Life From Dirt?

[Polymath257]

You think the millions of people who believe in God have no good reason for doing so?

Oh, I think they have 'reasons' in the sense that they live in societies where most people believe and so it is easier to go along. I doubt that most people think too deeply about these questions.

There is a long tradition of religious belief in most societies. That tradition continues whether or not it is reasonable to actually follow the tradition. It can give comfort and gives rules for living when you don't want to spend the time and energy thinking more deeply and learning about the alternatives.

But I think that the vast majority of people believe because of how they were raised and the fact that it can be very uncomfortable to go against the pressure of friends, family, and society, not to mention the difficulty of reaching your own conclusions. It is much easier to just follow everyone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics already provides an explanation for God’s eternal existence….

“In a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It only changes form.”

This is factual.

The universe, encompassing everything, is by definition “a closed system.”

This claim that our universe is a closed system is unevidenced.

This means that, within this closed system, energy has always existed.

Not with one bad premise.

So prior to the BB, energy existed. In the form of the spirit (invisible) entity of God.

To call energy "God" is a leap of faith.
Moreover, to claim that there's only a single god is baseless.

 

[Polymath257]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics already provides an explanation for God’s eternal existence….

“In a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It only changes form.”
The universe, encompassing everything, is by definition “a closed system.”
This means that, within this closed system, energy has always existed.
So prior to the BB, energy existed. In the form of the spirit (invisible) entity of God.

Please don't quote scientific ideas that you don't understand.

First, that is the *first* law of thermodynamics, not the second.

Second, the precise form of the first law (a conservation law) says that the total energy at one time is the same as at any other time. So it only applies when there is time. In the BB model, there is no time outside of the universe. So no 'time before'.

Third, energy is a property of matter (actually, of particles, but I won't get into that distinction here). it is like momentum, or charge, or spin (all of which are also conserved in a closed system). So unless you want to claim that there is also matter and momentum and spin and charge 'prior to the BB', you are talking out of your hat.

Fourth, why do you think that any energy prior to the BB would be God? That seems like a very strange and unlikely identification.

 

[Audie]

It's hard to know exactly what you are talking about but I have had a discussion with @Audie that might be the same one.
Could you elaborate?



I hear that there are causeless events which don't seem to be completely causeless, because they are caused by the environment they happen in, the quantum environment. So for that environment, which seems to have been the environment of the initial universe, I would say that this is what God created first, a chaotic environment, and the applied laws of Physics to it so that the universe ended up as God had planned.



To say that the laws of Physics existed seems to be proposing the existence of something that is not phyisical at all, and so is spiritual.



There are issues with a first cause and issues if you say there was no first cause.
To think that the first cause might need a cause is just a nonsense statement/question imo.



If time is associated with the universe and there was no time up till then, then God existed in timelessness.



Each answer causes more questions.
God is changeless, God knows and does not need to reason things through over time. God is a repository for the laws of physics and the one who can cause the universe and apply the laws.



Life and love etc exist and science can only study their effects in a body and brain and actions, the assumption being that those things do not really exist in their own right.



Workable and being true are not the same thing.



There is a difference between assuming that consciousness is an emergent property of matter and showing that. If a spirit is connected to a material computer brain, how is the distinction to be made?



Dark matter is something that is material and has observable physical effects on matter.
If I believe in God and my life is changed because of that, that is effects that cannot studied by science.

"God", whose existence is itself dubious, is
claimed to be causeless.

 

[Audie]

This is factual for a closed system.

This claim that our universe is a closed system is unevidenced.

Not with one bad premise.

To call energy "God" is a leap of faith.
Moreover, to claim that there's only a single god is baseless.

Leap of faith, yes.

And " energy" is not even a thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I think they have 'reasons' in the sense that they live in societies where most people believe and so it is easier to go along. I doubt that most people think too deeply about these questions.

There is a long tradition of religious belief in most societies. That tradition continues whether or not it is reasonable to actually follow the tradition. It can give comfort and gives rules for living when you don't want to spend the time and energy thinking more deeply and learning about the alternatives.

But I think that the vast majority of people believe because of how they were raised and the fact that it can be very uncomfortable to go against the pressure of friends, family, and society, not to mention the difficulty of reaching your own conclusions. It is much easier to just follow everyone else.

Yeah, but the same applies to standard non-religious culture. The problem is that a good reason to believe is first person subjective and gets entangled in what the universe is believe to be in a given culture, what a culture takes for granted about reason, logic, truth, objectivity and so.

The problem as I see it is that I am not outside culture even if I am in secular culture and I have learned to spot different subjective standards for reasonable depending on metaphysics, ontology, logic, epistemology and ethics including my own ones.
And no, you are not special and outside culture, In fact you are normal in that you take your culture for granted as most people do.

So as long over due for subjective knowledge. Something is subjective knowledge if you know that it is so and can explain how it works. Further because subjectivity has an individual aspect, you can do subjective knowledge if you can explain how it works differently and how different versions get different result. But you don't subjectively accept that because you subjectively want objective order. That is it.

Now here is a limited example of a model of subjectivity and it is true, if you learn to do the subjective analysis of different types of cognition and feelings/emotions. But if you subjectively demand an objective answer for something which is subjective, you can't understand it. Just as you can't demand a subjective answer for something, which is objective.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood. According to Kohlberg, these stages are grouped into three separate levels known as preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

www.simplypsychology.org

The joke is there is not strong objective standard for reasonable for all of the human life as a part of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

So you are the arbiter of good reason, for all of humanity?

No. But there are *standards* of reason that are generally acknowledged. And logical fallacies that are commonly recognized.

But somehow actually pointing out those fallacies is arrogance?

And atheists wonder why they have a reputation for insufferable arrogance. Whereas to the person of faith, this is the pride that cuts man off from God.

And what about the pride of those who think they know a supernatural being exists and just happens to agree with their moral judgements? or the pride of those who think that because of their religious scripture, they have the right to condemn others for who they love? or the pride of those who think that because their religion is *right*, they can go and try to convert everyone else?

Let' face it, pride is far more common among the theists. Atheists usually admit to having insufficient information (which is precisely why they don't believe). They often are happy to admit it when they are wrong *as proven by evidence*

 

[Revoltingest]

Leap of faith, yes.

And " energy" is not even a thing.

Energy is indeed a thing.
Couldn't do engineering without using & measuring it.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, but the same applies to standard non-religious culture. The problem is that a good reason to believe is first person subjective and gets entangled in what the universe is believe to be in a given culture, what a culture takes for granted about reason, logic, truth, objectivity and so.

The problem as I see it is that I am not outside culture even if I am in secular culture and I have learned to spot different subjective standards for reasonable depending on metaphysics, ontology, logic, epistemology and ethics including my own ones.
And no, you are not special and outside culture, In fact you are normal in that you take your culture for granted as most people do.

Oh, I agree. The problem of latent cultural bias is a real and persistent one. Humans, by their nature, form cultures. And those cultures often get the facts wrong. The question is whether the culture (and the individual) is willing to change based on new evidence or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. But there are *standards* of reason that are generally acknowledged. And logical fallacies that are commonly recognized.

...

Correct and the "standards" are different for objective as independent of brain, formally dependent on brains, socially dependent and individually dependent and how to combine all those to a standard. And you are as much in a culture as everybody else are for those inter-subjective standards as I am.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I agree. The problem of latent cultural bias is a real and persistent one. Humans, by their nature, form cultures. And those cultures often get the facts wrong. The question is whether the culture (and the individual) is willing to change based on new evidence or not.

Or the realization that even evidence has a limit.
You can prove a negative if you know what the positive is. So if you know what a positive for evidence is, you can also state if evidence has a limit as for when evidence doesn't work to produce a positive.

 

[Audie]

Energy is indeed a thing.
Couldn't do engineering without using & measuring it.

That don't make it a thing, swabbie

 

[Polymath257]

That don't make it a thing, swabbie

What does it mean to be a 'thing'?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Energy is indeed a thing.
Couldn't do engineering without using & measuring it.

It doesn't have to be a thing to be used, it could be a process that works in a certain manner and reacts to a measurement standard.
There are no things out there, just as there are no gods. You can't observe neither a thing nor a god. A "thing" is a naming convention for a certain set of experiences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does it mean to be a 'thing'?

It is a naming convention for a certain set of experiences. It is cognitive category in the mind for some experiences.

 

[Revoltingest]

That don't make it a thing, swabbie

What makes something a "thing"?

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't have to be a thing to be used, it could be a process that works in a certain manner and reacts to a measurement standard.
There are no things out there, just as there are no gods. You can't observe neither a thing nor a god. A "thing" is a naming convention for a certain set of experiences.

You're use of "thing" is overly limited.
Just look at all the uses, especially 3 thru 6....

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes something a "thing"?

That you call it so. It is a naming convention. It is possible to explain the human experience without the idea of things. Now it is easier to have a short name for it, but that is useful and not a fact.

 

[Audie]

It is a naming convention for a certain set of experiences. It is cognitive category in the mind for some experiences.

What does it mean to be a 'thing'?

Reference is to earlier theories such as phlogiston

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're use of "thing" is overly limited.
Just look at all the uses, especially 3 thru 6....

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Yeah, that is naming convention. It tells you have you use a word. Not if there are things as such.
You are confusing 2 different versions of verb be for in effect, e.g. the cat is multicolored versus this piece of rock, a stone, is a thing.
You can observe the first one, but not the latter. That is what gives it away as being different.