Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Have I misjudged my audience? You appear to know about it.
Define the term.
Is it?
Good question. If you are willing to accept "within a range" then I would say yes.

Atomic nuclei decay "at random," meaning that the moment of a particular nuclei's decay cannot be known. Yet in a large sample we can accurately predict how many nuclei will decay over a given time. Google "half-life."

Because I know about it, does not mean everyone knows about it.

Superposition: existing into states at the same time both particle and wave, i.e. Schrodinger's cat.

Within in a range, is great. Sort of like HalvOnHorseracing joke about deer hunting statisticians. They got the deer on average.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Because I know about it, does not mean everyone knows about it.

I'll add an addendum to my Science series.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Superposition: existing into states at the same time both particle and wave, i.e. Schrodinger's cat.

You mean wave-particle duality?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Within in a range, is great. Sort of like HalvOnHorseracing joke about deer hunting statisticians. They got the deer on average.

The joke may be funny but in real life no statistician would say that based on only two data points.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For what purpose? To jump on your merry-go-round? But we all know that as an atheist you must believe that the natural laws of physics can explain the origin of the universe.. You believe this, and we all know it. Now...you have to tell me how the implications to that, i.e. the universe caused itself into existence, does not violate the law of noncontradiction. How can a thing exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense? How can a universe not exist and at the same time must exist in order to bring itself into existence?

What part of "the universe always existed" don't you understand?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'll add an addendum to my Science series.
You mean wave-particle duality?
The joke may be funny but in real life no statistician would say that based on only two data points.

Yes, if you prefer, wave-particle duality.

The point of the funny joke is it is in the range. The range is not good enough for certainty.

Predicting how many will decay is vastly different than knowing the moment of a particular nuclei's decay

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Yes, if you prefer, wave-particle duality.

What about it?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The point of the funny joke is it is in the range. The range is not good enough for certainty.

The point of quantum mechanics is that there is no such thing as certainty. Plus the two points in the joke are not a range but are two certain points. Quantum mechanics makes a distinction.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Predicting how many will decay is vastly different than knowing the moment of a particular nuclei's decay

I already said that.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

What about it?
The point of quantum mechanics is that there is no such thing as certainty. Plus the two points in the joke are not a range but are two certain points. Quantum mechanics makes a distinction.
I already said that.

What about it? Randomness question.

No you did not say what I said.

You stated:

Good question. If you are willing to accept "within a range" then I would say yes.

Atomic nuclei decay "at random," meaning that the moment of a particular nuclei's decay cannot be known. Yet in a large sample we can accurately predict how many nuclei will decay over a given time. Google "half-life."

Are you saying, by your above quoted statements, an average(I don't care how many points are used) qualifies as having certainty?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Are you not saying an average, (I don't care how many points are used) we have certainty?

No.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For what purpose? To jump on your merry-go-round? But we all know that as an atheist you must believe that the natural laws of physics can explain the origin of the universe.. You believe this, and we all know it. Now...you have to tell me how the implications to that, i.e. the universe caused itself into existence, does not violate the law of noncontradiction. How can a thing exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense? How can a universe not exist and at the same time must exist in order to bring itself into existence?

Obviously you know that there are questions that you cannot answer even if we accept your hypothesis.

Good night.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What part of "the universe always existed" don't you understand?

Then you still have problems with the laws of logic, which I explained to you and Vig several times. If the universe is eternal and self-existent then this is the very essence of the universe. This is what the universe IS. But yet, what we see is the universe going in and out of existence. What is pure existence cannot have potentiality to change. Since the universe has potentiality to change, it cannot be said with certainty that it doesn't also have potentiality to cease to exist; therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the universe is a self-existing, eternal entity. In fact, since the the universe is filled with change, it cannot be said with certainty either that this universe wasn't acted upon by a force or entity external to itself that is the ultimate cause for all this change that we constantly witness. The Change that we witness every day must be logically accounted for; yet there is no way to account for this other than resort to the absurd conclusion of infinite regression -- a non-answer if there ever was one.

A self-existing, eternal universe model runs headlong into the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. In this theory, A is A and is also B! And this violates the Law of Identity. For your theory to work, the universe would have to be immutable, which clearly it is not.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

No.

What is the relevance then? Remember, the issue is predetermination, so how does your statement about knowing a range fit, concerning the issue?

[boxcar]

I typed that response in a hurry to HOH and got sloppy. I said in 2024 at one point: It did not have to exist and not exist at the same instant of time. What I really should have said pertaining to the theistic model is that unlike the "spontaneous existence" model the universe did not have to exist at the same time and in the same sense (or in the same respect). And it's right here that accounts for how the theistic model does not violate the law of non-contradiction. In the theistic model, the sense [of causation] differs greatly from the atheistic evolutionary one. For in the theistic model the existence is accounted for by an external cause to the thing being created; whereas in atheistic naturalism, the cause for the existence of the universe is found within itself. The nature of the causes (the senses), therefore, are very different which accounts for why atheistic naturalism is a self-defeating worldview, whereas theistic creationism is not.

Sorry for the confusion my 2024 might have caused.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Where your thesis fails is that with the "spontaneous existence" of the universe, it caused itself to exist. This is clearly a violation of the law of noncontradiction. Conversely, with the theistic model of creationism, the Eternal, Self-Existing Creator is outside the universe; therefore, the cause of the universe is external to itself. This being the case, there is no violation of the law of noncontradiction; for a transcendent, intelligent, self-existing, eternal being who has always existed (redundancy intentional) can choose to create or not create a reality external to himself. Unlike, the "spontaneous existence" model, in the theistic model the external reality did not have to exist "before" it existed, i.e. it did not have to create or cause itself. It did not have to exist and not exist at the same instant of time. Since God always exists, God at any moment can call something that is external to himself into existence that was not.

Well you needed to read the whole post.

First, it wasn't my thesis. It was the thesis presented by others, and not without some real scientific basis. My thesis was that we can get back to nanoseconds after the universe came into existence, but we cannot yet get to a time before that. I don't know what happened. No one does for sure, except in their own mind. My thinking allows for an outside force, although with the assumption the universe evolved as science describes it from that early nanosecond to the present. As long as the science version of the universe from the big bang to the present is seen as correct, it is a matter of speculation how the space and matter occurred, and until science can offer a useful alternative, believe what you want about how the space and matter appeared. What you could not convince any physicist is that the Genesis story is literal. There is (literally) mountains of evidence for the age of the universe, and it is a number many orders of magnitude beyond 6,000 years. And other than Genesis, there is not any physical proof that the age of the earth is only 6,000 years.

But second, the idea of the universe starting from nothing is potentially explained by your explanation that the Creator existed in a universe other than ours. What you have suggested is the existence of a multi-verse of universes. That leads to an interesting picture of the big bang that perhaps our universe was born from the collision of two universes (also known as the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. If you understood the physics and the math (which you won't because you don't research anything that contradicts your thinking), you'd realize that it does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes.

Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, and assume the bubble is expanding. We would live on the skin of this bubble. String theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, and these bubbles can collide with other bubbles, or even sprout baby bubbles. Think of a bubble bath. All those bubbles moving around in the tub.

So universes may be created all the time and not necessarily by an external creator. But in any of those three speculations I offered, the law of non-contradiction is not violated, and that includes the spontaneous creation of our universe. In each of those three speculations, at no time did our universe exist before it existed. With no insult meant, you do not understand the theoretical physics, and that led you to the erroneous conclusion that it is impossible to have no universe and then a universe without the intercession of a supreme creator or a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

You can be a naturalist from the point of the big bang forward and not necessarily be an atheist. You can believe that the supreme being started our universe. You just can't be a Genesis-style creationist.

In the end, you have a theory that works for you, but no proof beyond the book. Scientists have a myriad of theories, none of which have been proved correct or incorrect as well. The fact is that even if a scientist believes the creator theory is a low probability, it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest it has no probability. Similarly, even if the creationist believes string theory or the multi-verse theory is a low probability, it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest it has no probability. Same coin, two sides. I get that you can't get past your faith. But if you want to dispute the science, you first need to understand the science as well as the scientists do. Otherwise you are at the same disadvantage as anyone who would go toe to toe with you on Bible verses.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Actor

The joke may be funny but in real life no statistician would say that based on only two data points.

Hence the use of the term joke.

I have a friend who is a chemist. So I send this joke.

Willie was a Chemist,
But Willie is no more,
What Willie thought was H20
Was H2SO4.

The response I get back is, did you ever open a vial of sulfuric acid? Nobody would mistake it for water.

Funny is always relative, but I have empirical evidence my statistician/deer joke kills in the right group.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

you'd realize that it does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes.

It doesn't? Can you expand on that because it is my understanding that matter is transformed energy.
I believe that Einstein thought that as well.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In fact, since the the universe is filled with change, it cannot be said with certainty either that this universe wasn't acted upon by a force or entity external to itself that is the ultimate cause for all this change that we constantly witness.

So the Jedi could be right!