I am not interested in this diversionary debate of yours. I just wanted to point out your ignorance, hypocrisy and the lack of logic in your arguments and accusationa against atheism.
Are you saying that you are not even willing to look at some educational videos? Figures. I call it "willful ignorance" and it serves to prove the case made in the OP. RedDragon, on the other hand, seems to show a willingness to actually engage, and that seems to
disprove it.
How does a being that transcendent create something material?
George Berkeley seems to have anticipated the controversy in physics today when he said, "Matter does not exist" and "To be is to be perceived." That being said, I refer you again to post #222. Is the First Source/Quantum Field transcendent, immanent or both? Clearly, it is both. Here's an excerpt from
The Loop of Creation by Clara Szalai. In the context of what we are discussing, Viewpoint 1 represents the perfection of an undifferentiated infinity -- divine simplicity; Viewpoint 2 represents the accepted scientific view whether you're talking about about the Big Bang as a singular event, an infinite number of universes, something from “nothing,” “branes,” or whatever.
Imagine going to a recital of a renowned violinist who is going to perform the newest work of a
great composer. You sit, expectantly awaiting the great work to unfold and caress your ears. And then,
the violinist strikes one tone and keeps it at an endless legato, without any change for two hours. One
single note for two hours. First, you would demand your money refunded, and then you would beat up
the violinist. After that you would break the composer’s nose, and only then would you kill the
manager. The torture of one single unchanging tone for two hours constitutes mitigating circumstances.
Well, that’s Viewpoint 1 in its essence.
Now imagine going to a concert. You sit listening to the orchestra, each instrument playing its own
virtuoso piece, tuning, talking before the entree of the conductor. The conductor appears, there is
applause, and then tense silence. He lifts his arms and the orchestra starts. That is the moment when all
hell breaks loose: it is a worse cacophony than when they were only tuning. There is nothing in
common between any of the players. There is no rhythm, no key, no melody, no harmony, nothing.
Everybody is playing different disconnected sounds. Each player keeps changing what they do, yet
without any regard for anyone else. A violin is busy with endless glissandos, a trumpet randomly hits
notes in staccato, a cello is doing trills on different tones and so on. Now that’s hell, you say. It’s
modern music, but still… It’s too much. After two hours of this, you tear off the conductor’s toupee
and start dancing on it. You break the first violinist’s instrument over his head and you kill the
manager. That’s pure Viewpoint 2.
What’s missing? Structure, of course. When you listen to a classic string quartet, they play in the
same key and in the same rhythm (three quarters or six eights, or whatever). The violin plays a melody,
the others accompany, and then the viola plays a melody and the others accompany it; then there is a
fugue where all participate in playing the melody while remaining in harmony.
There are certain fixed relations between all the players (like rhythm, scale, etc.). Further, there is
a structure to the composition performed. By definition, composition means structure. For example, a
sonata is a certain musical expression that gets developed and changed, and in the end, it is repeated in
its final form. That’s its story, its structure. If you listen to such a composition, you can enjoy it. That’s
Viewpoint 2 giving meaning to Viewpoint 1, a structure, wherein there are fixed relations and also
motion. It is relations of sameness and difference interwoven and braided in meaningful ways, each
process related to by the other processes, inter-referring. Such a composition is a process consisting of
changing relations creating meaningful constellations with beauty.
Science, as practiced today, acknowledges pure Viewpoint 2, but chooses to deny the eternal perfection of Viewpoint 1. As a consequence, science cannot have,
even in principle, an accounting for the fixed relations that give rise to structure and all its richness.
