Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Sleeppy]

It's just a matter of wasting too many resources studying rather than engaging in normal human endeavors that even grad students usually do. When one looks up some reference material to answer a relatively simple question they forgot about, and then finds that they have spent over 36 hours delving into a research topic they never intended to, one is not impressive, but obsessive.




This was a very friendly jest, by one I respect and who has been kind enough to put up with a great many of my incredibly long posts that are too often tangential.




As it turns out, we don't know what the "quantum level" is. That's why currently physicists in quantum mechanics have fundamentally changed their approach. Instead of preparing some quantum system, letting it run, and then measuring it (i.e., not interfering with the system until measurement), they see how different kinds of interference can enable macromolecules to exist in superposition states and things like that. Basically, they test the conditions under which the "weirdness" of quantum physics can exist or can't. We can, for example, make hundreds of atoms exist in a superposition state (2 or more distinct and mutually exclusive states), but we can only do so under certain conditions. This is called the quantum-to-classical transition, and it involves the way in which the world as we experience it (in which cats aren't both alive and dead at the same time) is "recovered" or "transformed from" the quantum realm.

As for whether the randomness has causes that aren't being seen, that used to be a much more common view. Time was that we "thought experiments" (Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, Schrödinger's infamous dead/alive cat, etc.) were only thought experiments. Now they have actually been carried out in some form. I got into quantum physics from neuroscience just to show that quantum theories of consciousness were wrong. 2+ years of study later, I still can't answer this. Most physicists who work in a field of quantum physics would say it's highly unlikely that randomness doesn't play a role in physical systems. The problem is that we're dealing with systems that cannot be observed by any technology without altering them in non-trivial ways. But quantum mechanics has proved to be incredibly successful, and is fundamentally based on a mathematical representation of physical systems that entails randomness and indeterminism.

Much, much easier to read. Thanks for dumbing it down for me, friend. I'm still.very impressed at your dedication and recalling of all this information. So thank you for sharing with me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How are the Four Noble Truths not ontological claims?

What are they asserting the existence of? A particular psychological state, i.e. suffering? I guess I thought it sort of went without saying that what I mean is ontological commitments above and beyond the very basic ones which ALL discourse shares (commitments to the existence of human beings, psychological states, physical objects, etc.); what I mean is that Buddhism is not committed to the existence of deities, angels, demons, other realms of existence (i.e. an afterlife), and so on, unlike virtually every other religion I can think of.

***

When you speak of Buddhism, what Buddhism are you speaking of...

The historical core of Buddhism, common to all the various forms (which, obviously, get mixed with different cultures and often absorb local deities/religious elements), i.e. the teachings of the Buddha, the Noble Truths, etc. The Buddha himself explicitly eschewed belief in a creator God, and metaphysical speculation in general- although some traditions in Buddhism have obviously followed his lead less closely than others.

and why do you speak of it as singular?

As I said above, because it is not committed to any of the types of things basically every other major world religion is committed to- messiahs, deities and supernatural agents, an afterlife or other realms and so on. And the rejection of ALL speculation about such things as being superfluous is also fairly novel. (and even more so the rejection of all propositional truth by Zen)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I actually don't believe in free will. I believe everything that occurs or will occur has cause- an origin. And theses causes extend all the way back into the singularity.

How does this end up being evidence for god?

 

[Sleeppy]

How does this end up being evidence for god?

The Singularity fits the definition pretty well.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Singularity fits the definition pretty well.

If you wish to call the singulatrity god then by all means I suppose I can't stop you. However it doesn't give any support to the idea of an omnipotent all caring god that inspired any religious text.

 

[Sleeppy]

If you wish to call the singulatrity god then by all means I suppose I can't stop you. However it doesn't give any support to the idea of an omnipotent all caring god that inspired any religious text.

It gives support to all things; all texts. It gives support to all variety in existence. Each thing with certain capabilities. Each text with certain capabilities.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It gives support to all things; all texts. It gives support to all variety in existence. Each thing with certain capabilities. Each text with certain capabilities.

You have to establish this. Simply stating it doesn't provide an argument.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you wish to call the singulatrity god then by all means I suppose I can't stop you. However it doesn't give any support to the idea of an omnipotent all caring god that inspired any religious text.

Not only is there not any obvious congruence between the "initial singularity" and the Christian God, there isn't much reason to suppose there was any such initial singularity in the first place; indeed, alot of contemporary physics is working to remove the singularity from the picture since its very presence is likely a function of classical physics not being appropriate for describing what is likely quantum phenomena- the singularity indicates our math breaking down, not any actual event in the real world.

In other words, there probably was no singularity, and even if there was, its not anything like a god.

 

[Sleeppy]

You have to establish this. Simply stating it doesn't provide an argument.

The argument is that the Singularity caused our universe; our existence, and therefore our abilities for interaction.. Which is pretty much corroborated by science.

I found this.. The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The argument is that the Singularity caused our universe; our existence, and therefore our abilities for interaction.. Which is pretty much corroborated by science.

I found this.. The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Linking Stephen Hawkings is not a good support for your argument. Are you aware that this same research led Hawkings to claim that there is no god?

 

[Sleeppy]

Linking Stephen Hawkings is not a good support for your argument. Are you aware that this same research led Hawkings to claim that there is no god?

I'm aware of who he is. He's perfect in this case.

In the case you're referring to, so far you've omitted the details, which are important in understanding what his actual claim entails, and its value. Find me the claim and we can discuss it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm aware of who he is. He's perfect in this case.

In the case you're referring to, so far you've omitted the details, which are important in understanding what his actual claim entails, and its value. Find me the claim and we can discuss it.

? You have to provide evidence for your claim. You have yet to do so. You have stated more or less a scietnific fact that at one time the unvierse was probably in a singularity. However this in no way entails god. You need to link the two together.

The bus is late because its raining in Boliva.

That claim makes no sense.

The bus is late because we are in Boliva and its been raining so hard that it flooded the river that the bus would have normally taken and its detour took longer.

This claim makes sense.

See where i am going with this?

 

[Sleeppy]

? You have to provide evidence for your claim. You have yet to do so. You have stated more or less a scietnific fact that at one time the unvierse was probably in a singularity. However this in no way entails god. You need to link the two together.

The bus is late because its raining in Boliva.

That claim makes no sense.

The bus is late because we are in Boliva and its been raining so hard that it flooded the river that the bus would have normally taken and its detour took longer.

This claim makes sense.

See where i am going with this?

The two are already connected, by definition. What is the Creator and Ruler of the universe? Science, so far, has established that it is the Singularity. As far as I can read, Mr. Hawkings is in agreement. He did not and cannot have denied this particular understanding of God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The two are already connected, by definition. What is the Creator and Ruler of the universe? Science, so far, has established that it is the Singularity. As far as I can read, Mr. Hawkings is in agreement. He did not and cannot have denied this particular understanding of God.

Well he did. And so do I. Our concept that we were once a singularity does not mean that it must have been god. You have to connect those two dots. Under what reasoning do we have to assume that because we were a singularity we were created by god?

 

[Sleeppy]

Well he did. And so do I. Our concept that we were once a singularity does not mean that it must have been god. You have to connect those two dots. Under what reasoning do we have to assume that because we were a singularity we were created by god?

Again, by definition.

By the way, you still haven't provided anything Hawkings said.. Only your own thoughts.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Again, by definition.

By the way, you still haven't provided anything Hawkings said.. Only your own thoughts.

What definition are you using that alludes to it being god?

The reason I haven't quoted him is because I was simply remarking that Stephen Hawkings is a Gnostic Atheist and nothing in his work provides proof for god. It is another debate all together if science can disprove god.

 

[Sleeppy]

God [ god ]

noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

You and Hawking shared a peculiar condition; atheism. It strives against religion, and inadvertently excludes God, as defined, altogether. What's ironic is Hawkings and other scientists acknowledge the same idea in different terms, as monotheists.. and certain other theisms as well. They differ in limited practice and term usage.

 

[Sleeppy]

Dictionary. com

 

[Monk Of Reason]

God [ god ]

noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

You and Hawking shared a peculiar condition; atheism. It strives against religion, and inadvertently excludes God, as defined, altogether. What's ironic is Hawkings and other scientists acknowledge the same idea in different terms, as monotheists.. and certain other theisms as well. They differ in limited practice and term usage.

The "creation" and the "begining" are two different things. God is described as an omnipotent being of supernatural power that somehow created us all. The science behind the big bang is simply the observable phenomenon. You are too quick to assume that the big bang and god are the same thing or even in the same talking points scientifically.

 

[Sleeppy]

The "creation" and the "begining" are two different things. God is described as an omnipotent being of supernatural power that somehow created us all. The science behind the big bang is simply the observable phenomenon. You are too quick to assume that the big bang and god are the same thing or even in the same talking points scientifically.

The Singularity; God; the one Supreme Being and Ruler, created our universe. Bang.

..As I said, often the only difference is method and language.