This was already been addressed at great length earlier.
And that was torn down here: Science cannot solve the final mystery
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This was already been addressed at great length earlier.
Where do you think morals come from?
-are they taught?
-are they learned?
-are they found?
-are they programmened in our DNA?
-are they just something some stumble upon?
-are they god given?
-not god given?
-does everyone have them?
-how does one get morals?
-etc.
Actually, that is part of the thing here: there are no such formal axioms for physics. Only math and logic (so far) have formal axiom structures. And the fact that there are (informal) mechanisms for changing our views of physical laws makes them NOT an axiomatic system at all.
Furthermore, it is clear that many physical laws are based in second order logical (properties of properties) and are thereby not subject to the Godel results.
So we have two aspects that avoid the Godelian issues: lack of a formal axiom system (especially one that is recurrently defined) and second order logic as opposed to first order logic.
Godel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking
What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.......
But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.....
if one can't define the wave function point wise, one can't predict the future to arbitrary accuracy, even in the reduced determinism of quantum theory. What we need is a formulation of M theory that takes account of the black hole information limit. But then our experience with supergravity and string theory, and the analogy of Godel’s theorem, suggest that even this formulation will be incomplete......
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind....
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind....
More woo."I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin. Each layer is more subtle and more difficult to see or understand."
Ancient Language had a word for "reality" that we mistranslate as a specific "God". The "name" of this "God" translates as "the hidden". Just as the inside of an onion with a scratched skin is hidden from us so to is reality itself. We merely "think" we understand reality because we each experience reality in terms of our beliefs. We "see" a scratched onion skin and believe we know what's inside.
The reality is "woo" is the idea we understand "God's laws" or the "laws of nature". The reality is that just like the onion our ignorance has layer upon layer.
And if they disagree with me not on the basis of evidence or the lack thereof but because their ASD simply prevents them from accepting all of the clear evidence for a transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good being as the efficient cause for our universe's existence, i.e., God Almighty?
From personal experience I know that my brother became homosexual after he was raped by a man when he was a teen.
You are not just a troll, but you are dishonest one, because you keep evading any request to present your fact - where are your evidences?
If it is "inescapable" or so you've claimed, then present it, demonstrate it.
There are no objective or absolute morals.
Second, the mere existence of an uncaused cause does not prove the existence of a deity. We *know* of events that are uncaused in any classical sense. In fact, MOST quantum level events are uncaused by any classical definition of the term 'cause'.
This means there wasn't just *one* uncaused-cause, but there are many and all the time. So your claim that an uncaused cause must be transcendent (as well as the other properties) is negated also.
So, unless you want to claim a decaying nucleus is God, your argument fails miserably.
I have never been diagnosed with that condition. It is possible I am on the near-end of the spectrum.
Woo.
More woo.
Where do you think morals come from?
-are they taught?
-are they learned?
-are they found?
-are they programmened in our DNA?
-are they just something some stumble upon?
-are they god given?
-not god given?
-does everyone have them?
-how does one get morals?
-etc.
From our evolutionary ancestors.Where do you think morals come from?
I'll be glad to discuss facts and logic when you present them. Onion peeling is more a subject for Master Chef than for understanding the universe.Sure, if it's just "woo" then there's no reason to address facts and logic.
Not at all. It ranks high on the list of your more cogent posts.I suppose this post is more woo too.
This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as you already correctly believe. As previously established as well, this first uncaused efficient cause must, perforce, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good, i.e., God. This understanding, of course, is as perfectly natural to the Neurotypical as compassion and empathy.
And that right there is the reason why you Atheists "are among society’s most distrusted groups, “comparable even to rapists.""
Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.
“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist has a cause.
From our evolutionary ancestors.
I'll be glad to discuss facts and logic when you present them. Onion peeling is more a subject for Master Chef than for understanding the universe.
From our evolutionary ancestors.