon argument within scholarly philosophy.)
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.
