It makes more sense than thinking everything came from a singularity that is self existing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe in a creator of the universe/universes?
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
It makes more sense than thinking everything came from a singularity that is self existing.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Firstly, this is a misrepresentation of the science, and secondly, even if it wasn't, why does it make more sense?
A singularity doesn't have the mind of a creator. Random block letters dont just assemble themselves into a word-a person puts them together.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Evolution puts people together. A creator is a total non-explanation. It 'explains' complexity and order by making up something even more complex and ordered that has no explanation at all - but that apparently okay because....well...err...because....it's magic!
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
Well, to be some extent, I agree with you. However, overall, I can argue otherwise. I don’t think this is true in totality. Not all products of evolution came through unconscious mechanisms. At micro level, MAYBE unconscious mechanisms are playing out [or played out in the past in bacterias]. However, most of the complex results of evolution came through conscious efforts. Passing of heritable traits via reproduction is a major component of the theory of evolution, and it requires conscious efforts. Adaptation is another major mechanism of evolutionary processes, and many [if not most (and arguably all)] complex adaptations does require conscious, deliberate efforts. Many [if not most (and arguably all)] complex effects arising from evolutionary processes did required conscious, deliberate efforts, at least those which were highly-sophisticated and highly-complex in nature, such as certain emotions like fear. Let’s take the example of fear --- Complex emotions like fear came through deliberate, conscious adaptions of our forefathers in response to dangers, and later they passed these adaptive mechanisms onto their off-springs genetically through conscious efforts.
I might agree with you when it comes to small changes due to evolutionary processes acting at micro level [even though we can’t know that for sure], but I’d disagree on another level.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
Assuming natural laws of this world are present in the spiritual world and/or God's Realm [if there truly is such a thing(s)] isn't a wise thing to do. We know that laws of physics breaks down in quantum world, this most likely could also be the case in spiritual world and spiritual realm [or God's Realm etc.].
ppp
Well-Known Member
???
No they don't.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
Erm ... yes, they do.
"Let's face it: quantum mechanics is really confusing. All the rules of physics that we're used to simply go straight out the window in the quantum realm."
Source: Do We Live in a Quantum World? | Live Science
“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there.”
Source: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
ppp
Well-Known Member
You said, "We know that laws of physics breaks down in quantum world" Neither of those quotes supports that.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
How does those quotes not back my position? Explain it.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Surely, I don't need to provide an explanation why not when you did not provide an explanation in the first place as to why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think that a favorable random mutation, sequences thereof are what add “complexity”, is induced by conscious efforts? Do my kids look the way the do because I consciously designed them like that?
If we go back to the common ancestor of humans and bananas, for instance, who consciously decided that it was time to split (pun intended), and consciously made things so that humans and bananas will eventually emerge as separate entities?
ciao
- viole
rational experiences
Veteran Member
When a male who invents and quantifies by his consciousness as an adult that he creates.
1. First of all an adult male in human sex procreates the baby human life continuance with his life equal, a female. Which placates consciously that they are both the Creator of human life, equally.
2. In science as a theist thinker everything, is an evolved body form from an origin that he quotes in science was a hot dense state, that evolved into held form in the cold body, empty space that cools it by circulation, a vacuum.
Number 2 has nothing to do with him at all.
Biological science is as intelligent a scientist as anyone else. Says to science, when I look at the bio beast life form an ape...already my human mind tells me that self human DNA to own my life, just human is missing.
If I put what I observe and quantify is what is missing in the ape life form as compared to mine, not ever is that ape not present in thoughts what I SEE/envision as I thesis/theory. The whole time all information is just about that ape body as an ape.
What I quantify is just a thought process about a belief of knowing everything.
For if I congratulate my human self on being Know it All, then I contend that I invented the big bang blasting in space. From that kind of thought I would do a self assessment on my human male self and stories. To ask self do I remember that I activated caused the spatial vacuum to unnaturally open and change the Universal natural form into a big bang blasting event?
For to quantify that I know a condition in space as a higher presence to convert into a lower presence, is to quantify that I know what space itself is.
Yet no human lives in a natural living life in that status just space.
Science is trying to state that a word only stated within gases supporting water/oxygen, not space is God.
The story advice written after the fact quoted no man is God. Hence if you quantify that Jesus was a man you would be lying. When the title man and equal to woman owns no self naming advice, for you are a human without a name first.
Then if you quote...all humans living for thousands or millions of years as a human owning an average life span 100 years is born from sperm and an ovary owned by 2 human parents. Before that history any advice to quote a Nature when a human was not living is only discussing a Nature when a human did not exist.
So not only do you infer time by human death, when no human today is living in any past, you also mis quote the 2 human being parents who were also from sperm and an ovary, as were your grand parents, the same human baby life.
If you are being correct Mr know it all in science, then about 100 years of multi adult parent life all came from sperm and an ovary as did billions of other humans before them.....factually. So you do not own any argument in science about human life and string theories for there never was any argument.
Science was already told it never owned any information to quote from an ape life to a human life in biology....as the human was living a higher life naturally already...there is no connection, especially not space.
Yet when you do a psyche assessment on the psyche who coerces, he quotes but a space exists between all bodies to own separation of form. Yet we all live in the same water/oxygen body, and the space between us is water and oxygen.
What coercive Satanism was described as, a mis use of words, to try to force belief to be supported to have life destroyed, rationally. Otherwise the theme God O and Earth and a planet would not have had any arguments.
1. First of all an adult male in human sex procreates the baby human life continuance with his life equal, a female. Which placates consciously that they are both the Creator of human life, equally.
2. In science as a theist thinker everything, is an evolved body form from an origin that he quotes in science was a hot dense state, that evolved into held form in the cold body, empty space that cools it by circulation, a vacuum.
Number 2 has nothing to do with him at all.
Biological science is as intelligent a scientist as anyone else. Says to science, when I look at the bio beast life form an ape...already my human mind tells me that self human DNA to own my life, just human is missing.
If I put what I observe and quantify is what is missing in the ape life form as compared to mine, not ever is that ape not present in thoughts what I SEE/envision as I thesis/theory. The whole time all information is just about that ape body as an ape.
What I quantify is just a thought process about a belief of knowing everything.
For if I congratulate my human self on being Know it All, then I contend that I invented the big bang blasting in space. From that kind of thought I would do a self assessment on my human male self and stories. To ask self do I remember that I activated caused the spatial vacuum to unnaturally open and change the Universal natural form into a big bang blasting event?
For to quantify that I know a condition in space as a higher presence to convert into a lower presence, is to quantify that I know what space itself is.
Yet no human lives in a natural living life in that status just space.
Science is trying to state that a word only stated within gases supporting water/oxygen, not space is God.
The story advice written after the fact quoted no man is God. Hence if you quantify that Jesus was a man you would be lying. When the title man and equal to woman owns no self naming advice, for you are a human without a name first.
Then if you quote...all humans living for thousands or millions of years as a human owning an average life span 100 years is born from sperm and an ovary owned by 2 human parents. Before that history any advice to quote a Nature when a human was not living is only discussing a Nature when a human did not exist.
So not only do you infer time by human death, when no human today is living in any past, you also mis quote the 2 human being parents who were also from sperm and an ovary, as were your grand parents, the same human baby life.
If you are being correct Mr know it all in science, then about 100 years of multi adult parent life all came from sperm and an ovary as did billions of other humans before them.....factually. So you do not own any argument in science about human life and string theories for there never was any argument.
Science was already told it never owned any information to quote from an ape life to a human life in biology....as the human was living a higher life naturally already...there is no connection, especially not space.
Yet when you do a psyche assessment on the psyche who coerces, he quotes but a space exists between all bodies to own separation of form. Yet we all live in the same water/oxygen body, and the space between us is water and oxygen.
What coercive Satanism was described as, a mis use of words, to try to force belief to be supported to have life destroyed, rationally. Otherwise the theme God O and Earth and a planet would not have had any arguments.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I didn't assume that at all.
This is false. Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory describe the "quantum world" and are a part of the laws of physics.
..and are replaced with other rules that are now accepted as rules of physics.
This is the issue of trying to unite quantum physics with general relativity, which we don't know how to do yet. Both are a part of the laws of physics, so this doesn't support your statement that "laws of physics breaks down in quantum world" - they break down when we try to unite it with general relativity.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
Surely, I don't need to provide an explanation why not when you did not provide an explanation in the first place as to why.
Surely, you really don’t need that because my question wasn’t “why not” at all, and I suggest you not to do that either because that would be just another lie you guys made-up. You see, my original question had no “why not”, but rather “how not”. Here’s my original quote you misquoted --- “How does those quotes not back my position? Explain it.” I guess you conveniently omitted out the keyword “How” and falsely inserted your own “why” into my question, and represented and attacked a very distorted version of my true question.
Stop putting words into my mouth by saying I’ve made arguments I haven’t actually made [aka straw man], just like you did previously in your post #123 and A Vestigial Mote did it in his post #125, and something people here do in general. This isn’t the first time you and others are caught red-handed twisting things, and/or misunderstanding things, completely blowing them out of proportion and then jumping to wrong conclusions based on that. This seems to be a trend among you guys.
And considering Rationicator has explicitly [mis]represented my actual points like how you are trying to through your lies and deception [but never came clean], I’ll just answer his points that’ll refutes your’s by default.
Except the focus of my attention was SOLELY on physical laws of nature present at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale alone. I never denied quantum mechanics are not part of physics, it’s just that aspects of nature at ordinary, macroscopic scale differs from small (atomic and subatomic) scales. And I don’t think a rational explanation [which makes sense from our ordinary (macroscopic) real world perspective] of a creator is necessary when the aspects of nature in spiritual world and/or Godly Realm could differ from our ordinary, macroscopic scale just like quantum world differs from our (macroscopic) real world. And if you think it is necessary to have rational explanation that make sense to us at this ordinary, (macroscopic) scale, then it is necessary for the nature of our (macroscopic) real world and the nature of spiritual world is one and the same.
I never said that. Just like Joe W, you got me twisted. Like I said, I was only talking about those physical laws of nature that are present at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale.
In case you [or anyone here] wants to accuse me of backpedaling [which is another oft-repeating lie people here make up about me], then why did I explicitly wrote actually THIS in my #127 on the previous page in response to A Vestigial Mote [let me quote myself]:
“2. Are the complex collection of physical laws of macro world present in quantum realm? Because here are two copy/past statements from scientific sources I ferreted out via google --- “Let's face it: quantum mechanics is really confusing. All the rules of physics that we're used to simply go straight out the window in the quantum realm.” And “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there.” Both of these statements are backing up what I said that there was no macro, real life laws that we see in our realm.”
Then why respond with “there’s no explanation for the creator” when natural explanation for a supernatural entity [creator/God] is not required? Why do you think it’s necessary for there to be a rational explanation for this creator [God] when Godly realm [if exists] could very well defy the way our macro world works [just like quantum world differs]? Why respond to something of spiritual in nature like creator/God and something of quantum mechanical in nature like singularity, with macro biological processes and workings like biology evolution that aren’t necessarily present in micro level like quantum realm and spiritual world?
Except all that has been replaced … are the only things I was talking about, so the other rules that are now accepted doesn’t have bearing to the original point I was making.
Besides, why can’t the same happen with spiritual world as it happened with quantum world with regards to our rules? Why can’t all the rules of physics that we’re used to simply cannot go straight out of window in the spiritual realm too just like in quantum world? Why do you think a rational explanation conforming to the aspects of nature at our macroscopic level is necessary for a creator/God, spiritual world and such supernatural things [if they exist]?
Why can’t all the rules of physics, rationality, science, that we’re used to simply cannot go straight out of window in the spiritual realm too and cannot be replaced with other rules that can be accepted as rules of physics, rationality, science, logic, whatever? Why do we have to maintain our rules when it comes to spiritual world but not when it comes to quantum world? Why the double standard? I know you can say because we have evidence for quantum world that is why, but still based on what happen in quantum world, don’t you think it’s unwise to apply the rules of physics we’re used to [and macroscopic nature and real life rationality and such things] to spiritual world and God BECAUSE quantum world clues us in and reveals it’s likely inapplicability?
Again, that wasn’t my real statement at all, and this could very well be the issue in the case of a creator/spiritual world/etc. as well – our rationality break down when we try to unite the workings of spiritual world/creator with general science, logic, physics, etc. etc. etc.
Hellbound Serpiente
Active Member
No, I never denied that. I already admitted that “at micro level, MAYBE unconscious mechanisms are playing out” and “I might agree with you when it comes to small changes due to evolutionary processes acting at micro level [even though we can’t know that for sure].” I only reason I added “maybe” in the first statement and “might” in the other one is because we can’t know for sure whether there was or was not a conscious agent inducing these mutations which we consider to be random.
But there are induced mutations, which we can be sure of are through conscious efforts. And these, in my humble opinion, are what can be truly considered “highly-complex and highly-sophisticated”. I already talked about emotions like fear.
In our daily life, I haven’t heard of something AS complex as, say, something like brain [or anything close to it] just forming due to random mutation and sequences of such random mutations in absence of conscious efforts .
No. But your kids look the way they do because you consciously passed the heritable traits to them via reproduction, which you yourself inherited from your forefathers because they were involved in conscious passing on of heritable traits via reproductions.
Not at all, like I said, I agreed you to some extent. There may or may not have been conscious efforts, we don’t know. Perhaps at micro-level, there were just unconscious mechanism. But even if I agree at micro-level, I can argue otherwise at macro-level based on what we see in our real life where complexity usually arises in greater magnitude through conscious mechanism. But let’s say I agree with you and no, our common ancestor never consciously decided that it was time to split. Fine, but who’s to say that there was no conscious effort to INDUCE the splitting? What if there was a conscious, deliberate forced which caused the splitting?
I know these are just my personal speculations and I can’t know that for sure, but I am just approximating the likelihood based on what we see and observe in our real life.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Surely, I don't need to provide an explanation how not when you did not provide an explanation in the first place as to how.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But that isn't what you said at all. You simply said "We know that laws of physics breaks down in quantum world...". It's pointless trying to have a discussion if you're just going to retrospectively change what you said when it's shown to be wrong.
Because there is no explanation offered for the creator. If you think one may not be required because different laws apply, then we could just as easily do away with the creator (for which we have zero evidence) and just apply it directly to the universe - doubly so if you think that quantum mechanics excuses us from the normal physical laws. Either way, postulating a creator gets us nowhere.
It makes sense that a God would be self existing, since God is the first cause. The law of cause and effect means that everything must be self existing. A singularity sounds like an aspect of nature it doesn't sound divine or supernatural. That's why God being the self existing first cause makes more sense.