Crazy Bible Stories

[DBT]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Physics and creators are incompatible concepts anyway because creators have abracadabra powers that make physical laws meaningless. Why does Yahweh need fingernail clippers?

 

[Learner]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Indeed, attributes and properties. Unfortunately you can't go beyond the mere discription of behaviours i.e. why matter and energy maintains and holds those attributes which are predictable behaviors to aptly call them laws and formulate repeatable processes (which is remarkable in itself). Thats why I say physics won't tell you either way.

I wonder who's thinking one should be looking for a pulse or heart beat? "Not neccssary" or "says nothing about" ... is not really saying "no such thing" which I think you may also agree with.

 

[Learner]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Physics and creators are incompatible concepts anyway because creators have abracadabra powers that make physical laws meaningless. Why does Yahweh need fingernail clippers?

I don't know much about the concept you've magically introduced. I take it, you've not heard of the Creator created the physics concept, which is compatible.

 

[bilby]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

True. But it does say a lot - indeed, by definition, everything - about matter and energy.

We look at how physical systems behave, and we can tease out the different influences that affect material objects. And, it turns out, because mass and energy are interchangeable, and because mass-energy is conserved, we can determine what ALL of the influences are, within very broad limits.

So while we can't say much about where it all came from (or even whether that's a sensible question to ask), we can say that since the planck epoch, no supernatural influences have occurred at energies and scales relevant to major supernatural claims such as an afterlife or intercession by gods (due to prayer or otherwise).

Physics has ruled out pretty much every large scale religion in history; If there are some sects at least most of whose central claims are not ruled out by physics, then I don't know which they are. Certainly they are not currently exhibiting much fame or popularity.

 

[bilby]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Physics and creators are incompatible concepts anyway because creators have abracadabra powers that make physical laws meaningless. Why does Yahweh need fingernail clippers?

I don't know much about the concept you've magically introduced. I take it, you've not heard of the Creator created the physics concept, which is compatible.

A completely "set and forget" god, whose last interaction with the universe was fourteen billion odd years ago, isn't physically impossible; Just pointless as an object of worship; implausible, unparsimonius and unprovable; and not the subject of any major world religions in human history.

The only purpose of such a hypothetical god is to kick the can down the road - I don't know why the universe exists; by saying 'because god', I now don't know why god exists, nor what god is, nor how or why it created a universe. That's not really an improvement on my original situation.

Also, I am inferring, this "set and forget" god is not the god you claim to believe in. So why mention it?

 

[DBT]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Indeed, attributes and properties. Unfortunately you can't go beyond the mere discription of behaviours i.e. why matter and energy maintains and holds those attributes which are predictable behaviors to aptly call them laws and formulate repeatable processes (which is remarkable in itself). Thats why I say physics won't tell you either way.

I wonder who's thinking one should be looking for a pulse or heart beat? "Not neccssary" or "says nothing about" ... is not really saying "no such thing" which I think you may also agree with.

It is the properties and attributes of matter that determines or governs form and expression. Wood, for example, doesn't need to be maintained or it falls apart because it's atomic and molecular structure, growth patterns, makes it what it is and how long it lasts before it decays. .

Evolution of stars, gallaxies, planets, moons, life, ecosystems being self forming and self sustaining according to the attributes and properties of matter energy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Indeed, attributes and properties. Unfortunately you can't go beyond the mere discription of behaviours i.e. why matter and energy maintains and holds those attributes which are predictable behaviors to aptly call them laws and formulate repeatable processes (which is remarkable in itself). Thats why I say physics won't tell you either way.

But that's just 3rd-grader God of the Gaps. Like a little kid, keep on asking 'But why?' until someone runs out of answers and says, "Cuz god said so, okay?'

It's not proof of a Creator, it's not evidence towards a Creator, it's just the limits of human knowledge giving way to a conventional stop-gap.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

'Physics' refers to the attributes and properties of matter/energy, which says nothing about the existence of a creator. Nor does it say that a creator is necessary.

Physics and creators are incompatible concepts anyway because creators have abracadabra powers that make physical laws meaningless. Why does Yahweh need fingernail clippers?

I don't know much about the concept you've magically introduced. I take it, you've not heard of the Creator created the physics concept, which is compatible.

You are the one introducing magical concepts, your creator has magical powers. You are claiming that your creator made physics and physical laws but isn't bound by them. In fact, it makes it's presence known by violating those laws using its abracadabra powers.

 

[steve_bank]

It has been raining buckets for the last several days in Seattle. I was up on the roof today drinking coffee and watching the rain.

Flooding, landslides, train tracks closed, roads closed..I suppose if I wrote in a notebook 'Oh god, the world is being flooded!' 3000 years later somebody who found my notebook might think I was saying god brought a deluge upon the Earth.

 

[Learner]

A completely "set and forget" god, whose last interaction with the universe was fourteen billion odd years ago, isn't physically impossible; Just pointless as an object of worship; implausible, unparsimonius and unprovable; and not the subject of any major world religions in human history.

The only purpose of such a hypothetical god is to kick the can down the road - I don't know why the universe exists; by saying 'because god', I now don't know why god exists, nor what god is, nor how or why it created a universe. That's not really an improvement on my original situation.

Also, I am inferring, this "set and forget" god is not the god you claim to believe in. So why mention it?

Why mention what? I'm saying that; to claim physics proves this is possible or impossible e.g. a creator eixisting, IS a knowledge claim that not even Dawkins knows about, from his scientist community connections in all various fields - otherwise he would have mentioned it. Also it would be a burden of proof to avoid wisely. Perhaps we are saying the same, at least here - not finding much while still in the learning and developing stages, kicking the can down the road.

 

[bilby]

A completely "set and forget" god, whose last interaction with the universe was fourteen billion odd years ago, isn't physically impossible; Just pointless as an object of worship; implausible, unparsimonius and unprovable; and not the subject of any major world religions in human history.

The only purpose of such a hypothetical god is to kick the can down the road - I don't know why the universe exists; by saying 'because god', I now don't know why god exists, nor what god is, nor how or why it created a universe. That's not really an improvement on my original situation.

Also, I am inferring, this "set and forget" god is not the god you claim to believe in. So why mention it?

Why mention what? I'm saying that; to claim physics proves this is possible or impossible e.g. a creator eixisting, IS a knowledge claim that not even Dawkins knows about, from his scientist community connections in all various fields - otherwise he would have mentioned it. Also it would be a burden of proof to avoid wisely. Perhaps we are saying the same, at least here - not finding much while still in the learning and developing stages, kicking the can down the road.

But you are moving the goalposts. A 'set and forget' creator god is not impossible; But the gods described by all Christian sects are, by definition, not just 'set and forget' creator gods - at the very least they manifested on Earth in some way in the form of Jesus Christ. Any religion that completely rules out any divinty for, or divine communication with, Christ is (by definition) not Christianity.

And Quantum Field Theory rules out such divinity or divine communication (for Jesus, or anyone else), just as thoroughly as Relativity and Gravitational Theory rules out rocks that fall upwards.

A creator god isn't impossible - just useless, as it fails to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which it purports to address.

But the idea that a creator implies, by its failure to be provably non-existent, that other traits associated by Christians with their god are also not disproven, is nonsensical.

YOUR god cannot exist. That's been proven to be true; Just as rocks that fall upwards have been proven not to exist. That a 'set and forget' creator god cannot be proven not to exist doesn't change that fact one iota.

 

[Learner]

But you are moving the goalposts. A 'set and forget' creator god is not impossible; But the gods described by all Christian sects are, by definition, not just 'set and forget' creator gods - at the very least they manifested on Earth in some way in the form of Jesus Christ. Any religion that completely rules out any divinty for, or divine communication with, Christ is (by definition) not Christianity.

I don't understand the logic. How does one experiment and come to conclusiions with divinity and Christ in the lab? Physics, regardless how far we have reached in this field , requires an actual specimen/ subject for study itself.

And Quantum Field Theory rules out such divinity or divine communication (for Jesus, or anyone else), just as thoroughly as Relativity and Gravitational Theory rules out rocks that fall upwards.

Gravitational theory doesn't tell you about the beyond classical physics - Quantum theory has never had a subject/ specimen of a divinity (to know what it is) to base the erroneus claim for proof.

A creator god isn't impossible - just useless, as it fails to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which it purports to address.

Thats a question both sides could ask.

But the idea that a creator implies, by its failure to be provably non-existent, that other traits associated by Christians with their god are also not disproven, is nonsensical.

YOUR god cannot exist. That's been proven to be true; Just as rocks that fall upwards have been proven not to exist. That a 'set and forget' creator god cannot be proven not to exist doesn't change that fact one iota.

It may seem like QT is your best argument (imo getting no-where). Lets put physics aside I say in general - for the moment at least- since it tells us zilch, BUT rather ... let us work with what we do have tangible in the bio-chemistry, archelological and historric areas!!

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't understand the logic. How does one experiment and come to conclusiions with divinity and Christ in the lab? Physics, regardless how far we have reached in this field , requires an actual specimen/ subject for study itself.

You misunderstand how science manages to understand how reality works. Testing a specific specimen, that no one can produce, in a lab is not required to verify or falsify claims of reality about a proposed specimen. We can know that a one liter bottle will not hold fifty liters of water with no laboratory testing needed. It is the one claiming to have such a magic bottle that needs to prove such a thing is possible.

The religious 'argue' by shifting the burden of proof. Claims of magic can be dismissed until the one making the claim demonstrate it.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't understand the logic. How does one experiment and come to conclusiions with divinity and Christ in the lab? Physics, regardless how far we have reached in this field , requires an actual specimen/ subject for study itself.

You may be confusing a personal opinion or conclusion of a scientist with science proper, which is based in observation experiment, and math.

Science does not address religion and existence of gods. Exceptions being some Christians scientists who try to prove religious claims, such as YEC. The Discovery Institute here in Seattle. Intelligent Design.

People with science background have non scientific opinions. They speak for themselves not 'science'.
or rejected
For a conclusion to be accepted by academic science takes time, but not always. Sometimes not. Periodically media reports a fantastic break-thru. In the 90s it was Cold Fusion which took about 3 days to refute, no one could reproduce the results.

Science can adress specific religious clams like YEC. Using standard widely used techniques YEC is proven wrong.

For decades academic science evaluated paranormal claims. None of it could be reproduced under controlled conditions.

Go into a lab and have prayer affect something above statistical averages and you might have something.

You keep posing the same question and get the same general response. Is any of it sinking in/

1. A conclusion by a scientist does not make it 'science'.
2. From a Koran translation science and religion cover different areas f human experience.
3. Science does not address existence of gods.


If faith was scientifically provable it would no longer be faith, it would be science.

 

[Learner]

You misunderstand how science manages to understand how reality works.

Reality as in classical material physics or the other "wierd physics" or both?

Testing a specific specimen, that no one can produce, in a lab is not required to verify or falsify claims of reality about a proposed specimen. We can know that a one liter bottle will not hold fifty liters of water with no laboratory testing needed. It is the one claiming to have such a magic bottle that needs to prove such a thing is possible.

Well yes, you have to see how such a claim is explained, but then if someone uses an analogy for example - taking to the concept, almost "magical-like" - when it's said that a particle can be in two places at the same time, then its not quite like your analogy the bottle in the lab. Wierd things are possible depending on the "maths", so to speak.

Not quite the reality we are used to observing "instantly" (if at all possible in this regard).

The religious 'argue' by shifting the burden of proof. Claims of magic can be dismissed until the one making the claim demonstrate it.

I know this happens, I suppose by Steve's example, some of these claims would be individual opinions.

 

[skepticalbip]

Reality as in classical material physics or the other "wierd physics" or both?

both

Well yes, you have to see how such a claim is explained, but then if someone uses an analogy for example - taking to the concept, almost "magical-like" - when it's said that a particle can be in two places at the same time, then its not quite like your analogy the bottle in the lab. Wierd things are possible depending on the "maths", so to speak.

Not quite the reality we are used to observing "instantly" (if at all possible in this regard).

Human-scale existence (like Jesus is claimed to have lived) is not the quantum world... it is claimed that people actually saw and communicated with him. Neither you nor anyone else has ever found their home, auto, or themselves in two places at the same time. Also the idea of a quantum particle being in two places at once is an attempt to describe QM in a way that those not familiar with it can picture. A likely more accurate description would be Schrodinger's model of particles existing in a smeared probability space. But then those who know diddly-squat about QM could not mentally image a smeared probability space.

Why is it that woo advocates so often appeal to QM when it is so obvious by their appeal that they have no understanding whatsoever of QM? The 'weirdness' you are talking about would be like trying to measure the width of your computer monitor in centimeters to thirty-five decimal places. The fact that the right edge of the monitor can not be measured to that precision because of quantum uncertainty does not mean that your monitor is in two places at once on the human-scale. Also, the fact that your monitor's dimensions can not be precisely measured to thirty-five decimal places does not mean that it can't be precisely measured to two decimal places.

The religious 'argue' by shifting the burden of proof. Claims of magic can be dismissed until the one making the claim demonstrate it.

I know this happens, I suppose by Steve's example, some of these claims would be individual opinions.

???

 

[Learner]

both

Thank you for making it clear.

Human-scale existence (like Jesus is claimed to have lived) is not the quantum world.

On the human-scale. How quaint We have some unique restrictions, even if we need not believe in such an entity, we must however deny the concept that such an individual - who is not quite an ordinary human, should also fall in to this human-scale catergory, even if this were a hypotheical Jesus described in the bible, who lived and lived again.

Flawed thinking imo if you are saying the quantum world is therefore seperate and has no affect what-so-ever on the material world. Would God in your calculations then mean, God should be factored in on the human-scale? (Considering if you were entertaining this thought exercise)

You nor anyone else has ever found their home, auto, or themselves in two places at the same time. Also the idea of a quantum particle being in two places at once is an attempt to describe QM in a way that those not familiar with it can picture. A likely more accurate description would be Schrodinger's model of particles existing in a smeared probability space. But then those who know diddly-squat about QM could not mentally image a smeared probability space.

Hmmm I'm sure this was demonstrated in the double slit experiment IIRC - one electron at a time giving indications that individual electrons went through the two slits at the same time, although direct observation at the time, seemed impossible. Perhaps theres been updates since then. Anyway I was talking about the quantum world being a different to the normal observable world.

Why is it that woo advocates so often appeal to QM when it is so obvious by their appeal that they have no understanding whatsoever of QM? The 'weirdness' you are talking about would be like trying to measure the width of your computer monitor in centimeters to thirty-five decimal places. The fact that the right edge of the monitor can not be measured to that precision because of quantum uncertainty does not mean that your monitor is in two places at once on the human-scale.

I'm not appealing to QM, especially when I say: I don't think we know enough to say either way. Anyway, observations can only be done on the human-scale, formulating maths to fit ideas beyond that, can produce many worlds and dimensions. Reminds me of John Lennox a mathematics proffessor who once said something relating to reality and that "numbers are not real things!"

 

[skepticalbip]

Thank you for making it clear.

On the human-scale. How quaint We have some unique restrictions, even if we need not believe in such an entity, we must however deny the concept that such an individual - who is not quite an ordinary human, should also fall in to this human-scale catergory, even if this were a hypotheical Jesus described in the bible, who lived and lived again.

Flawed thinking imo if you are saying the quantum world is therefore seperate and has no affect what-so-ever on the material world. Would God in your calculations then mean, God should be factored in on the human-scale? (Considering if you were entertaining this thought exercise)

You nor anyone else has ever found their home, auto, or themselves in two places at the same time. Also the idea of a quantum particle being in two places at once is an attempt to describe QM in a way that those not familiar with it can picture. A likely more accurate description would be Schrodinger's model of particles existing in a smeared probability space. But then those who know diddly-squat about QM could not mentally image a smeared probability space.

Hmmm I'm sure this was demonstrated in the double slit experiment IIRC - one electron at a time giving indications that the electron went through the two slits, although direct observation at the time, seemed imopposible. Anyway I was talking about the quantum world being a different to the normal observable world.

Why is it that woo advocates so often appeal to QM when it is so obvious by their appeal that they have no understanding whatsoever of QM? The 'weirdness' you are talking about would be like trying to measure the width of your computer monitor in centimeters to thirty-five decimal places. The fact that the right edge of the monitor can not be measured to that precision because of quantum uncertainty does not mean that your monitor is in two places at once on the human-scale.

I'm not appealing to QM, especially when I say: I don't think we know enough to say either way. Anyway, observations can only be done on the human-scale, formulating maths to fit ideas beyond that, can produce many worlds and dimensions. Reminds me of John Lennox the matematician saying numbers are not real things!

You are trying to make, or maybe believe, that QM (which you obviously know diddly-squat about) supports some sort of mystical belief you hold. It doesn't. The fact that you don't understand doesn't mean that it is magic... it only means you don't understand.

 

[Learner]

You are trying to make, or maybe believe, that QM (which you obviously know diddly-squat about) supports some sort of mystical belief you hold. It doesn't. The fact that you don't understand doesn't mean that it is magic... it only means you don't understand.

Erm.. no. That what you maintain I believe. I'm not a fan of the QMT. I used to be interested some years ago. I'm saying we won't get anywhere, back and forth, at the moment with this branch of physics.