First cause of the universe.

[Wildswanderer]

Using technology, not knowledge that is really beyond science to address...like the origin of life and the universe.

What are you talking about? How do you think that we are communicating right now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Using technology, not knowledge that is really beyond science to address...like the origin of life and the universe.

What makes you think that the origin of life cannot be addressed? And scientists have addressed quite a few of the issues of the start of the universe.

What do you believe? I am betting that you have myth as your explanation, and that is not an explanation at all. A slight twist on the old saying, when it comes to evidence and knowledge your argument appears to be a case of the pot calling the stainless steel black.

 

[Polymath257]

That's incorrect. We are told how and why God created.

Told by whom? other people that have no more knowledge about it than anyone else: only firmly held opinions.

Circular reasoning leading nowhere.

The problem is the expectation of answers to poorly formed questions.

As long as you believe that you will be restricted by your religion of secular thinking which is a form of willful ignorance.

And I have seen the answers proposed by those who are religious and they are worse than those given by science. They also have a form of willful ignorance brought about by confirmation bias.

You require proof from deists but not from science, which by it's nature cannot prove anything?

No, we required demonstration from science. That means observation and testing, which science provides and religion does not.

Doesn't seem logical.
Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for the soul. None of these are necessary for function and survival of the human race.
Prove you exist. Proof really isn't a thing, it's wishful thinking... anything can be debatable.

How are those evidence of a soul? They are *emotions* that are mediated by specific areas of the brain. Those areas are shared with other animals, even.

 

[Polymath257]

Incorrect.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

In other words, the belief is in spite of a lack of any evidence, any justification, any explanations. We just decide to believe.

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

"The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

We aren't told everything but there's information as to how God created.

We are told *by people* who have no basis for their beliefs. All the 'sacred texts' were written by *people*. Why should we believe their *opinions* on these matters?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you trying to imply that people who believe in a deity aren't critical thinkers? How biased of you.

Some are, but very few.

I can make that judgement because I know what critical thinking looks like and the whole notion of 'faith' goes directly against it.

So, from what I can see, any argument based on faith is, by its very nature *not* based on critical thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

Your thoughts here are actually outdated by science itself.

Apparently your scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence. That's been shattered by quantum physics.

Only on the small scale. Anything above the level of atoms, this is false.

You know the new reality.. if no one observes a particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through two slits at the same time, But if you or anyone observe it, it behaves different.
Think about the implications of this for a second.

No, it is not observation, but rather interaction that is what is relevant. Observation is just one sort of interaction. But *any* sufficiently strong interaction is enough to eliminate the interference effect.

mere knowledge in a person's mind is enough to convert possibility to reality.

And that is false.

Now scientists are saying this doesn't only happen on the quantum level.
I'm sure you would agree with Kant that everything we experience are nothing but representations in our mind.

No, I would not.

But do you realize that these rules make existence itself possible?

No, I don't. Because that is false.

This implies that that a part of the mind (or soul) exists outside of space and time.

No, it doesn't.

We aren't completely confined by the laws of the physical universe, rather we exist independent of it and effect reality itself.

Maybe you need to study the known laws a bit deeper before you comment on them. It seems to me that you have been reading cheap popular tracks instead of the actual scientific results. And that has lead to some very strange beliefs about what science says that are directly counter to what it does, in fact, say.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Funny how those are created things with design but you can believe everything including those are actually the result of chance. The universe playing dice, apparently.

The Old One does not play dice

 

[Polymath257]

The Old One does not play dice

But the universe very much does. Einstein was wrong in this.

 

[wellwisher]

The Old One does not play dice

If you compare the science based statistical approach for evolution and creation, to the classic approach of a creator God, both systems create the same basic things. The difference is the statistical god of science throws dice or pulls the handle to a slot machine for unique events, while the God of creation follows a logical plan. The god of dice and card is the idiot savant younger brother of God. Both end in the same place, but only one has it all figured out while the other gets drunk, staggers falls and poof!

For example, if you look at the formation of life on earth, science still plays the odds game, but has no logical explanation for the details from cradle to grave. It is still based on faith in their oracle of dice and cards. This is not real science based on its own philosophy. That philosophy requires hard proof and not fuzzy dice.

The God of creation does not reveal all of his secrets, but the very act of creation was part of a thought out plan and not just a lottery ticket where anyone can become a millionaire; brood over the deep. The God of creation chooses paths based on natural laws of cause and affect; such as sin and heaven and hell. The dice approach can send anyone to hell or heaven based on the whims of the gods.

This suspect science approach is based on the ancient polytheism concept of the whims of the gods. Just when you think you have the gods figured out, they can throw the dice and do something unexpected; not part of your plan. But since the gods did this, you have an excuse for perpetuating weak theory.

If you look at the theory of life on other planets, hard data has yet to be found anywhere besides the earth. However, it is assumed to be statistically possible. This former assumption allows science to violate its own philosophy of science, which requires primary hard data as well verifiable data from a secondary and verifiable source.

Science found a way to cheat its own philosophy, based on the math used by casinos, bookies and politicians. This should not be allowed in science, since it can be used to violate their own philosophy, to con the public and the money givers.

There is a way to show that statistical assumptions are a subset of a larger set of determinism. This proof uses the concept of entropy. Any given state of matter has fixed value of measured entropy. For example a glass of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere will have the same measured value of entropy no matter who measures it. Entropy is a constant for that unique state.

If you look at how science tries to model these zillions of water molecules, in the glass, it uses statistical assumptions. However, the sum of all the assumed randomness adds to a constant amount of entropy. The deterministic constant, controls the random, so all the odds balance out.

If you tried to model even a million water molecules in a tiny container, the math gets very complex due to the number of interactions between the molecules, forces and photons. We would need supercomputers to do this in a purely logical way. If we scale up to a glass of water, there is no super computer that can do this. This is part of why statistics was invented. It was a way to simplify complex situations, so we can get a result in a reasonable time with much less computer power. But it is still just an approximation method.

The concept of entropy is a rational way to average the same approximation method into a constant, making statistics more of less a way to cheat, since it can come to a fuzzy dice summation conclusion, even for constant entropy; distorts rational reality using the whims of the gods.

Science forgot about how statistical modeling was originally seems as approximation method. He began to be seen as fact of nature. After that a type of religious approach of oracles, was able to enter science, that could undermine the philosophy of science, which previously required solid data and not just fuzzy data.

If you look at the covid virus, the science conclusions were all over the place which was an artifact of fuzzy statistical data and subjective thinking sold as objective science. We need to upgrade that.

 

[Polymath257]

Science forget about how statistical modeled was an original approximation method but began to see it as fact of nature After that religion was able to enter science based on math oracles that could undermine the philosophy of science, which required solid data and not fuzzy data.

No, that is not what happens. The statistics and probabilities in statistical mechanics are, as you say, based on deeper laws. Such things as entropy describe the reduction in information from neglecting those underlying phenomena. This is a successful area of physics relating to thermodynamics.

But that is NOT what is happening with quantum mechanics. Instead of having probabilities to represent our ignorance of deeper phenomena, the probabilities in QM are fundamental: they do not represent our ignorance but rather describe something about the universe itself.

How do we know? because there are known relations (eg, Bell's inequalities) that any local hidden variable theory must satisfy. Any time there are hidden variables, the fact that the underlying 'objects' need to move from one place to another to produce observations means that there are certain relations between how distant events are correlated. Quantum mechanics does not satisfy those relations. And, by actual observations, neither does the real world.

In other words, the actual observations show that there can be no local hidden variable theory that explains the probabilities and correlations that happen in the real world.

So, unlike what happens in classical statistical mechanics, the probabilities in QM are actually a raw fact of how the universe is and not simply our lack of knowledge of something deeper.

 

[Polymath257]

There is a way to show that statistical assumptions are a subset of a larger set of determinism. This proof uses the concept of entropy. Any given state of matter has fixed value of measured entropy. For example a glass of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere will have the same measured value of entropy no matter who measures it. Entropy is a constant for that unique state.

Actually, this is also false. Entropy is a measure of the decrease of information when we look at things from a large scale instead of the small scale. but there are a lot of paradoxes of entropy.

For example, suppose that we have two chambers with the same gas. We open the chambers so that they mix. The entropy does not change.

If, instead, those two chambers have different gases, the entropy will increase upon mixing.

But, what happens if the gases are different, but we can't detect the difference? In that case *both* entropy calculations work. One calculation says entropy does not change and the other that it does. But both work perfectly well for that and any subsequent calculation *as long as* we cannot distinguish the difference between the gases.

So the amount of entropy depends on our state of ignorance.

But I can go even further.

If you do statistical mechanics with deterministic underlying laws, you will get the *wrong answers* in your calculations.

In fact, this was one of the first clues that the deterministic Newtonian laws were wrong: the calculations done for the heat capacity of gases got the right answers for monoatomic gases and for diatomic gases, but not for more complicated molecular gases (say, carbon dioxide).

Instead, you need to do statistical mechanics based on *quantum mechanics* to get he correct answers. So even your claim that entropy and statistical mechanics shows an underlying determinism is flatly wrong: historical facts go precisely the other way. it was statistical mechanics that gave the first clue that the deterministic description was wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But the universe very much does. Einstein was wrong in this.

Too early to tell. Randomness is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

https://web.mit.edu/asf/www/Press/Musser_Scientific_American_2015.pdf

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Too early to tell. Randomness is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

https://web.mit.edu/asf/www/Press/Musser_Scientific_American_2015.pdf

Well, here is my take. In a take on methodological naturalism it is not certain that this assumption is more than just that:
The natural world is law-like. It might be that we can't explain it. This idea of law-like is more than 2000 years old and so far nobody have been able to do.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, here is my take. In a take on methodological naturalism it is not certain that this assumption is more than just that:
The natural world is law-like. It might be that we can't explain it. This idea of law-like is more than 2000 years old and so far nobody have been able to do.

Yeah, it’s perhaps a measure of human pride, the assumption that nature and all her secrets can be laid bare for our understanding.

“Oh what a piece of work is man…in apprehension, how like a God…”

As for natural or scientific laws, aren’t they simply artificial constructs which serve a predictive and/or descriptive purpose? We assume that laws of nature describe facts about reality, but the extent to which this is true must always be subject to a degree of doubt. In the end we deal, always, with symbolism and metaphor, not necessarily with reality itself. Not directly, anyway.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Apparently science isn't [an explanation or even a pathway to the truth.] either, since it leads us nowhere, in regards to why we exist.

Science isn't a explanation or a path to truth because it doesn't help at all in understanding why we exist? If it hasn't helped you understand why we exist, that's on you. Science answers why we exist for me, but I suppose you're waiting for an answer that involves a conscious creator that may not exist.

I wish you'd state your argument explicitly. Why do you think your objections are relevant to this discussion? I presume that you are trying to establish a god as the first cause of the universe and toss out competing hypotheses, but this doesn't help you with that. Your questions likely have no answer except that the Big Bang occurred and the rest followed according to symmetry breaking and the laws of physics that resulted. The rest was automatic. There may never be an answer why that happened, but that doesn't undermine the idea of this universe arising without a god.

You are even more closed minded than I previously imagined... what you described is the perfect formula to live in a fake reality, simply only believing what your mind tells you.

Your first sentence (never mind the use of an ellipsis for a period) indicates a misunderstanding of what closed-mindedness is. All that is needed there is a willingness and ability to evaluate evidence, come to sound conclusions, and change one's mind if they are compelling.

The second sentence is difficult to parse. What do you believe that doesn't come from your mind? Maybe you mean ideas that you read or heard, but they don't become yours until they are in your mind and it assents to them. And what is the value of believing things that the mind doesn't vet empirically? You have a god belief because of that. How does that willingness to believe without evidentiary support prevent you from living in a false reality, one that contains a deity that may not exist? This is consistent with my comment that elicited this reply from you: "It turns out the rules of experience are the truth, not the metaphysical model imagined to underlie it."

So now you are content to ignore the science that says what you see affects actual reality because it's scary and against logic.

I have not done that. I have ignored no science. I am aware of the evidence and argument that consciousness collapses quantum wave functions and kills or saves the cat, and that the need for consciousness in this process is still being debated (the definition of observation has been expanded since the days of Heisenberg and Bohr).

Why do you think that matters in this discussion? Generally, when this topic comes up with a believer, he sees a place for a creator god in the idea of consciousness creating reality, but no clear explanation as to why he thinks that points to a conscious creator for our universe.

Faith can certainly be entirely reasonable and a lot of people who were once atheist have found this to be true.

Faith in gods can be useful for some people, especially those with uncertain lives who feel vulnerable and who need comforting. I'm sure that there is a lot of praying going on in Ukraine right now, maybe some by unbelievers. Holding such beliefs may be reasonable for those who need them, but the beliefs themselves still remain faith-based - not the result of valid reasoning. There's a difference there. There is no valid argument that concludes, "Therefore God." If one holds that belief, he didn't arrive at it reasoning, however comforting it may be, however reasonable it is to accept that comfort.

Using technology, not knowledge that is really beyond science to address...like the origin of life and the universe.

You seem to have an idiosyncratic definition for knowledge. Technology is the practical application of knowledge, knowledge being the collection of ideas that allow one to correctly forecast outcomes. And unlike the matter of the origin of the Big Bang, there is much empirical knowledge about the origin of life.

You keep coming back to comments like this one that you seem to think are meaningful in deciding what the first cause of the universe is. Why else would you keep posting them? They are not. These comments about what science can't answer are irrelevant to the matter. Religion doesn't answer them, either. God did it is not an answer, since we have no gods or mechanisms for them to affect physical reality if they existed to point to. An answer requires demonstration that it accurately describes some aspect of reality, or it is no different than a myth, which also cannot be empirically mapped onto reality.

Perhaps you would like to try to explain why you think your objections should change minds, assuming that you do. If not, what do they do for you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, it’s perhaps a measure of human pride, the assumption that nature and all her secrets can be laid bare for our understanding.

“Oh what a piece of work is man…in apprehension, how like a God…”

As for natural or scientific laws, aren’t they simply artificial constructs which serve a predictive and/or descriptive purpose? We assume that laws of nature describe facts about reality, but the extent to which this is true must always be subject to a degree of doubt. In the end we deal, always, with symbolism and metaphor, not necessarily with reality itself. Not directly, anyway.

Another more even naturalistic version is that we are not the result of an biological evolution for which the "purpose" is for us to understand the world as such. In other words, we might be able to function in the world as us, but not understand the world itself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Another more even naturalistic version is that we are not the result of an biological evolution for which the "purpose" is for us to understand the world as such. In other words, we might be able to function in the world as us, but not understand the world itself.

I suspect there is a great purpose, though what it may be, I wouldn’t claim to know. Still, to get a sense of it, I’d leave the scientists and philosophers to their thought experiments for a moment, and turn to the poets and visionaries;

“I am the eye with which the Universe beholds itself,
And knows itself divine.”

That’s Percy Shelley, from The Hymn of Apollo

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I suspect there is a great purpose, though what it may be, I wouldn’t claim to know. Still, to get a sense of it, I’d leave the scientists and philosophers to their thought experiments for a moment, and turn to the poets and visionaries;

“I am the eye with which the Universe beholds itself,
And knows itself divine.”

That’s Percy Shelley, from The Hymn of Apollo

Yeah, but in practice there is no God, One God and many Gods. That is how close I can get, when I remove my pride.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, but in practice there is no God, One God and many Gods. That is how close I can get, when I remove my pride.

Close enough, perhaps. For a beginning, anyway. Everything is shifting, nothing is fixed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, we required demonstration from science. That means observation and testing, which science provides and religion does not.

Science has failed you then because it's failed to demonstrate how something came from nothing. Or why we have laws and rules nature operates by. Or why 96 percent of what you think are smart apes believe in a deity...why would animals formed by chance invent a belief in a creator?