Why is there Something Instead of God?

[Learner]

What exactly is the nature of this ''non physical matter?'' As the word ''matter'' means something detectable, something that interacts with something else, your term appears to be self contradictory.

Isn't it the latest idea that energy is the "fundamental" for physical mass? Its not detectable (energy/forces invisible ) but its deduced from what is ,possible to detect.

 

[DBT]

What exactly is the nature of this ''non physical matter?'' As the word ''matter'' means something detectable, something that interacts with something else, your term appears to be self contradictory.

Isn't it the latest idea that energy is the "fundamental" for physical mass? Its not detectable (energy/forces invisible ) but its deduced from what is ,possible to detect.

Energy, by definition implies detectability because what we call 'energy' acts upon physical structures, objects, systems. But where is this spirit to matter connection to be found? How does it work? What is the nature of this non physical 'stuff' (for want of a better word)?

 

[Learner]

Energy, by definition implies detectability because what we call 'energy' acts upon physical structures, objects, systems. But where is this spirit to matter connection to be found? How does it work? What is the nature of this non physical 'stuff' (for want of a better word)?

Well, at least I can see there's no contradiction to the bible in your post. How to explain "for or against" with QM is indeed the question. I certainly can't with QM.

What is the nature of this non physical 'stuff

The obvious would probably be sub-levels of something energy (for lack of better wording) imho though logically limited.

(got do a job)

 

[Juma]

Is it really the worst? How does QM contradict the bible? How does one even use the theory of QM processes to debunk anything to do with human history?



I just mentioned the minimum matter and beyond that , the logical understanding can "only" be energy and not "total or complete nothing".

On the contrary: QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossibke etc
So you loose.

I wonder how one would formulate such a devisive experiment , I say this because QM or experiments like for example: Higgs field is still fairly new.

And your answers is even more clueless... hilarious...
Nobody has shown that there is a smallest part of matter. That is just wrong.
IF we find that there is a smallest part of matter then there is absolutely problem that there is nothing smaller.

I (and bilby) have already explained to you how QM/QFT show that gods (hearing prayers etc) is impossible.
But since you never listen it is no use to do it again.

 

[DBT]

Energy, by definition implies detectability because what we call 'energy' acts upon physical structures, objects, systems. But where is this spirit to matter connection to be found? How does it work? What is the nature of this non physical 'stuff' (for want of a better word)?

Well, at least I can see there's no contradiction to the bible in your post. How to explain "for or against" with QM is indeed the question. I certainly can't with QM.

What is the nature of this non physical 'stuff

The obvious would probably be sub-levels of something energy (for lack of better wording) imho though logically limited.

(got do a job)

You say that there is no contradiction between Biblical Creation and quantum but you have not described why. This needs to be described.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, at least I can see there's no contradiction to the bible in your post. How to explain "for or against" with QM is indeed the question. I certainly can't with QM.

The obvious would probably be sub-levels of something energy (for lack of better wording) imho though logically limited.

(got do a job)

You say that there is no contradiction between Biblical Creation and quantum but you have not described why. This needs to be described.

Because dimensions like time break down at the quantum level, which is why God was able to create the world and all the plants and stuff in the days before he created the Sun, instead of billions of years afterwards. Also, because once you use the word "quantum" in a sentence, you get to give your position all the validity of the scientific process without the need to go through all the rigor which has made the scientific process legitimate - and that's important in an argument because going through all that rigor can be quite hard.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it's quite compatible with biblical creation.
Wanna argue over how the Genesis creation account should be interpreted?
You start.

It's your claim. Being your claim, you should explain how quantum is compatible with biblical creation.

Actually you were the one who claimed they were incompatible.
I see no incompatibilities so feel free to show me one.

- - - Updated - - -

Spontaneous (uncaused/self-forming) or intentional (teleology/design)?
Hmmm.
Which one do you think I'm proposing?

I know what you believe. But what you happened to say was - ''Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred'' - which is not actually compatible with Biblical Creation, nor does in come from the bible.

Show me.

 

[Jobar]

QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossible etc

Not to side with Lion or Learner here, but as stated, that's incorrect. Say rather, to paraphrase Laplace, quantum mechanics has no need of the 'god' hypothesis, at our present level of understanding. However, given that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, I'd avoid tossing around words like 'impossible'.

I do agree that science in general is incompatible with miracles; i.e. if there are miracles then science is rendered unintelligible, and if our understanding of science is true, miracles cannot exist. And although there are still mysteries which science is not yet capable of solving, still there is no evidence or plain examples of anything miraculous.

 

[George S]

QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossible etc

Not to side with Lion or Learner here, but as stated, that's incorrect. Say rather, to paraphrase Laplace, quantum mechanics has no need of the 'god' hypothesis, at our present level of understanding. However, given that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, I'd avoid tossing around words like 'impossible'.

I do agree that science in general is incompatible with miracles; i.e. if there are miracles then science is rendered unintelligible, and if our understanding of science is true, miracles cannot exist. And although there are still mysteries which science is not yet capable of solving, still there is no evidence or plain examples of anything miraculous.

The very definition of "miracle" is an event that is impossible under natural law. Or if you wish to prove yourself a god, defeat the Goddess Mother Nature. She is the Oracle of Truth. (As with all oracles she is known to give true yet misleading answers. That is why the scientific 'method' exists.) She has but one commandment: My Way or not at all. She doesn't give a damn nor blessing favoring no tribe over another. She nurtures all living things and kills them every one.

 

[bilby]

QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossible etc

Not to side with Lion or Learner here, but as stated, that's incorrect. Say rather, to paraphrase Laplace, quantum mechanics has no need of the 'god' hypothesis, at our present level of understanding. However, given that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, I'd avoid tossing around words like 'impossible'.

I do agree that science in general is incompatible with miracles; i.e. if there are miracles then science is rendered unintelligible, and if our understanding of science is true, miracles cannot exist. And although there are still mysteries which science is not yet capable of solving, still there is no evidence or plain examples of anything miraculous.

No, Juma is correct; Our options, given the state of the art right now, are EITHER to conclude that the afterlife, miracles, and souls are impossible; OR that the Standard Model is not just wrong, but wildly and completely wrong.

As the afterlife, miracles and souls have not even been rigorously described, much less demonstrated; And as the Standard Model is the best tested and most accurate model of physical reality ever, it is only invalid to claim that miracles are impossible if you set a value for 'impossible' that excludes everything. Or, to put it another way, it is VASTLY more likely that the Moon is, in fact, made of cheese than it is that miracles, the afterlife, and/or souls exist.

Only ignorance of the science, or an extraordinary devotion to the most pedantic definition of 'impossible', can allow us to claim that the supernatural can possibly influence physical reality.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

Anyone who rejects the Selenotyroic Hypothesis* on the basis that science disproves it, must also reject miracles, souls and the afterlife.








* From the Greek 'Selenos' (moon) and 'Tyros' (cheese), the Selenotyroic Hypothesis ought to be the name for the idea that the Moon is made from cheese, and as there isn't currently a fancy-sounding name for this notion as far as I am aware, I have made my own. Feel free to use it elsewhere.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossible etc

Not to side with Lion or Learner here, but as stated, that's incorrect. Say rather, to paraphrase Laplace, quantum mechanics has no need of the 'god' hypothesis, at our present level of understanding. However, given that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, I'd avoid tossing around words like 'impossible'.

I do agree that science in general is incompatible with miracles; i.e. if there are miracles then science is rendered unintelligible, and if our understanding of science is true, miracles cannot exist. And although there are still mysteries which science is not yet capable of solving, still there is no evidence or plain examples of anything miraculous.

The very definition of "miracle" is an event that is impossible under natural law. Or if you wish to prove yourself a god, defeat the Goddess Mother Nature. She is the Oracle of Truth. (As with all oracles she is known to give true yet misleading answers. That is why the scientific 'method' exists.) She has but one commandment: My Way or not at all. She doesn't give a damn nor blessing favoring no tribe over another. She nurtures all living things and kills them every one.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but miracle is a pretty new word in the english language. To project our understanding of the word miracle back into ancient texts is to commit an anachronism. Signs and wonders often gets translated as miracles when they are two different things.

 

[Juma]

QM (QFT) has shown that gods are impossible, that miracles are impossible etc

Not to side with Lion or Learner here, but as stated, that's incorrect. Say rather, to paraphrase Laplace, quantum mechanics has no need of the 'god' hypothesis, at our present level of understanding. However, given that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, I'd avoid tossing around words like 'impossible'.

I do agree that science in general is incompatible with miracles; i.e. if there are miracles then science is rendered unintelligible, and if our understanding of science is true, miracles cannot exist. And although there are still mysteries which science is not yet capable of solving, still there is no evidence or plain examples of anything miraculous.

QM and (QFM) rules out that there is any unknown forces that can affect us on an everyday scale.
I

 

[DBT]

Actually you were the one who claimed they were incompatible.
I see no incompatibilities so feel free to show me one.

- - - Updated - - -

Spontaneous (uncaused/self-forming) or intentional (teleology/design)?
Hmmm.
Which one do you think I'm proposing?

I know what you believe. But what you happened to say was - ''Science is discovering that the line between detectable something and invisible nothing is blurred'' - which is not actually compatible with Biblical Creation, nor does in come from the bible.

Show me.

The Bible claims Magic, not quantum, the world being created by the 'Word'' of God. The Word was not quantum. The descriptions are not even scientific, there are contradictions and absurdities in the biblical account of Creation. An Omniscient/Omnipotent God who is said the have inspired scripture made no mention of fundamental particles, wave function, superposition, or anything related to QM.....that was discovered by Science and now being attempted to incorporate into an ancient creation myth.

It doesn't work.

Being an claim, it can be as easily claimed that QM is compatible with the Rainbow Serpent....

 

[Lion IRC]

The bible does NOT claim magic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The bible does NOT claim magic.

Which is a fair point. Magic is using extra-dimensional energy to perform actions which are in violation of natural law. Since the definition of natural law is "whatever God says natural law is", then anything he does is, by definition, not a violation of natural law and therefore not magical.

However, when he was creating all of the animals, he did have one of the angels give a drum roll while he pulled the first rabbit out of a hat, so that was kind of doing magic.

 

[Learner]

The very definition of "miracle" is an event that is impossible under natural law. Or if you wish to prove yourself a god, defeat the Goddess Mother Nature. She is the Oracle of Truth. (As with all oracles she is known to give true yet misleading answers. That is why the scientific 'method' exists.) She has but one commandment: My Way or not at all. She doesn't give a damn nor blessing favoring no tribe over another. She nurtures all living things and kills them every one.

Considering if accepting the definition of "miracle" then the definition (concept) of a Creator who "created" the natural laws and universe in the first place, is not problematiic in concept (as the theology goes).

 

[Learner]

No, Juma is correct; Our options, given the state of the art right now, are EITHER to conclude that the afterlife, miracles, and souls are impossible; OR that the Standard Model is not just wrong, but wildly and completely wrong.

How about the options of the large gaps

As the afterlife, miracles and souls have not even been rigorously described, much less demonstrated; And as the Standard Model is the best tested and most accurate model of physical reality ever, it is only invalid to claim that miracles are impossible if you set a value for 'impossible' that excludes everything. Or, to put it another way, it is VASTLY more likely that the Moon is, in fact, made of cheese than it is that miracles, the afterlife, and/or souls exist.

So.... if the standard model is that good ...surely it can be easier to tell uss for sure if there is other "physical" intelligent life and civilizations existing out there (or not).

Some moons out there "MUST be made of cheese by your strong POV of the miracles ,afterlife etc..

 

[George S]

The very definition of "miracle" is an event that is impossible under natural law. Or if you wish to prove yourself a god, defeat the Goddess Mother Nature. She is the Oracle of Truth. (As with all oracles she is known to give true yet misleading answers. That is why the scientific 'method' exists.) She has but one commandment: My Way or not at all. She doesn't give a damn nor blessing favoring no tribe over another. She nurtures all living things and kills them every one.

Considering if accepting the definition of "miracle" then the definition (concept) of a Creator who "created" the natural laws and universe in the first place, is not problematiic in concept (as the theology goes).

Theology. The study of gods. With the existence of more than one god what is or is not a miracle becomes problematic. Shall we go with only one Creator god?
I will offer Mother Nature as the single Goddess. The thing is, She is quite unconscious. Having done the deed and turned on Our Universe She fell asleep. Where there was nothing before there was the tiniest of baby universes. So small and all; it was at the minimum size -- so close to non-existent only a god could tell the difference. It behaved, then, in a certain way. "Certain" in the sense of inevitability. Its first behavior was to grow and expand over time. A sphere whose radius expands at one second per second in the time dimension along with expansion in the space dimension.
This is the minimalist version of the Deist god. The Deists who wrote the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution included in "Nature's God" the concept of "Divine Providence." That is, Nature's God left in place Divine Good Luck for certain people. All rulers rule by Divine Providence -- by the Will of God.
Opinion:(Theology, as a science, is uppity. Like a raccoon making a study of humans.)

 

[bilby]

No, Juma is correct; Our options, given the state of the art right now, are EITHER to conclude that the afterlife, miracles, and souls are impossible; OR that the Standard Model is not just wrong, but wildly and completely wrong.

How about the options of the large gaps

The only gaps are larger than solar systems and smaller than atoms. Any forces we don't know about can only act at those scales. Humans are well within the range where no gaps are possible; So no unknown forces can exist that can influence individual humans.

To get sufficient subatomic interaction to have a noticeable effect on a single human cell would require enough energy to vaporise the person involved.

A large scale unknown force would affect all humans equally and very (read immeasurably) weakly.

Neither is capable of acting at the scale necessary to allow any hypothetical 'soul' to influence or be influenced in any way by our physical bodies or brains.

As the afterlife, miracles and souls have not even been rigorously described, much less demonstrated; And as the Standard Model is the best tested and most accurate model of physical reality ever, it is only invalid to claim that miracles are impossible if you set a value for 'impossible' that excludes everything. Or, to put it another way, it is VASTLY more likely that the Moon is, in fact, made of cheese than it is that miracles, the afterlife, and/or souls exist.

So.... if the standard model is that good ...surely it can be easier to tell uss for sure if there is other "physical" intelligent life and civilizations existing out there (or not).

No, not at all. Why would you think it should be? It's science, not magic; It can't do things just because you can imagine them or think they would be 'cool'.

The Selenotyroic Hypothesis is just an example of an idea so unlikely that we are justified in saying that it is impossible. And it is FAR more likely than the existence of souls, or supernatural influences on individual humans.

Some moons out there "MUST be made of cheese by your strong POV of the miracles ,afterlife etc..

This is stupidity on the scale of 'If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys' level.

If you want to understand the implications of QFT and/or the Standard Model, then learn about it. It's not arcane, hidden or secret knowledge, it's out there for anyone who cares to learn about it. Making uninformed guesses about what it 'must' imply is just pointless and moronic.

 

[abaddon]

...Making uninformed guesses about what it 'must' imply is just pointless and moronic.

I guess the point is, if he can make everything possible "in concept" then he can believe anything he wants.