Religion II

[hcap]

Are you telling me the Casimer effect does not describe virtual particles popping in and out of existence randomly?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...m/casimir.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...which of my premises in 5736 is invalid? Number 2?

Precisely! Because it is neither an axiom nor a previously proven theorem. If you want to use that as a premise then you must first prove it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

See how duplicitous you are! You have been touting an eternal universal for a long time now on this thread and the old one -- as though YOU KNEW something. Now...you don't know?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is supreme. Or, as Socrates put it, "the only thing I know is that I know nothing." You cannot prove that you are anything more than a speck of dust floating in an empty universe. Nor can you prove you are not a brain in a vat or a computer simulation.

What I have proposed are possibilities, not certainties. All of human knowledge is uncertain.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, premise begs the question. In atheistic materialism, it is implicitly understood that the cause for a finite universe must be natural, which precludes any possibility for a transcendent (supernatural) cause. (In other words the "crime" took place "inside the room , not outside of it.) Therefore, the the natural cause must be by, in or of the universe (i.e. the room) itself. Ergo, the universe caused itself.

Special Pleading! You insist on a "cause" from "outside the room" yet reject the multiverse theory out of hand.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

See how duplicitous you are!

Ad hominem!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Precisely! Because it is neither an axiom nor a previously proven theorem. If you want to use that as a premise then you must first prove it.

Are you denying that Materialism is a bona fide philosophy?

Are you denying that the universe can be fully explained and understood by the laws of physics, Mr. physicist?

And you denying that you don't believe that this universe consists of matter, it's movements and it modifications? In other words, in this physical universe, you're denying that its origin and existence are entirely explainable in physical terms, without any accounting for spirit or consciousness?

And since you say that my second premise is "neither an axiom nor a previously proven theorem", then how do you account for your belief in atheistic evolution?

Aside from the hybrid Religious Naturalism (Deism, Theistic Naturalism, etc.), there are only three other possible views to account for the universe's origin: a) Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism, b) Supernaturalism or c) Panspermia. To which of these do you subscribe?

Finally, I don't have to prove anything because premise #2 assumes your belief in one of the three above mentioned views, i.e specifically Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism. The only way #2 can be in error is if you deny that you no longer hold to that view. And this is what we're talking about here: Philosophies or Worldviews.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Special Pleading! You insist on a "cause" from "outside the room" yet reject the multiverse theory out of hand.

The Multiverse hypothesis is exceeding lame and most scientists don't believe it. (Yeah, I know Hawking did. Big deal!)

Secondly, even if we were to go with that hypothesis, that would not help you because it only pushes the question of origins farther back! You would still need to account for the origin of all those multiverses, for which there is no shred of evidence for their existence.

Come talk to me again about the existence of multiverses when they're observed. Meanwhile, let's stick with this universe which is observable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Are you telling me the Casimer effect does not describe virtual particles popping in and out of existence randomly?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...m/casimir.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

What I'm telling you is that no one reaches the conclusion that you have -- that these "virtual particles" violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

I have a question for you Mr. "science wiz": If I were to say, "At precisely 5 P.M. tonight I was inside and outside my house, would such a statement violate the Law of Noncontradiction?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Secondly, even if we were to go with that hypothesis, that would not help you because it only pushes the question of origins farther back!

And even if we were to go with your hypothesis, that would not help you because it only pushes the question of origins farther back! In other words, what (or who) created God?

Originally Posted by boxcar

You would still need to account for the origin of all those multiverses, for which there is no shred of evidence for their existence.

And you still need to account for the origin of the supernatural, for which there is no shred of evidence for its existence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Come talk to me again about the existence of multiverses when they're observed. Meanwhile, let's stick with this universe which is observable.

Come talk to me again about the supernatural when it's been observed. Meanwhile, let's stick with this universe which is observable.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... what we're talking about here: Philosophies or Worldviews.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What I'm telling you is that no one reaches the conclusion that you have -- that these "virtual particles" violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

I have a question for you Mr. "science wiz": If I were to say, "At precisely 5 P.M. tonight I was inside and outside my house, would such a statement violate the Law of Noncontradiction?

The way you interpret the Law of Non contradiction, means quantum mechanics, the sub atomic world, and all the experimental evidence since the the early 1900's by renowned physicists does not exist.

As I said, the cold war after WWII, the continuing presence of nuclear weapons, the electronics industry, modern automobiles, the computer on your desk, cellphones would be almost as infantile as your 17th century science.

Don't feel too bad Einstein at first could not accept quantum physics. He famously said "god does not play dice with the universe".

Wound up shooting craps with his version of Spinoza's pantheistic god.

Einstein responded to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist. He explained:

"May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

Instead of limiting himself to mouthing poorly grasped pseudo-intellectual "laws", he chose to hold apparently opposing views in his mind together.



The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

F. Scott Fitzgerald

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The way you interpret the Law of Non contradiction, means quantum mechanics, the sub atomic world, and all the experimental evidence since the the early 1900's by renowned physicists does not exist.

No, it doesn't, it just means that some in the pop science culture wrongly interpret the results of probability amplitudes. Just remember: Possibility is not Actuality.

Now...answer my question. Here it is again: If I were to say that at precisely 5 P.M yesterday I was standing inside and outside my house, would this necessarily constitute a contradiction?

Also, REAL science (not the pop culture junk you latch onto) -- but real scientists understand that real science can never violate the laws of logic because to actually do science requires the use of sound logic. : Science did not invent logic, nor does logic find its ground in science. It's the other way around.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And even if we were to go with your hypothesis, that would not help you because it only pushes the question of origins farther back! In other words, what (or who) created God?

And you still need to account for the origin of the supernatural, for which there is no shred of evidence for its existence.

Come talk to me again about the supernatural when it's been observed. Meanwhile, let's stick with this universe which is observable.

Try to stay focused, Sparky. We're talking about YOUR worldview. Biblical Theism is NOT a self-defeating worldview, and we can discuss that later. But right now answer my questions in 5766 because you claimed that my second premise in my syllogism was not valid. So I need to know why.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And even if we were to go with your hypothesis, that would not help you because it only pushes the question of origins farther back! In other words, what (or who) created God?

And you still need to account for the origin of the supernatural, for which there is no shred of evidence for its existence.

Come talk to me again about the supernatural when it's been observed. Meanwhile, let's stick with this universe which is observable.

I don't have to account for anything. We're discussing YOUR worldview, which you claim is not self-defeating. I have shown in my syllogism in 5736 that atheistic materialism in a finite model of the universe is self-refuting. But you haven't done anything to show me how I'm wrong, except whine about my second premise, which only exalted Physicality to a god-like status, since there is nothing more than the Physical in this universe, according to you. So...how is my second premise invalid with respect to your atheist materialism?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, it doesn't, it just means that some in the pop science culture wrongly interpret the results of probability amplitudes. Just remember: Possibility is not Actuality.

Now...answer my question. Here it is again: If I were to say that at precisely 5 P.M yesterday I was standing inside and outside my house, would this necessarily constitute a contradiction?

Also, REAL science (not the pop culture junk you latch onto) -- but real scientists understand that real science can never violate the laws of logic because to actually do science requires the use of sound logic. : Science did not invent logic, nor does logic find its ground in science. It's the other way around.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

The same sense requires that the laws governing both the sub atomic and Macroscopic realms to operate in the same way (sense). They do not.

The "same time" is not easily definable when "same time" is dealing with almost instantaneous subdivisions which we cannot observe as easily as the human scale of events. On the sub atomic quantum flux time scale, a quantum fluctuation is a temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval. The concept of "same time" observed on the macroscopic scale cannot be easily transferred to the quantum level.

Need I remind you of Einstein referring to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance")where "entangled particles influence each other over huge distances instantaneously.

So because 2 of the terms of the law of non-contradiction you worship, do not hold up, the "contradictory statements" become too murky to define as clearly contradictory.