@Mike403 😂😂😂
A. God did it B. Angels helped him C. God put all the mistakes on planet Earth D. God only created one verse that is why it is called a universe, because a biverse would be an abomination. E. God gets a hankering for a Milky Way F. Eve is to blame for any flaws in the universe G. God created the universe so Satan would have a longer fall H. All of the above
Pure randomness..
The thing that is missed by materialists is that information is immaterial. Material can be the medium of information, but the information itself is neither matter nor energy. It is an idea. Chalk and a chalkboard are media that carry information; DNA is a medium that carries information; a solid state hard drive or this screen is a medium composed of both matter and energy that carries the ideas of those in this forum. But the ideas are immaterial. A first grade teacher can write the alphabet on a chalkboard; or Stephen Hawking can write his theory of blackholes on a chalkboard. The information changes, but the medium is the same. It is immaterial. You can have a thought without expressing it in word or sound, but the idea is reality just as much as the screen you are looking at: "I like cuddling." That's an idea. "I exist." That's an idea. My DNA carries the information that describes all the matter that makes me me. But that information had to come from somewhere; it didn't come from me. "I like cuddling" came from my mind. But the information that makes me me, also has an origin. It came from a mind. E=mc2 is information. It describes the relationship between matter and energy, but the mathematical statement itself is immaterial information. So our universe is not composed of mere matter and energy. It is full if information, and that immaterial information come from a mind, regardless of the state of existence of matter and energy. I know that the information that makes up my ideas come from my own mind. So, if there is so much more out there that has information about how to function, how to live, how to be, there has to be a mind that made that, too.
My DNA carries the information that describes all the matter that makes me me. But that information had to come from somewhere; it didn't come from me.
@cookiecrumb
This really stood out, thanks.
"The thing that is missed by materialists is that information is immaterial."
Is it?
All our thoughts, ideas, and emotions are accompanied by chemical reactions in our brains and hormones. Brain surgeons can stimulate a part of a brain and it will cause the person to recall a memory. Outside of human memory, information is stored in material things - books, computers, other medium. I'm not sure that statement is true. Even emotions are accompanied by hormonal changes in our bodies.
At any rate, I don't think that ideas being an abstraction contradicts monism and supports dualism. Dualism is the idea that there is a material world and a non-material world, such as souls or immaterial conscious beings or that minds are some "thing" independent from the body. Mind is what brain does.
Sensations are not a "thing," they are an experience. However, they are also accompanied by physical reactions.
"E=mc2 is information."
True. And any way of conveying that information would involve some sort of material medium. If humans disappeared, that law would still exist, just as gravity would still exist, but I'm not sure the information as such would still exist, but that's getting to abstract for me, I'll leave that to philosophers to figure out.
"Another fun thing is that, theist or atheist everyone has a cheat point where they want to stop thinking any further. For theists, it's God made everything so we can't think beyond that. For atheists, the universe just exists so we can't (or it isn't useful) to think beyond that. Or for other atheists, the cheat point is the big bang."
I'm not sure this describes the view of all atheists. It certainly does not describe mine. The reason I don't think beyond that is because, given the tools we have at our disposal right now, it's an unanswerable question. I accept that and choose to put my attention elsewhere, just as I choose not to think much about German grammar or 12th century garb - it's just not important enough to me to put my attention into it. However, there are physicists who think about it.
I don't consider it a "cheat point." Theists look at the universe and say, "It exists because (their) God made it." Non-theists just acknowledge that it exists. If theists can claim their God had no beginning, there's no reason non-theists can't say possibly the universe had no beginning.
It's not cheating to say, "We don't know." That is, in fact, the reality. Theists, when confronted with "we don't know" insert God as the cause or the reason. It's called "The God of the gaps." Over time, some of those gaps have retreated as we've learned more about how the universe works.
By the way, the father of the Big Bang theory was a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaitre. The Catholic Church accepts it and just inserts that God started it all. Scientists just accept what can be demonstrated to be supportable and stay out of the realm of beings who do not exist in the material world.
We are ALL atheists unless we believe in ALL the gods. Do Christians believe in Vishnu, Quetzalcóatl, Ishtar, Demeter, Zeus, Thor, or any of the other named gods? No. So in respect to those gods they are atheist. Some cultures/religions have many named gods and goddesses, some have only one. The difference with atheists is that we don't accept any of them.
Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is real.
@cuddles_ndream "Neil also said this
Just for the record, I've never made any claim about NDT being theist, atheist, whatever, nor have I used his quotes to support atheism or counter theism. The quotes I present from his are about exactly what he said, no more, no less. I quote him because I think what he said, in whatever quote I provide, is relevant and makes a point. That is all.
@MCcuddles2 The Big Bang is sometimes misunderstood as being the beginning of the universe or the beginning of reality, instead it'd be more accurate to say that it's the earliest point we can make any kind of model with a hope of accuracy or confidence in. It might be when things began, but as far as we can tell it's at the very least just when things that were there began to expand. By default it says nothing about where the matter/energy came from.
I don't believe it due to insufficient evidence and argumentation to convince me, but I quite like the idea that the universe alternates between "The Big Bang" and "The Big Crunch" (pretty much the opposite of TBB, the expansion of the universe stops and then reverses becoming smaller and smaller until it bounces back to a single point before becoming another Big Bang and expanding again).
Hydrogen was the first element in the universe. Everything else was created in stars. Hydrogen fuses together to make Helium. Helium fuses together to make Carbon, and so on. We are literally star stuff.
The Big Bang is sometimes misunderstood as being the beginning of the universe or the beginning of reality
@Zundar
💯!!!
@Babichev "unanswerable question" just becomes another word for God, albeit perhaps an uncaring and non-sentient one. It's just a word humans use to to describe a concept beyond comprehension.
You don't have to pray to the "unanswerable question" or even think that humans have been given any information about it, but that concept is what forms the basis of mysticism.
Awe of the unknowable.
"Unanswerable question" is not another word for God. It means exactly what it says - a question that we are unable to answer with the tools and information we have at our disposal at this point in time. No need to insert God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the equation, that is superfluous.
However, theists usually insert their god(s) into "unanswerable question."
There is a difference.
It's possible that some theists cannot understand the difference but that does not give them license to put a veneer of theism over atheist concepts they don't understand.
In any instance where one would insert "God" as a cause, I would suggest this thought experiment: insert "Flying Spaghetti Monster" instead. This might lead to a more accurate understanding of an atheist point of view. Whichever God(s) one subscribes to, it feels very real to the believer while other deities seem fake and even ridiculous. They find it hard to conceive that a human could actually accept life without a belief in God(s) so they want to paint atheist points of view over with some sort of theistic concept. By looking at the statement with a deity they don't accept, it might give them the opportunity to see it more from an atheist point of view.
Do you think that "unanswerable question" is a substitute for Ixchel did it? Or Poseidon did it? Or Vulcan did it?
"Unanswerable question" is just the acceptance that we don't have an answer. For instance, we don't know exactly where syphillis came from. When scientists say that, are they actually saying, "God did it"? Or are they saying, "We don't know exactly where syphyllis came from"?
Learning to live with ambiguity can be difficult. However, once one does, it's quite liberating because we don't have to be wedded to explanations that may be (and probably are) inaccurate. Why did this person heal from an injury while this other person ended up with chronic pain? Which is a better answer - God did it or we don't know? It would be unhelpful for me to suggest to my chronic pain clients that their pain is caused by their deity. However, as frustrating as it is to say, "We don't really know why you hurt," that frustration can be made more bearable by, "But let's see what we can do about it."
"Unanswerable question" is a concept.
One can choose to be in awe of it. One can call it whatever they want.
@Babichev information can and has been proven to communicate through a mechanism that has no physical medium.
This concept is referred to "spooky action at a distance" between entangled particles.
Also, regarding your point earlier that quantum mechanics has no effect on our scales. That is, in fact, not true. The lower limit for the size of electronic transistors is set by the laws of quantum mechanics. We can not make these components any smaller, because we are stopped by quantum effects.
The second point is that quantum computers are now a thing. We can use them to solve real problems.
The universe exists because God, in His infinite wisdom, created it to show His glory. These Bible verses are a good start on understanding this: Colossians 1:6, 1 Timothy 4:4, Revelation 4:11, 5:13.
Gobs of sophistry on display here. Someone speaks plainly and it becomes a metaphor for God. Apparently the universe is a circular argument.
My favourite kind of circular argument is the argument for cake, because when you circle back to the start of it you have an excuse to get another cake @FunCartel do think that this thread has maybe gone off topic now but they are related topics somewhat at least.
To be clear. I'm not a theist. I just connect the metaphor to the origins of mysticism and religion. Not all humans interpret it as god but the idea is connected.
As far as circular argument I actually agree. The universe is a paradox.
Really cool 6 minute videos
Here’s one about 24 planets that scientist say are more suitable for life than earth
"Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still." Samuel Butler. An atheist content to be an atheist will not be convinced otherwise, nor will a theist content to be a theist. Those who are discontent with "unanswerable questions" will find the answers to their questions.
We're here to take care of each other. Whether or not you believe in a higher being, we're still here to take care of each other.
@Mike403
I can't imagine a science class at a Christian school. Every answer on a test would be, "God did it."
Anybody who dismisses scientific questions with "God did it" isn't a Christian: they may follow some other religion, or none.
For example, the Gregorian calendar is the calendar used in most of the world. It was introduced in October 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII as a modification of the Julian calendar, reducing the average year from 365.25 days to 365.2425 days.
It introduced our current system for leap years, which is:
The whole thing was based on astronomical observation.
Speaking of which you may also be interested in to hear about the Vatican Observatory. It's current Director, Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, S.J., is particularly interested in the study of asteroids and meteorites. His qualifications for the job include:
Education: B.S. Planetary Science - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1974 M.S. Planetary Science - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1975 Ph.D. Planetary Science - University of Arizona, 1978
Memberships: International Astronomical Union (since 1994) Member, Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature Chair, Mars Nomenclature Task Group American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences (since 1994) Chair, Division for Planetary Sciences (2007 term) Meteoritical Society (since 1994)
Awards Fellow of the Meteoritical Society, 2008 Ph.D. Honoris Causa of Humane Letters, Georgetown University, 2014 Carl Sagan Medal for outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist to the general public, American Astronomical Society Division for Planetary Sciences, 2014
@MCcuddles2
but why those particular set of laws and not slightly different ones?
Are you familiar with the Anthropic Principle?
@Emma
I think the universe came to existence by pure chance
OK, but who or what was rolling the dice?
That's like asking why rocks exist. They're just here.
But we know why rocks exist. Heavy elements created in stars and supernova eventually coalesced into rocky planets.
@JoyfulHeart
According to my ex, it's all about her.
1 ● 0+0= 1 nothing come from nothing 2● 1+1+1= 1 3 in 1 ☝ 3● 1+0=1 the only one Which one makes sense Everything has a purpose on this world, all these universe is for use to thank or to be ungrateful, the wind has a purpose,the trees,the animals but these are no justice sometimes, humans oppress humans and if they get a way they will be judged for their actions 1 day .
I was once kicked out of a Barnes and Noble for moving all the bibles into the fiction section.
.
@Mike403 did you move all the Bibles to the fiction section and than got kicked out / did you get kicked out in the process of moving them, or did you successfully moved them all, announced it, & than they asked you to leave.. ?
I usually don't quote the Bible except on religious forums. But since others quoted it in this thread and because it's Christmas time I'll make an exception.
"Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” John 20:29
"We look not to what is seen but to what is unseen. What is seen is transitory. What is unseen is eternal" 2 Corinthians 4:18
Christian science class: (short version)
If the mass of the earth were equivocated in only C14 atoms, there would be 3x10^50 C14 atoms. The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years. If the uniformitarian decay of C14 is true, then the entirety of C14 atoms would decay in 1 million years, or about 174 half-lives. Therefore, the basis for C14 dating exceeding 1 million years is completely false, notwithstanding the detectability of AMS is 0.001pMC^2, which would be equivalent to 17.5 half-lives, or about 100,000 years. Therefore, any dating result using C14 method exceeding 100,000 years can be justifiably questioned. Since the earth is not entirely made of carbon-14, the existence of carbon-14 in any dead organism should lead one who bases their conclusions on science and math to conclude that the organism is less than 100,000 years old. Therefore, a young earth hypothesis holds water.
@cookiecrumb how do you when the c 14 formed? Why are you assuming it all formed at once? Why couldn't some of it have formed later?
Also, the value of a theory is how predictive it is. What can young earth predict? It certainly ly can't predict how and where to dig for oil.
@Mike403 😂😂😂You are the man.
@MCcuddles2 C14 is produced in the atmosphere and absorbed by living organisms. Once the organism dies, it can no longer absorb C14. Therefore, the only thing that can happen to the quantity of C14 in the organism is reduce based on decay. The illustration with the size of the earth is to point out the fact that the organism would have to be the same mass of the earth in C14 at the time of death in order for it to be dated 1 million years old. But atomic mass spectrograph sensors are not sensitive enough to detect a single C14 atom. I'm not assuming it formed all at once. I'm using the size of the earth as a representative sample of the organism to prove that it is impossible to date any organism over a million years, because no organism is the size of the earth.
I assumed that there is no further production of C14 in the organism because the organism is dead and can no longer absorb C14, since it is produced in the atmosphere, and absorbed by the organism in the respiratory system.
We know that we are aware that we are conscious. There is nothing else we can say for sure.
My opinion is the one infinite creator is experiencing itself through creation.