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.
They are doing the same thing to you that they do to ID, they cannot seem to separate the science from a inference to God. Any such inference to God to them simply cannot be scientific.
No, the arguments against ID also apply to whether aliens or a god did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
They should look up quantum mechanics*and*chaos theory, as well as Digital physics because those scientific areas come to the same conclusion ID does, which is behind it all is a conscious and intelligent mind.
Yet you never find those conclusions in quantum mechanic and chaos theory papers. But then maybe I am forgetting the alleged ruling paradigm that makes no rational sense.
Rudolf Peierls, a physicist who played a major role in the*Manhattan Project, rejected materialism: "The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being…including knowledge and consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing."[39]
Erwin Schrödinger*said, "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."[40]
Werner Heisenberg, who came up with the*uncertainty principle, wrote, "The*ontology*of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct 'actuality' of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible.… Atoms are not things."[41]
Quantum mechanics[edit]
Some 20th-century physicists (e.g.,*Eugene Wigner[42]*and*Henry Stapp),[43]*as well as modern day physicists and science writers (e.g.,*Stephen Barr,[44]*Paul Davies, and*John Gribbin) have argued that materialism is flawed due to certain recent scientific findings in physics, such as*quantum mechanics*and*chaos theory. According to Gribbin and Davies (1991):
Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less "substance" than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.
—Paul Davies and John Gribbin,*The Matter Myth, Chapter 1: "The Death of Materialism"
Mystic you will like this part.
The objections of Davies and Gribbin are shared by proponents of digital physics who view information rather than matter to be fundamental. Famous physicist and proponent of digital physics John Archibald Wheeler wrote, "all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe".[39] Their objections were also shared by some founders of quantum theory, such as Max Planck, who wrote:
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.*We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.*This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
— Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie, 1944
James Jeans concurred with Planck saying, "The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter".[40
1) you are equating 'material' with materialism. Even with Quantum mechanics, we still live in a material world.
2) Posting the usual selected quotes does not answer the problem of knowledge or the necessary assertion of an immaterial brain.
Or at the very least random suffering is incompatible with the existence of a just, benevolent god.
So it can't be benevolent and not be able to interact with us any differently?
I watched two kids playing and one kid tried to pick up an ant and show his friend. As he brushed off the dead ant and they broth ran away laughing about something else.
No, he didn't explain the nature of quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics was truly understood there wouldn't be so many different views regarding it.
Heck that can be said for just about anything. How many views are there on evolution, origins, scripture etc. Just about everything you can think of has many views.
Quote:
He didn't say 'only' the founders questioned it. He simply pointed out that the founders did question it and most of them came to reject the idea that consciousness is behind quantum mechanics. He further stated that that was the basis for the 'mystic' interpretations of quantum mechanics. He also said that the idea that consciousness can affect quantum systems is a pervasive notion.
You may have listened to the video but you didn't understand what he was saying
If he is correct then how do you explain the books on quantum mechanics and consciousness being written today? Obviously as people are still saying it, it has not gone away so how can he say it is a perverse notion? Also by saying it is a perverse notion he is saying he understands it, thus it is a self defeating position he is holding.
The mistake by the ID folks was in misidentifying the source of design as intelligence. Intelligence IS an attribute of consciousness but it is too specific and implies more about design than is warranted. Consciousness is the source of both design and intelligence so it is the more basic substrate of our Reality. Consciousness imagines and that imagination does not imply anything about the designs of what it imagines - imperfect, perfect, or any other adjectives. It is entirely free of constraints. It can use intelligence to design or it can use some other indeterminate paradigm. In my view, our entire Reality exists within the consciousness of God (unified field) and that implies nothing at all about the designs involved - intelligent, unintelligent, imperfect, perfect, or otherwise.
Its called intelligent design but by that they are only saying a mind is behind it all and I see no difference between mind and consciousness.
The misery on earth, animal and human is incompatible with the concept of a loving god. It isnt a question, but, rather, evidence against the existance of a god
and how is it evidence against the existence of a god? You have an idea of what God is and you are simply using that idea and saying see God can't be real because he does not live up to my idea of him.
No, the arguments against ID also apply to whether aliens or a god did it.
And yet scientist do believe its at least possible aliens did it (just ask Dawkins) Funny how they jump to aliens doing it all just to get away from any conclusion that God did it.
Quote:
Yet you never find those conclusions in quantum mechanic and chaos theory papers. But then maybe I am forgetting the alleged ruling paradigm that makes no rational sense.
Have you read all the quantum mechanic and chaos theory papers? No, then how can you say you never find those conclusions in them. And yet the same scientist who study in those fields wrote book on it and in those books they do come to those conclusions.
1) you are equating 'material' with materialism. Even with Quantum mechanics, we still live in a material world.
2) Posting the usual selected quotes does not answer the problem of knowledge or the necessary assertion of an immaterial brain.
1. am I? Paul Davies and John Gribbin,*The Matter Myth, Chapter 1: "The Death of Materialism"
2. And how do you know the brain is the source of consciousness? according to Neo Darwinism there should not even be a consciousness.
1. am I? Paul Davies and John Gribbin,*The Matter Myth, Chapter 1: "The Death of Materialism"
2. And how do you know the brain is the source of consciousness? according to Neo Darwinism there should not even be a consciousness.
If you said, "forget about deity gods, lets just talk about how the universe works".
actually what most scientist would understand is that we are nodes of complexity in a system. That the system is acting more like a unit than isolated pieces.
Thats the base line scientist would start using to analyze the various god/spiritual claims. And a lot them would say "I never thought of it like that, you are right." I know, because I got to talk to more than most people about it. "god" was never the focus of the discussion. How the unversed works is the center of evaluating claims.
here, they are about atheism's statement of belief about god. basically some atheist are faith based just like some theist.
The science bares that out so much that they have to change the process of how we talk about the claims theist make. No science and no universe is god outside of the pantheism closet. That demonstrates this is faith based atheism.
That would be true for classical materialism. You need to check with Transponder if that is what he means by 'materialism'.
I should say it isn't. I have said many times that 'matter' in not what you can bang on a table, but is how we see what energy/mass in particles does to interact so it can produce effect and stasis that forms what we call 'atoms' of which matter and energy is made.Thus, anything that happens at quantum - level and even if the universe is a 2d hologram, that does not delete materialism, not in the way the Believers would like in hopes to make any science invalid (pace that they take it for granted as working every day) in hopes that would leave God as the only option.
It's needful to keep in mind that the god -apologists here are always pulling rhetorical tricks of that kind. You have seen a lot of that recently in your discussion of Bayes' theorem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
1) you are equating 'material' with materialism. Even with Quantum mechanics, we still live in a material world.
2) Posting the usual selected quotes does not answer the problem of knowledge or the necessary assertion of an immaterial brain.
Exactly. Pneuma is looking very good here (as he often does) but I'll bet he is just copy/pasting arguments from some Creationist site and well called on it, will collapse in a welter of abuse, and denial, as he usually does.
You may notice, by the way the 'science in the Bible' ploy, which is to rummage through the Bible to try to find something that looks a it like some new science theory (we saw this done with the Quran, too) and try to claim that the Bible knew it all along. Here it's trying to do the same with some vague God is pure spirit -intelligence idea and pretend that something like quantum interaction at a distance validates such claims.
It's the same as trying to make NDEs evidence for the Christian heaven as soon as people started looking at the phenomenon.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-03-2020 at 08:23 AM..
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.
But then maybe I am forgetting the alleged ruling paradigm that makes no rational sense.