Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 174 of 244 (888480)
09-18-2021 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Percy
09-18-2021 1:47 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
quote:
This couldn't be more wrong. What we accept about the universe derives from evidence.
There's nothing with evidence, if it provides certainty, but if merely confidence, it is not evidence.
quote:
Yes, bad evidence leads to false conclusions. Do you see bad evidence being a factor in any argument people have raised? Perhaps in quantum theory? Cosmology? Nuclear physics? Anywhere?
I didn't think so.
Yes, people can be wrong. Presumably you're a person, too, and can be wrong. Please start engaging in the discussion and stop raising red herrings. You make progress in a discussion by presenting evidence and arguments. What you don't do is what you've been doing, which is repeating yourself, ignoring arguments, misinterpreting arguments, misunderstanding basic issues of fact, making bald declarations, speaking nonsense, and preaching.
I've been trying to present arguments, and I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything.
quote:
Truth is not a concept within science. Knowledge requires evidence, analysis and replication. If you think truth has a role within science then argue for this position instead of just repeating it.
If truth is not a concept within science, then how can it have all the answers? If it cannot address the very issue of truth, and what is ultimately true, then why is anyone even doing science. Without a concept of truth, or the ability to affirm that anything is true, there is no knowing that anything is says is true.
I believe truth has a role in science.
quote:
This is what as known as a circular argument. Are you trying to make sure you hit all the major fallacies in a single thread?
For me to know something it must be true.
For me to know something I must be certain.
I don't need evidence to know something as long as what I believe is true.
Therefore, knowledge is certainty of truth, regardless of evidence.
Is that circular?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 1:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2021 5:05 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 2:29 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 175 of 244 (888481)
09-18-2021 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
09-18-2021 11:43 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
quote:
You appear to have lost the thread of your own argument. You argued that everything has a cause. My language that you're pointing to only indicates that we have no evidence of any cause for certain things. Therefore, how do you know they have a cause? You don't say.
Atheism needs there to be no creator. For this to be so, the universe must either be eternal from the past, or have come from nothing. But for the universe to come from nothing, then for the first event there must be no cause. And they assert that there can be events without a cause, but you merely claim that we have no evidence of events without a cause, from which it is obvious that it is not certain that events can take place without a cause. Therefore, it is not proven, according to your own understanding, that the universe has no creator, and therefore, atheists are deluded, according to your own assertions.
quote:
So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?
No, I am saying that things outside this physical reality do not obey physical laws.
quote:
That was very clarifying in showing hopelessly confused you are. No, the laws of physics are not constrained by logic and math. Logic and math are human constructs. They are used to model reality and can in no way constrain it. Many of our mathematical models are highly accurate and can be used to predict what will happen, such as the time and affected area of an eclipse, but they don't control reality.
If logic and math are human constructs, they reflect reality, when provided claims that correspond to the world. And if the world cannot defy this reflection, though there are things describable for it to do, which would violate this reflection, then this reflection correlates with that which limits the universe. And if what it correlates with is not itself the universe, the only physical reality we know, then what it correlates with is not physical. Therefore, something non-physical governs the universe. This means that our human constructs is a mere reflection of that which limits the universe, and not a reflection of the universe. For if it were a reflection of the universe, then no claims need be provided, because other claims not describing our universe may also be provided when claims must be provided.
quote:
It seems that in your thinking there's both physical reality and non-physical reality. If that's correct then how could we inhabitants of physical reality become aware of things in non-physical reality? Please describe this process in detail.
Physical things have physical form. Non-physical things have no physical form. Yet formless things can effect things which have form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 11:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 4:39 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 179 of 244 (888485)
09-18-2021 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
09-18-2021 5:12 PM


That which is mental is sentient. That which is physical is not. A process is nothing more than the interaction of its parts. When a computer operates, it does so by the interaction of its parts. Nothing emerges out of it that is not reducible to this interaction. When the brain operates, it merely operates according to the interaction of neurons and whatever else. This process should be nothing but purely physical. Therefore, it cannot be sentient. For sentience by nature is not a physical thing. For mind has form, and this form is not physical, for if it were physical, then all physical things all to have the same kind of form. But the problem is, that this form is not isolated merely in bounds, another reason why it cannot be physical. No physical objects are isolated in this fashion. The content of no process is isolated from any other process in this fashion.
Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 5:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 8:46 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 181 of 244 (888488)
09-18-2021 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by PaulK
09-18-2021 5:59 PM


Re: Another YAWN topic
My apologies. The correct reference is Deuteronomy 18:22
There is no contradiction.
Deuteronomy 18:22 writes:
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Ezekial 3:18-20 writes:
18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Jonah 3 writes:
And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2021 5:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 2:03 AM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 183 of 244 (888490)
09-18-2021 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by AZPaul3
09-18-2021 7:13 PM


Re: gobbledygook
quote:
This is foolish. The brain is a physical entity. All our evidence, of which there is much, shows your thoughts, your feelings, your very awareness, are physical responses to physical stimuli.
Mind is an emergent property of matter.
In our present hypothesis of mind, love, for example, is the interplay of the ordered firing of electronic pulses through millions of neurons combined with the release of specific hormones. A complex cascade of matter and energy manifests as the grandest emotion humans can experience.
You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?
The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.
quote:
That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.
Was it able to defy logic before we existed?
quote:
Say what? You want my dead brain to produce something? Scary.
After death the brain is just a putrid glob of rotting meat. Kinda like yours is now except it usually can't access the internet.
The hypothesis: the mind after death ceases to exist. Yes, we have copious amounts of data that evidence this hypothesis. What have you got? Your personal feels?
No. I was saying this: What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.
quote:
Of course not. That is not what such a theory would be produced to model. But having such a model would tell us better how all those particles and forces interact in such manifestations as minds and singularities.
But all models of higher levels must depend on models of the lower levels for the emergence of systems in the higher level, and there is no way that sentience emerges from biological, chemical, or quantum mechanical processes. For all biological processes are chemical processes, and all chemical processes are quantum mechanical processes, just as all electronic devices are not merely made of components, but the things that constitute those components. At the lowest level, everything is just energy, pure physical energy. Anything that emerges, emerges from the interaction of the energy. What we see as a house, is not a house without our minds. So how can our minds be minds without our minds?
quote:
Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.
So what? They're still all physical objects moving around and changing states in space. There is nothing qualitative about it. They are purely quantitative, (not sure if I used that term correctly). They have no color. Just because photons hit them get absorbed and bounce off doesn't mean they have any qualitative color. These are percepts, and percepts require sentience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 7:13 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 9:23 PM Christian7 has replied
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 10:44 AM Christian7 has replied
 Message 220 by Parasomnium, posted 09-20-2021 3:10 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 186 of 244 (888494)
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws. Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere, and not without cause they went through many eras. There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment? If nothing was, and the world appeared, in a non-casual event, why do we limit non-casual events to the appearance of virtual particles? Should not we fear the occurrence of destruction, happening without a cause?
And if nothing was, no potential was, and no potential for events, even those which are non-casual, nor is there anything of nothing that is sayable which contradicts its nothingness. For if no potential was, then no certainty that nothing should form could not have been, for there was no such polarity. Nothing is nothing, the absence of all things, where there is no distinction, thus no contradiction to its own lack of power to bring forth. In nothing, there is no power. Without power, there is no action. Without action, there is no emergence. Without emergence, there is no thing. Without things, there is nothing.
Nothing is not a vacuum which nature abhors, as though nature had a mind or even existed. You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing? Why is it that a mind was not first formed? Why is it that no non-physical things were formed? Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?
In nothing is not the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing. But if it were so, then the absence of the absence of purpose would be in nothing. Therefore, would there not be purpose to the universe, according to your physical models? Would there not be everything, then, if in nothing is not even nothing? Nothing is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. We impose linguistic obligations on the concept of nothing, for nothing is not an individual. There is no logic in nothing. There is no math in nothing. There is no reality in nothing.
When there is nothing, there is no reality. Therefore there will never be anything. For without reality there is no action, truth, potential, behavior, or anything. Thus, the concept of a causeless event where there is nothing is absurd. Where there is nothing, there is no reality, and where there is no reality, there is no event.

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:47 AM Christian7 has replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 12:35 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 189 of 244 (888497)
09-19-2021 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
09-19-2021 2:03 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
This might sound a little nuts, as I've found no support for this in any doctrinal online source, but when I looked at the Hebrew word for "shall be overthrown" in the strong's concordance, I found that although one meaning of it is overthrow, another is change, another is turn. I'm not sure about the usage of this Hebrew word, or the meaning of the definition. But is it possible that this prophecy was an pun, of which either interpretation could have been true depending upon the Ninevites response?
H2015 - hāp̄aḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 2:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 10:22 AM Christian7 has replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 191 of 244 (888499)
09-19-2021 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
09-19-2021 10:22 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
I don't think God changed His mind, having never intended to destroy Nineveh at that time to begin with. When the Bible says God repented or changed His mind, it is simply a figure of speech attributing human characteristics to God so that we can relate to Him from a human perspective. For example, when God blinded the Jews and granted salvation to the Gentiles, it looks like God changed His mind, and it looks like the NT writers just used clever rhetoric to cover up failed prophecy, but already told us in the Old Testament that He would return to His place until Israel acknowledge their offense. And He would be there for at least 2 days, or 2,000 years. The gathering in of Jews and Gentiles in this dispensation of grace until God returns to dealing with the Jews was not known to the Jews before it happened, because it was a mystery. In the Bible, a mystery is something not yet revealed.
God doesn't change His mind. I don't want to compare God with a lifeless algorithm, but can it be said that an artificial intelligence ever changes its mind? No. It just follows the intention of the programmer. As the instructions are fetched by the processor and executed, the program does exactly what it always would have done. If the program knew the future, as God knows, then that proves that there is no change of mind in God. God simply acts as though He changed His mind, but this is not even hidden from us. Clearly, the statements in the Bible that God repented are not literal, they are figurative.
The Bible is not written in a plain, literal style like a textbook. Some books in the Bible are highly poetic and literary. Numerous rhetorical devices are used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 10:22 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 12:50 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 197 of 244 (888505)
09-19-2021 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
09-18-2021 8:53 PM


You wouldn't bet on a theory with no evidence, would you? Of course you wouldn't. In this you're just like everyone else.
So let's say there's a box with a million pebbles in it. You can't see inside, but you can reach in and pull out one pebble at a time. The first hundred pebbles you pull out are white. You're asked to guess the color of the next pebble. What color would you pick?
You'll choose white, of course, because the evidence gives you a fair amount of confidence it will be white. Now you choose an additional thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the next one will be white. Higher, right? Now you choose an additional ten thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the the next one will be white? Even higher, right? You and everyone else thinks this way.
There are trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies and nebulae and black holes and planets and sources of radiation out there, and every one we've ever looked at (which must number in the thousands at least) displays the exact same laws of physics we're familiar with here on Earth. What is your confidence that the next astronomical object we discover will also display the same laws of physics? Very high, right? Because of the tremendous amount of evidence, right?
If the box containss 100 billion pebbles, and I take out all but one pebble, all being white, can I be confident the next pebble will be white? Yes, but it can very well be blue. There is no certainty.
Since we said science is tentative, why are you asking about certainty? There is no certainty in science. My confidence that I am right and you are wrong derives from my awareness of the evidence supporting my position and how clear you've made it that you have no evidence for anything you say. All you do is keep repeating the same fallacious rhetorical arguments.
You never pointed out a fallacy in the form of my argument, nor proved my premises false. You merely quoted from other sources of which there is no certainty. It is much more likely that a conclusion drawn from premises which are already proven, either by deduction from previous premises, or by its tautilogical nature, is certainly true. But I'm not claiming my arguments were fool proof, only that you did not deal with their validity at all, merely the truth value of the premises through their contradiction with unproven knowledge.
There is no proof in science, either. Proving things is the realm of logic and mathematics.
Then it would seem that philosophy ought to have a place in evaluating truth, above the level of science.
The Millikan oil drop experiment is instructive. Millikan devised experiments to measure the charge of the electron. He measured its negative charge to be 1.5924×10−19 coulombs. Other scientists tried to repeat his experiments or devised their own and found similar though slightly higher values. As the experiments were refined and became increasingly accurate they gradually honed in on the current value and began adding decimal places. The currently accepted value is 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs, only about 0.6% greater than what Millikan first measured.
Millikan's initial value was highly tentative, but each successive experiment gave greater and greater confidence that scientists were getting closer and closer to the actual value.
Can the value be further revised? Possibly. My guess is that our confidence in that final digit isn't that high.
But can the entire value be rejected, in the sense that it's found to be just plain wrong, perhaps not even negative? It's very difficult to imagine how that could be possible. For one thing the proton has an equal and opposite charge, as does the positron. Many other elemental particles also carry an electric charge either equal or opposite to the electron's. If we're wrong about the charge of the electron then we'd have to wrong about much else. That's inconceivable.
That's the way much of science works. Scientifically established values, hypotheses, theories and laws are not isolated from each other but are interdependent, woven into the entire fabric of science. There's very little in science that stands in isolation. If one thing changes then a lot of other things have to change, too.
So of course science is tentative and never achieves certainty, but our confidence in much scientific knowledge is extremely high. Your claim that scientific tentativity means that anything in science can be wrong and can therefore be ignored deeply misunderstands the strength of the evidence and the interwoven nature of science.
Well, I don't know if the existence of dark matter is proven, or if dark matter has ever been detected or analyzed. But speaking of scientific models, it seems that there was a problem with their model of the universe, so they accounted for it by saying the universe was filled with dark matter, unable to explain why their theory didn't make sesne of the amount of matter in the universe. They believed in their theory more than the evidence, so they made up a concept, and filled in the gap, without any empirical observation. If they have no evidence of dark matter's presence in the universe, but merely an inference from inconsistency with math and what they observe, then this demonstrates their confidence is based on math rather than science.
I think all most people want is a sincere effort at discussion. Single sentence answers saying it could all be a dream and whatnot is really poor form. Show some regard and respect for others.
I'm trying. Also, I don't always use the most effective communication. This is not deliberate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 09-18-2021 8:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 2:00 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 5:29 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 198 of 244 (888507)
09-19-2021 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by AZPaul3
09-18-2021 9:23 PM


Re: gobbledygook
Yes, the evidence shows that mental state is dependent on physical brain state.
So if you challenge this and the mental state is not dependent on physical state then what is it and what evidence do you cite?
There is no evidence that consciousness is the result of brain activity. Dependency and consequence are not the same thing. If consciousness were the consequence of brain activity, then the brain would be not be a purely physical organ, for consciousness is not a physical construct. Consciousness is not even a thing which alone is required for person-hood; it is merely a property of a soul.
A soul is not a physical object. Physcial objects do not have the ability to have qualitative experiences. There is nothing it is like to be a physical object.
There is no amount of computational trickery that will create a visual field isolated in the centerhood of a physical process. All physical processes, as far as qualia is concerned, can only produce information or states to represent it. There is no actual production nor possession of it by these processes. The precise mechanism by which qualia is created by brain in a subjective fashion has not been demonstrated. I have never read in the news that it has been. Qualia is not merely a state of a physical process or represention created by the arrangement of informational units. A computer screen does not have visual qualia.
If consciousness is at all physical, it must be a property of physical things to begin with; it cannot be an emergent property of things which have no property leading to consciousess.
Since logic was born with us the answer is no. Before us there was no logic to defy.
If there was no logic to defy, then logic is not universal. For the logic functions the same way in every mind, and in every machine, as does math. There is no mathematical rule which can be added which is in nature mathematical, which is not universal, and which could not be discovered by someone else. Anything resembling logic is not logic, and the universe does not conform perfectly to that kind of logic.
Therefore, seeing that logic is universal, it has existence independent of physical objects, and therefore its existence is non-physical. This means that logic did in fact exist before we created it, and the universe did in fact conform to it.
Your mind won't be after death and your brain has no other option than matter/energy. Your mind is just chemicals.
If you are trying to say the mind transcends death then show us your evidence. Right now oblivian is the only evidenced path we can see.
If my mind is just chemicals than it is not a mind. A house is not a house without a mind. A mind is not a mind without a mind. Chemicals are not chemicals without a mind. In fact, they have no qualitative property at all. No meaning can be ascribed to them.
What a twisted pile of crap
Surely a pile of crap is easy to refute; but you have not done it.
Color is one of those human constructs we use to define the perception we experience when we record various frequencies from the EM spectrum. I don't know what an ant sees but it sure does perceive its world with eyes and optic sensory neurons just like us. We could argue whether an ant was sentient.
How can anything physical assign meaning? Meaning is not a property of the physical universe, according to your claims.
Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 9:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 3:12 PM Christian7 has replied
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 09-21-2021 9:05 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 200 of 244 (888509)
09-19-2021 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 1:47 AM


First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.
Second, endings are different from beginnings. Totally different sets of rules.
But, what you're trying to claim is: if the universe sprang from nothing with no cause then the universe may as well return to nothing, disappear, just as well from no cause.
Answer: Maybe. Nobody knows.
If it gives you nightmares then just remember the void IS out to get you.
What caused the quantum spark?
First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.
Second, endings are different from beginnings. Totally different sets of rules.
But, what you're trying to claim is: if the universe sprang from nothing with no cause then the universe may as well return to nothing, disappear, just as well from no cause.
Answer: Maybe. Nobody knows.
If it gives you nightmares then just remember the void IS out to get you.
What caused the rules to change?
Why does the universe even have rules? Rules are not physical things.
Since we don't know (and we includes you) your creation angst is unwarranted. I think it might actually be unhealthy. It can't be easy on the blood pressure and your psyche to constantly raise a vein in your neck over 'nothing' which is something you don't know.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Facts are that it took the universe 14 b yrs to evolve the vessel to develop our mind. Do you not appreciate all the stuff that had to happen first before mind could emerge? You know how many suns had to blow up to make the stuff of mind? And all the chemistry from DNA to the Krebs cycle had to develop first. As for any why, it's a useless question so I'll leave that to the philosophers.
Why does there need to be a physical process for a mind to exist? The most fundamental object in the universe still has to be explained. Either the universe doesn't make sense, or it is being animated by power. Could this perhaps have something to do with "....the word of His power"?
I don't know from why. See your local horde of garden gnomes. What we do know is that, in this universe, it appears that everything is physical and nothing of a non-physical nature (whatever that might be) is evident.
Our best laws of the universe, our models, do not account for anything non-physical because there is no observation, fact, reason, logic, hint, to evidence anything non-physical exists. If there were a non-physical thing as the religious weenies would define it then there most certainly would be evidence. Lots of it.
So, how is it that you can have two apples in two different places, if numbers aren't non-physical. How can this quality of countability exist if its purely physical? If it were purely physical, it would be a physical object.
Given the workings and relationships of particles and their energies the universe didn't have much choice. Matter was going to clump, fuse, explode and, in one case at least, make life and intellect. As for where those relationships came from, they came from the same place the universe came from. We no friggin' idea, and, again, to emphasize the point, neither do you.
The rest of your post is just drivil.
You go on and on about nothing, literally, when it is not nothing that is evident. As for cosmic genesis, what is evident is 'we don't know'. That is considerably different from this 'nothing' you get so much heartburn over.
Look, atheists affirm the universe sprang from nothing. You're telling me it wasn't nothing. If nothing is not nothing then it isn't nothing, which makes it something. If then, there was something, and before that was not nothing, then the universe never had a beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 3:59 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 204 of 244 (888516)
09-19-2021 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 3:12 PM


Re: gobbledygook
You ignored much of my post, thereby failing to refute it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 3:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 4:06 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 205 of 244 (888517)
09-19-2021 3:17 PM


I know that some of my arguments may be defective. I need to take a break and do research. I will return when I have more knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 4:04 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 211 of 244 (888533)
09-20-2021 10:18 AM


Request for reconciliation of beliefs and recommendation of books
I have not by this time learned new things, whereby my disputing may cast down every claim of yours by knowledge, but I have increased the knowledge of science within me, through the reading of the theory you affirm, which though it intrigues me, I do not believe, by reason of my faith in the Word of God.
But I ask you this: if they agree: if you can somehow show they agree for my sake, that I may believe the word of God, and yet not disbelieve science. But if it is clear that they disagree, then the word of God, in that my faith will remain.
Forgive these words and the voice about them, for by practice at this time I seek the power of voice, through the choosing and arranging of feet with rhythm and concord, not as though I had not by ear done it many times, and not as though my ear is with no part in it.
I ask you also, although to further my knowledge of logic, already have I begun, what books would supply my mind with clearer thinking. For many books I have read on style, but none on how to think.
Thank you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2021 1:29 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 213 of 244 (888536)
09-20-2021 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
09-20-2021 10:44 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Are you confident about all that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 10:44 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 09-21-2021 10:51 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024