Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-08-2023, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,318,616 times
Reputation: 600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The resort to field explanations is de rigueur in current science, pneuma. The inevitable conclusion that all our science points to is that all that exists is the universal field (what I call God's consciousness field) within which various vibratory aggregations and manifestations exist.
Common does not make it correct
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2023, 04:55 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,318,616 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your definitions are nonsense to me, Tzaph. A materialist view has nothing to do with it. I do not believe there is ANY material substance whatsoever, period. But whatever it is, that is the way it presents to us through our sensory system so that is how we have to treat it.
That makes no sense to me brother, it’s like saying we are just living in Gods dream and none of it is real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 05:07 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,318,616 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way View Post
There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing. The Higgs field which is produced by the at one time hypothesized Higgs Boson and thought to be the source of mass by producing a drag force on other particles was confirmed when the Higgs Boson was finally found to be real as a result of experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Science wouldn't advance very far if scientists never hypothesized.
Ya I get that, but scientists always seem to jump into the water before they checked the temperature of it. I get that they are probably excited by what they see but they can easily pursued people to believe something that later turns out to be false. I guess you could say it’s a fine line they walk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 07:17 AM
 
477 posts, read 119,806 times
Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
another thing about these field like the 'inflaton scalar field' is that they are only hypothetical and have no basis in reality. why do these scientist have to use a hypothetical field to try and justify what they want the science to say.

Awhile ago I read a guy, cant remember his name, who took issue with these hypothetical fields by demonstrating with a hypothetical field of his own.

it went something like this. I can hypothesis a dinosaur fossil field which can explain why we have all these dinosaur bone around. Now would anyone believe such a hypothesis? I seriously doubt it, yet we are expected to believe a similar field is a reality.
The more you talk about science the more it becomes obvious that you have no clue what are you talking about. It looks like you simply repeat what you picked up from some apologists like Craig or Turek and what kinda make sense to you. But, not having actual knowledge on the subject, you are easily fooled by their crap.

FYI, for the purpose of building a hypothesis it is prohibited for scientists to use components that have no basis in reality. This is basic scientific methodology for acquiring knowledge that requires scientists to seek explanations of how the world around us functions based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify.
What you just posted is an exact opposite of how scientists work It is a complete nonsense.

And the guy with "dinosaur fossil field" example is an ignorant idiot. You cannot hypothesize a dinosaur fossil field which can explain why we have all these dinosaur bone around. You must demonstrate "dinosaur fossil field" and only after the demonstration an explanation of what we observe can follow.
But, since you don't know any better, what this joker is saying seems pretty reasonable to you.
And you are wrong.

And here is the funniest thing about your approach.
While making fun of hypothesizing to explain, you yourself hypothesize god, something that has never been demonstrated to have any basis in reality, does not manifests itself in reality in any way and overall cannot be distinguished from nonexistent, to explain world around us. And you don't seem to have any problem with that.
That's funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 07:39 AM
 
477 posts, read 119,806 times
Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The resort to field explanations is de rigueur in current science, pneuma. The inevitable conclusion that all our science points to is that all that exists is the universal field (what I call God's consciousness field) within which various vibratory aggregations and manifestations exist.
You are wrong again.


What science points to is that eternal and infinite randomly fluctuating quantum field is a basic foundational state of reality and it could be enough for explaining everything that exists. There is no need for any kind of god. Including yours.
BTW, eternal and infinite randomly fluctuating quantum field of science cannot be your god. At least until you are able to demonstrate that it has consciousness.Are you able to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 10:10 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,503,011 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
no worries life is more important then replying to me. I hope when you get the time you will answer the questions I asked.

Yet in your pool ball scenario you only see that which is random. that is ok because like I said already it would be random. So we agree in part. however what you are not taking into consideration is the mind can create random things.

Lets take another look at the pool ball scenario. what caused all the balls to go into the holes, the cue ball. Thus you have a cause and the effect of that cause on the other balls produced a random effect. Without the cue ball nothing would have happened.

Now you say "I observe what there is to observe and pass judgement with regard to what is random and what is not" Do you not observe design in creation? or do you think that which you observe is only something that looks like it was designed? If you say it only looks like design you are not going by what you observe you are going by what you believe science tells you. even scientist are warned that they have to constantly remember that what the see is not designed, it only looks that way. very telling imo.

One thing atheist and evolutionist don't seem to understand is even in their evolutionary belief that it is all random chance is that natural selection is in no way random, it picks only that which would sustain life.

You ask questions like why did all the dinosaurs become extinct, these type of question are philosophical in nature. they are the same type as why do bad things happen or why is there evil in the world. If there is a God who finely tunes things why does all this happen? because a mind can create random effects. Just because something to you or I looks random does not mean there is no mind or if you prefer a cause behind it.

to you and yours as well.
Of course I realize that life is more important than spending time in this forum doing anything. I just like to let it be known when I don't have the time to respond as well as I would like or am able, but thanks for the understanding anyway. About that in any case. About the rest, we've still got a ways to go. I'm not sure what questions you've asked that remain unanswered, but I'll just focus on this last comment from you. Which again demonstrates a need to clear up a thing or two...

First, I don't ONLY see what is random in the pool break scenario. I see/recognize what IS random even though I realize "the mind can create random things." Obviously there is a mind behind the break and a person creating the break, but this doesn't mean the result isn't random.

Second, it seems your line of reason pins on the fact that a mind is behind the creation of whatever a person might do or think, and if this is your rationale, there is really nothing a person might do that doesn't have design behind it. What is created, after all, if there is no mind to consider whatever we're talking about? There's one answer. Then there was all that was created regardless. Before people even existed on this planet for example. Needless to say much exists as a result of random occurrences that have nothing to do with whether there is a mind behind it. As is/was the case long before we humans came along. Going back billions of years. Billions of mindless years far as we can tell.

Third, cause/effect does not mean the result is not random either. What examples and how many are necessary for you to understand this? We understand the cause that creates a volcanic eruption for example, but the results of the eruption are random. Though the lava flow may go anywhere, it might appear that exactly where it cools and stops is "fine tuned" or perfectly designed, fact is the results are entirely random. Random as in not predictable and unrepeatable. Throw a handful of marbles into the air and where they land on the floor is by random chance. Never two outcomes exactly the same. IOWs, just because we can identify cause/effect does NOT mean the results are not random.

Fourth, when you ask whether I observe design in creation, I'm not sure we've got the common definition of design well understood or agreed upon. If you are asking do I see a design that is a result of intentional creation, my answer is no. If you are asking if I see designs, like when I see clouds that look like horses, my answer is yes, but I don't believe or have reason to believe those clouds that look like horses were intentionally created by a god or anything other than natural forces. I see designs created by natural forces all the time, but I don't equate natural forces to a god.

Five, there is what I observe and learn about such things from science and all the rest we have to consider. I don't think scientists need to remember anything as you want to suggest. If the question is whether something has been intentionally designed, how or why it was designed, the scientist can investigate the facts to formulate an answer. If the facts are there to justify the belief something has been designed by a creator, like say the designs created in a corn field only visible from above, there are ways to establish how those designs were created and by what. So far the evidence doesn't support the designs were created by spacemen or a god. We can and do know better, even when the designs might be mysterious or more difficult to explain. Some people, for example, think a water stain on a wall is the image of Jesus, created by God. Others are not inclined that way. Either am I, because the facts and what we know better don't justify that sort of conclusion. Still, there are people who want to believe such things. It seems you might be one of those kinds of people and as such, there really is no good way to reconcile my perspective with yours.

Six, it isn't the atheist or evolutionist that doesn't understand. It's you who doesn't seem to understand the basics about natural selection or how it works. The theory of Evolution. Nothing is picking anything. The living things that develop the best way to survive their environment haven't been "picked." They simply do better than the many more other living things that become extinct because they are not as well developed to survive their environment. Natural selection doesn't "pick only that which would sustain life" because if that were true none of the life forms that existed only for a short time would have ever existed in the first place. Every life form that has come and gone is part of the story of life on Earth. Just because something may not have even lasted a day doesn't mean it's any more or less part of the story of life here on Earth. Right? This is not a story of anyone or anything "picking" winners or losers in any case. None of which is happening by intentional design far as any evidence can support anyway.

Seven, the dinosaurs weren't "picked" to live or die. Something happened to their environment to cause their demise, and there is no reason to believe what happened to their environment was by design either. Many species of living things have come and gone simply as a result of random ways life forms develop that allow them to either live on or die. Survive or not. In fact, it's the countless random ways a life form can develop that provides the countless possibilities or results we can now observe, either as existing today or by way of fossil record.

Eight, there is nothing philosophical about all this whatsoever! Unless perhaps we seriously consider the story of Noah's ark. Some people might believe the animals on Noah's ark were "picked." Or so the story goes, but all the life forms in existence today were not picked, or could have survived thanks to a boat ride. If that were true, I'm certainly not sure why the cockroach got picked. That you might say is a philosophical question, but otherwise nothing I'm explaining here is philosophical.

Last edited by LearnMe; 05-08-2023 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 11:23 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,884 posts, read 26,105,247 times
Reputation: 16011
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Ya I read that there were 9 or 10 different multiverse scenarios. But what do they do with the cosmological constant? Are they saying the cosmological constant is only applied to our universe and not from the very beginning of the first Big Bang? How do they know that some bobbles would not even have matter in them?seems to me if matter is a product of the first Big Bang all bobbles would also have it.

Another thing is the slow down would, as it would have to be doing this every time , have to be fine tuned.

That said I am not totally against a multiverse scenario as it also has theistic implications. Scripture tells us There will be a new heaven and earth.
In a multiverse each universe would have its own cosmological constant in which for example the weak and strong forces might be completely different than they are in our universe. In our universe everything is 'fined tuned' so that stars and elements can form. But in some universes, nothing is fine tuned. According to Cosmologist Heling Deng at Arizona State university and expert in multiverse theory,
"If there is a multiverse, then we would have random cosmological constants in different universes, and it is simply a coincidence that the one we have in our universe takes the value that we observed," he said

https://www.livescience.com/multiver...22%20he%20said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,143 posts, read 23,799,416 times
Reputation: 32538
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
What’s common does not mean it’s correct.
And that applies to religion, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 01:16 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,503,011 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way View Post
In a multiverse each universe would have its own cosmological constant in which for example the weak and strong forces might be completely different than they are in our universe. In our universe everything is 'fined tuned' so that stars and elements can form. But in some universes, nothing is fine tuned. According to Cosmologist Heling Deng at Arizona State university and expert in multiverse theory,
"If there is a multiverse, then we would have random cosmological constants in different universes, and it is simply a coincidence that the one we have in our universe takes the value that we observed," he said

https://www.livescience.com/multiver...22%20he%20said.
I know a physicist who once explained to me that scientists can only observe the known universe and learn about the known universe by way of observation. Since no observation can be made of any other universe, scientists don't typically waste time speculating about them.

I'm no physicist, but and perhaps that's why I don't agree or understand your comment, but because no one can know or observe anything having to do with other universes, how are we supposed to rule or out rule anything about a multiverse universe. For all we know, there could be one or more outside our observable universe right now. We also can't know what was or is not "finely tuned" in our universe, because we can only know what is observable. We can't observe all that goes on in our universe or that may have occurred that is not observable. Of which anything is possible, finely tuned or otherwise, but again it's this definition of "finely tuned" that comes into question.

Is all that has ultimately caused our Sun to be what it is "finely tuned?" Or is it not the random occurrence of what creates stars, in the billions of them and none of them exactly the same? Does "finely tuned" mean intentionally created in some sort of intelligent manner or does it simply mean unique?

Is a diamond, for example, "finely tuned" and intentionally created by an intelligent being, or is a diamond simply created in random fashion caused by natural forces that cause all the other diamonds and geological formations to turn out like they do? All logic and reason suggests the latter. Certainly not the former, and this is just our one planet Earth we have to consider besides all the rest in our universe. Including all the many stars that have come and gone without any apparent intention or design.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2023, 01:57 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,884 posts, read 26,105,247 times
Reputation: 16011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I know a physicist who once explained to me that scientists can only observe the known universe and learn about the known universe by way of observation. Since no observation can be made of any other universe, scientists don't typically waste time speculating about them.

I'm no physicist, but and perhaps that's why I don't agree or understand your comment, but because no one can know or observe anything having to do with other universes, how are we supposed to rule or out rule anything about a multiverse universe. For all we know, there could be one or more outside our observable universe right now. We also can't know what was or is not "finely tuned" in our universe, because we can only know what is observable. We can't observe all that goes on in our universe or that may have occurred that is not observable. Of which anything is possible, finely tuned or otherwise, but again it's this definition of "finely tuned" that comes into question.

Is all that has ultimately caused our Sun to be what it is "finely tuned?" Or is it not the random occurrence of what creates stars, in the billions of them and none of them exactly the same? Does "finely tuned" mean intentionally created in some sort of intelligent manner or does it simply mean unique?

Is a diamond, for example, "finely tuned" and intentionally created by an intelligent being, or is a diamond simply created in random fashion caused by natural forces that cause all the other diamonds and geological formations to turn out like they do? All logic and reason suggests the latter. Certainly not the former, and this is just our one planet Earth we have to consider besides all the rest in our universe. Including all the many stars that have come and gone without any apparent intention or design.
The multiverse is a speculative model, but most of the inflation models do lead to the conclusion of a multiverse. Many physicists don't accept it but many other theoretical physicists do accept the possibility of a multiverse based on conclusions arrived at by the inflation models. We do know that own universe experienced a period of inflation at the moment of the big bang.

When Physicists speak of the universe being fine tuned they are referring to the fact that if the cosmological constant was different than what it is . . .for example, if the mass of an electron or a proton was greater or less than what it is, the universe could not support the formation of life.

You asked about the sun and fine tuning. If conditions in the early universe did not allow protons to be created there would be no hydrogen in the universe and therefore no stars, including our own sun. A creator is not required for fine tuning to exist. In a multiverse 'chance' could result in conditions be such (fine tuned) for a universe capable of supporting life and evolution to exist. And by chance we could be in just such a universe.

I have said nothing about being created by an intelligent being. In fact, in my initial post of this subject on this thread I said something to the effect that if God didn't exist the universe could have into existence on its own. I am not defending creation by God here even though I do believe that God is behind it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top