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.
Your OP discussing interaction is not alone in the global thinking world. Your being quite un-fair asking a believer ship outside of prof physics to attend to what you want. What you want in content exploration is available but not in this forum because there are NO physicist joining in.
Combining the laymens resolve through your eyes.."God did it" and factual science is not fair. Many believe creation to be a possible consequence of a God....
Have you considered ? rather then diverting what could be a healthy discussion on a assumption of God did it.
I don't think any clear thinking person believes God did it with a magic wan...this would be an unknown...as any or all supporting data is unknown in prof science.
I am not asking for anything from the believers. I am saying that they say "God did it" as if it were an explanation when that doesn't explain anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue
It just so happens that the idea I presented is feasible in a presentable
manner and is being explored by those engaged with higher abilities .
Its like your looking for "pure science" in an area which is not equipped or meant to be equipped with equations.
The idea you presented isn't anywhere close to being "feasible in a presentable manner". You need to learn what it takes to articulate a case. The ideas were disjointed, random speculations that hardly said anything at all. I am not looking for equations, but I am looking for a beginning, a middle, and an end, with terms defined, and some justifications for the speculations. That is the minimum needed just so I can follow your train of thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Hue
Please present an un-congested focus for interesting overview. Complaining about God did it and asking for how, suggests a theist is not being reasonable. This is illogical relative to available scientific info and also harps on a pointless mathematical proof which you know....is absolutely ridiculous .
The obvious clue in a source property is energy. You completely ignored this point I took the time to convey. ....there seems to be a scattered investigation with themes which have nothing to do with each other.
The bolded part describes your posts perfectly. I am sorry you are having a hard time following me. I am having a hard time following you, and it is not because you are a theist. I have no problem following anyone who posts here except for tgnostic, you, and a handful of Muslim posters for whom English is not their native language.
The reason why I did not respond to this post before is I have no idea what to do with this. Why is it "likely"? Why would it be or need to be "impervious" to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Your posts read like random, disjointed thoughts.
Theres no one here huff that has enough physics to discuss what you want.
You refuse to engage items which are outside of physics. No problem, just doesn't make sense in this forum....I will send you a link so you can learn something.
He has all the physics and engineering-astromony you are asking for.. Engage if you are interested in progress which is related to your style of research. ( new book re a God idea and forum link for discussion ) Proceed with caution, one of the most articulate, talented, fully capable individuals Ive read. If you get on his bad side, and challenge without knowledge...make no sense ect...as in waste peoples time...he will chop the head off , quickly, efficiently with no effort and a variety of creative tools.
....if you are only interested in arguing, then thats another story
Alas I do not think the issue is with Hueff's level of physics, but the level of physics of adherents to theism who trot out references.... references they themselves do not understand... to things like and including the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" solely because they have been told by other theists that this is some kind of unanswerable attack on Atheism.
I am yet to see one person trotting out such references as yet who explain exactly what the 2nd Law says, how it applies to god, and how the 2nd law shows there is one.
I would not be so quick to suggest that "no one here" knows enough about the laws in question to discuss them. Maybe YOU do not, but you do not speak for the rest of us and I can tell you I certainly do.
Alas I do not think the issue is with Hueff's level of physics, but the level of physics of adherents to theism who trot out references.... references they themselves do not understand... to things like and including the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" solely because they have been told by other theists that this is some kind of unanswerable attack on Atheism.
I am yet to see one person trotting out such references as yet who explain exactly what the 2nd Law says, how it applies to god, and how the 2nd law shows there is one.
I would not be so quick to suggest that "no one here" knows enough about the laws in question to discuss them. Maybe YOU do not, but you do not speak for the rest of us and I can tell you I certainly do.
None of you guys can contribute to this area of discussion. None. The education is not here in the forum....anywhere.
Pretending to have a degree in Physics won't work....sorry.
Biology-Chemistry Physics Astronomy Mathematics....theres people with "multiple" degrees who challenge these subjects and argue issues.
These conversations are grade school baloney....PERIOD.
The attention span around here is getting pretty boring.
You guys just want to argue .....never ever do the ATHEISTS in this forum bring ANYTHING interesting to the table
NEVER. So the atheists here are simply not interesting. Good for getting the fingers nimble before the day begins ...
You should apparently very carefully re-read the original OP,l4A! The author makes it exactly clear.
This is not about one's personal beliefs. It's about the rationales for those beliefs, and how those can be "lofted off" on some illogical re-direction by adamant theists. As in:
All I am left with right now is the question what is the purpose of this thread?
It seems to me some atheists sole purpose is to continue patting themselves and each other on the back, cuz those foolish theists can't prove God exists!
If this thread is a debate about "proof", then yeah, it's not the right thread for me. I've made it clear (in other threads) how I feel about that. Carry on!
All I am left with right now is the question what is the purpose of this thread?
It seems to me some atheists sole purpose is to continue patting themselves and each other on the back, cuz those foolish theists can't prove God exists!
If this thread is a debate about "proof", then yeah, it's not the right thread for me. I've made it clear (in other threads) how I feel about that. Carry on!
The purpose of the thread is to simply point out the logical fallacy of claiming that "God did it" is an explanation, when in fact it explains nothing. As posters interested in dealing with how to logically describe the universe, it can get frustrating to run into the same faulty arguments.
Do you have a problem reading? What have I said about the question of logicality of consciousness coming from non-consciousness in this very thread earlier tonight? Let me help you out. "I don't know that we understand what consciousness is or how it works well enough to be able to make a statement one way or another whether consciousness can or cannot be logically derived from non-conscious matter."As much as you try to turn the tables on me, I have ample evidence that it is YOU who keep making the absolute assertions that you say you KNOW and that are so obvious that we are idiots for ignoring, blah, blah, blah.
Your position as regards logic has nothing to do with your assertions. It is structurally illogical on its face. There is no way logically to proceed from a premise of non-existence to a predicate of existence. It is NOT a logic issue.
Quote:
If anyone has been sticking their neck out saying crap they can't back up, it is YOU. So, let me throw your words right back at you, "cease and desist pretending you have the logical position...unless and until you can provide formal syllogisms to substantiate your assertions".
The reading difficulties are all on your end, Hueff. Do you know what pro forma means? It is a trivial exercise to produce a formal syllogism that proceeds from a premise of consciousness as an existing characteristic of the universe to a predicate of consciousness as a characteristic of life on earth. It is completely logical. Yours is the illogical one. IOW logic is NOT on your side and cannot be the basis of your constant appeals to logic for your position.
Quote:
Now, I did make one assertion earlier tonight, which was new for me, "I don't want to get into now, but, I believe science has a very plausible model of how life can come from non-life. It is completely logical, it just hasn't been proven, yet". I will modify my statement by replacing, "It is completely logical," with "It seems logically possible to me, meaning I do not see any logical contradictions". There, the original quote was the first time I had stated something like that on that topic so boldly, so I am revising my statement to couch it in my more typical uncertain language.
::Sigh:: If life is NOT a characteristic of reality itself . . . it cannot become a characteristic of any component of reality through logical reasoning. THAT is creatio ex nihilo.
Quote:
I "believe" scientists will likely find natural explanations for those things. I don't claim or assert that they will.
As long as they use some form of "self-organizing" or "self-reproducing" or "emergent" as part of their explanation imputing a mysterious "survival" impetus . . . it will NOT be an explanation . . . it will be a pseudo-scientific charade.
Quote:
Edit: That is really all I have ever wanted from you is to have you start saying, you "believe" or "think" rather than "know", and to drop the condescending attitude.
I react to condescension . . . I do not possess it autonomously. As much as it irks you to acknowledge, I have what is for me indisputable and umistakable personal evidence of what I claim to KNOW. That you have not or cannot or will not obtain independent confirmation of it is NOT my problem.
The construct of god as an explanation for anything causes more problems than it solves.
1) One has not given an explanation if one has not proposed a mechanism. Giving god credit for something leads to the illusion that one has offered a satisfactory explanation, when one has actually not said much of anything. To illustrate, allow me to use "gremlins" for the word "god".
I made pancakes for breakfast on Saturday. I suppose the pancakes could have questioned how I existed...since I was not a pancake and was not part of their universe. But the creator must be bigger than an not a part of its creation.
Quote:
Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Gremlins did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "God" by itself is not an answer. Where did god get the matter/energy from? "Oh, he is omnipotent so he can just do things like that". That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
I'm not God. I don't claim to be able to answer this. The cosmological argument to which you're alluding does not claim to answer it, either. In this argument it very well could be the FSM or pink unicorns. Or even gremlins...assuming they were all pre-existent to the rest of creation, and not part of creation itself.
Quote:
2) Immaterial and material gods. People have many different concepts of god, so it makes showing the problems with god’s properties difficult, because not every theist believes he has such and such a property. But, allow me to address the problem immaterial beings have.
Now, we get into the discussion of "which God?". I personally believe the God of the Bible is God. Why? I could tell you it makes sense...that it answers more questions, etc....but ultimately it's because I believe.
Quote:
How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.
How do you know the properties of God? You're begging the question.
Quote:
By this point, some theists are saying, "OK, an immaterial god won't work because although we can dream of beings that can move physical objects with their mind, there is no mechanism to make it happen, so I changed my mind and now my god is a material god". So, now the problem is how does a material god do all the things people claim he does through natural means? And why haven’t physicists detected any physical forces of unknown origin doing everything from altering the rate at which neurons fire in human brains to stopping bullets from going through garments.
He exists outside the universe. What he looks like or what his properties are, I don't know.
Quote:
Look, a neuron does not fire unless the charge on the inside of neuron reaches -70 mV. Since we have already established that it would take some physical force to do that, why do we not find any out of place electrical charges targeting certain neurons so that God can give you a thought that you would not have had without his interference? That is just one issue. You name whatever you think god has done and tell me why we cannot find any trace of physical evidence that he did or is doing something.
Someone yells, “We just haven’t discovered it, yet”. Well, my friend, everything is happening naturally and normally according to the natural laws of physics. There is no evidence that the system is being acted upon. If god is physical then he is an actor in the physical universe and we should be able to detect him doing things that change the normal course things would follow. Now, someone will bring up the strange behavior exhibited by sub-atomic particles in which quantum mechanics rules supreme. The strange behavior of mesons and such does not help the theist out. I am willing to show how it is not helpful if someone posits a coherent theory of how god uses quantum mechanics to answer prayers, etc.
3) The probability of the existence of a god complex enough to be able to create physical laws and constants is less likely than the probability of the physical laws and constants existing without a creator.
You base that on what, exactly? You think it's more probable that it all came from nothing without a cause?
Quote:
As difficult as it is for some of you to believe that something as complex as the universe exists as it is without a creator, it is even a bigger leap to believe that something way more complex, a god that can manipulate the constants of the universe, exists without a creator. Now, Mormons believe god did have a creator, namely a father god, but this only moves the same question back a step and does nothing to solve the problem. You are attempting to solve the problem of how something complex can exist without a creator by supposing something even more complex existing without a creator. This does not prove that a god does not exist, because even highly improbable things can happen if given enough trials. But, it does make moot the argument for the existence of god due to the probabilities of the universe being the way it is without a creator. And you have made the whole matter worse by introducing a god whose existence and properties must be explained.
You have stumbled upon the infinite regression problem. At some point there had to be an ultimate "first cause". This "first cause" could not have had a beginning, but had to be eternal. We know the universe is not eternal...so whatever caused it likely was. Perhaps that thing had a creator...like I said, this argument does not establish who/what the creator is.
Quote:
In conclusion, using the concept of god as an explanatory factor for anything that happens in the universe creates more problems than it solves. Without a stated mechanism by which god does his miraculous deeds, using god as an explanation explains nothing. Immaterial beings have to have some interface by which to influence physical things. The question of how one gets an immaterial thing to influence a physical object is a lot more difficult than explaining whatever you need to explain without god. And finally, using a god to explain the origin of the universe just moves the questions back one step and makes the task even more difficult because now you have to account for something even more complex than the original question.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the concept of a creator does not explain it all.
The purpose of the thread is to simply point out the logical fallacy of claiming that "God did it" is an explanation, when in fact it explains nothing. As posters interested in dealing with how to logically describe the universe, it can get frustrating to run into the same faulty arguments.
Some will probably think this is a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway.
Why do you spend time trying to point things out to people who clearly are not going to see, understand, or agree with your logic?
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.
