Atoms as God

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I and that other great mind Einstein (peace be upon him), beg to differ, for i will say it again, 'God did not play dice with the universe'.😀

You clearly misunderstood Einstein - who was wrong anyway as pointed out by Stephen Hawking (may his name be praised) - and was talking about a different God than yours.
Whatever the case, you still don't have a valid argument when you claim that the laws of physics appear to be inherently lucky.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you notice, the statement was in the form of a question, a rhetorical question, granted it is quite impossible to here the incredulity of voice inflections through text, never the less, as it is, if you want to attribute it to luck, then by my guest! but don't expect others to follow, as for your argument that we are sitting here because we are lucky, pah! i treat it with equal contempt! spit ding! 🙂

Ah, you are not understanding me properly...

If universe was such that it couldn't support life. Then are the people in this universe lucky or unlucky? Answer: Neither. They don't exist, therefore they cannot have any feelings atall. There are no they.
Luckily this universe can support life. Is that lucky for us or is it unlucky? This you have to answer yoruself.

So telling that we are lucky because we exist, is somewhoat circular. And a bit hunourous too.
That we exist is not in itself a good proof that universe is created by a god of some kind. Nor a proof that god exist.

You introduced the word luck, not me, retorically or not. Personally luck has no meaning at all in this context.
Let's skip the discussion of 'luck', it's not fruitful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly misunderstood Einstein - who was wrong anyway as pointed out by Stephen Hawking (may his name be praised) - and was talking about a different God than yours.
Whatever the case, you still don't have a valid argument when you claim that the laws of physics appear to be inherently lucky.

what is it you guys are not getting, i do not believe that the laws of Physics nor the creation of the universe has anything to do with 'luck', its you, who through you're adherence to the premise that God did not cause, create or design the universe must face, not the noble and virtuous theist. Let Einsteins name be praised forever and ever!😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it you guys are not getting, i do not believe that the laws of Physics nor the creation of the universe has anything to do with 'luck', its you, who through you're adherence to the premise that God did not cause, create or design the universe must face, not the noble and virtuous theist. Let Einsteins name be praised forever and ever!😀

it is you, dear old robbie, who seems intellectually handicapped here.

you fail to see that you have simply applied a word [God] to apply to whatever it might be that caused all existence.

while we have absolutely no direct knowledge, no information, no evidence to support any conclusion as the nature of or source of that primal causation, you have insisted we all should accept your interpetation and your linguistic usage as corresponding to that which is the case.

And you cannot show any of this to be the case.

Let me add, with all due affection and respect, what you believe is completely your own business. It has no bearing, relevance, or otherwise makes no contribution of any particular value to our understanding of our own existence.

Your beliefs may make you happy, and I hope they do -- but pls do not mistake what you think and believe for that which is the case.

You might find yourself walking off a cliff or out of misplaced faith investing in the Scots version of Bernie Madoff.

I find it the best advice I've ever heard: don't believe everything you think.

Originally posted by Scriabin
it is you, dear old robbie, who seems intellectually handicapped here.

you fail to see that you have simply applied a word [God] to apply to whatever it might be that caused all existence.

while we have absolutely no direct knowledge, no information, no evidence to support any conclusion as the nature of or source of that primal causation, you have in ...[text shortened]... rnie Madoff.

I find it the best advice I've ever heard: don't believe everything you think.

Lol, i bow oh great and illustrious one, however, as you have stated, the possibilities are limitless, why should we thus then limit our thinking to, how can i say this, 'natural', 'inanimate', 'blind chance', nor do i insist that others should accept this point of view, each one has his own window, but why skate on thin ice when you can dance!

you state that i cannot show or demonstrate any of this, you above anyone else should realize that laws require a lawmaker, do they not, and if these 'laws', were not so finely tuned as they evidently appear to be, you and i would not be having this discussion today.

I myself as you know am but a miserable peasant, i know naught of anything of the Philosophical arguments surrounding this idea, thus i can only determine from my own window what is the case. Harmony from a massive 'explosion'? , forces finely tuned and applied in the correct measure, laws which govern those forces, a cause, what else is the poor boy supposed to think? is it just coincidental chance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, i bow oh great and illustrious one, however, as you have stated, the possibilities are limitless, why should we thus then limit our thinking to, how can i say this, 'natural', 'inanimate', 'blind chance', nor do i insist that others should accept this point of view, each one has his own window, but why skate on thin ice when you can dance!

yo a cause, what else is the poor boy supposed to think? is it just coincidental chance?

you aren't SUPPOSED to think anything. You can CHOOSE to think whatever you like. There isn't any either or here. You say it is either creationism or blind chance -- nope, we don't know that at all. False dilemma.

It may be an intelligent design beyond anything the word "intelligent" developed to cover. The complexity of matter and energy and life itself is beyond our ability to comprehend, not just the reason, if any, behind creation and existence. We simply do not know.

I don't feel I need to know in order to get a grip on my life -- and I'll thank others who do to keep it to themselves, thanks very much.

You assume there has to be a lawmaker -- but you cannot prove it, not empirically, not by reason. You and Spinoza, Robbie, don't spoil a pair on this. You rest your whole life on what is called the ontological argument. And it is bogus. Look it up.

Even if you adopt extreme and pure Monism, which I find attractive as it tends to end arguments about all this, you cannot demonstrate or prove it out. Maybe some day we'll understand it; farther along, we'll understand why -- great song on the Trio album with Emmy Lou, Dolly, and Linda.

You say why skate on thin ice when you can dance? Well, psycho wards are full of schizophrenic dancing partners, be my guest.

The word "laws" when applied to legislation enacted by humans clearly corresponds to concepts, processes, pieces of paper, and personnel and we're all familliar with those.

When you try to use the same word, but change the usage to apply to an entirely different context where there are no corresponding things with which we are familiar, you are beginning to babble meaninglessly.

The "laws" of nature, thermodynamics, the universe, whatever, are not legislated, enacted, signed, enforced, etc.

The word in that context means "the way things work" based on observation or educated hypothesis and advanced theoretical calculation -- we merely use the word "laws" as shorthand.

So your analogy is a false one -- and so is your God, for the concept behind your use of that word is at least as twisted up in human nonsense as your misuse of the word "laws."

You say natural "laws" are "finely tuned," yet I doubt you know much about what those "laws" really are or how the natural forces and processes these "laws" purport to define actually operate.

The word "laws" as applied to physics or other scientific matters is a convention imposed by humans to render much more simple that which is inherently too complex to comprehend. You and I cannot do the math, Robbie, so we use shorthand and shortcuts to talk about it all.

The mistake you and other co-religionists make is you've invested your belief in these symbols and mistaken them for the underlying reality. Since you cannot look the true complexity of how the universe works directly in the face of its math, you put a kindly old human symbol of a face over it and call it Daddy.

cute, but thanks, no thanks.

I like my whisky straight -- and my science, too.

What sets me off? When people throw words like "God" around as though they as well as I even know what they mean by that -- after all, they aren't talking about anything at all insofar as I can determine.

Originally posted by Scriabin
you aren't SUPPOSED to think anything. You can CHOOSE to think whatever you like. There isn't any either or here. You say it is either creationism or blind chance -- nope, we don't know that at all. False dilemma.

It may be an intelligent design beyond anything the word "intelligent" developed to cover. The complexity of matter and energy and life itself ...[text shortened]... n't talking about anything at all insofar as I can determine.

Good posting. Can we have it sticky please...?

Originally posted by Scriabin
you aren't SUPPOSED to think anything. You can CHOOSE to think whatever you like. There isn't any either or here. You say it is either creationism or blind chance -- nope, we don't know that at all. False dilemma.

It may be an intelligent design beyond anything the word "intelligent" developed to cover. The complexity of matter and energy and life itself ...[text shortened]... n't talking about anything at all insofar as I can determine.

Lol, would you fly in an aeroplane if the 'laws of nature', were not enacted upon, nor were finely tuned, well then, enough of the pretense! its not a misuse, infact, quite the contrary, you can argue all you like with regard to not 'knowing', but each and every person must come to their own conclusion, and simply stating 'we have no way of knowing', is a very poor excuse!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Good posting. Can we have it sticky please...?

i suggest you ask him to put it in a little scroll so that you can wear it upon your forehead as in the case of philactories!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, would you fly in an aeroplane if the 'laws of nature', were not enacted upon, nor were finely tuned, well then, enough of the pretense! its not a misuse, infact, quite the contrary, you can argue all you like with regard to not 'knowing', but each and every person must come to their own conclusion, and simply stating 'we have no way of knowing', is a very poor excuse!

I'm afraid I understand not a bit of that from you. Totally a whiff here -- care to translate?

p.s btw, I have piloted a WW II T6 Navy trainer made more than 75 years ago. I felt the engine pull the plane along the runway, then felt the air pull the plane up as we reached air speed. I've known the principles of powered flight for a long long time, so it doesn't occur to me to question why these large metal objects can fly.

I also do not wonder too much over how I can take a pencil, a piece of paper, a map, a compass and a ruler or T square and derive map coordinates and a range from the guns so that I can have a battery of howitzers fire 95-lb projectiles from miles away from both me and the target and still have all the shells land on the back side of a hill from the guns within 5 meters of the target.

This is the world I live in -- where such things exist and can be accomplished with a reasonable amount of certainty, barring the occasional unforseen intervening cause -- such as too much beer among the gun crews. The time that happened I had to stop the fire mission to save the car dealership they would have hit by being 180 degrees out due to excessive beer. Well, it was a hot day, and it was Mississippi, after all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i suggest you ask him to put it in a little scroll so that you can wear it upon your forehead as in the case of philactories!

you seem able enough to remember chess openings, lines of moves -- something I have a lot of trouble doing.

but you do not seem to be able to recall how words are used or what they mean.

You also do not seem to want to face the direct question of why you mistake your concept of the universe for the reality of the universe by slapping a quaint symbol, name, face, word and a few other things you call "holy" on top of it.

You are hiding something and I think it is fear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i suggest you ask him to put it in a little scroll so that you can wear it upon your forehead as in the case of philactories!

Oh, you see him as some kind of god, whose words should be worshipped in some way? Like the gospel of scriabin or something?

I tell you, he is a mere human. Like you and me. But he has thinking capacities. And now he hit the head of the nail.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, you see him as some kind of god, whose words should be worshipped in some way? Like the gospel of scriabin or something?

I tell you, he is a mere human. Like you and me. But he has thinking capacities. And now he hit the head of the nail.

he has no thinking capacities, why must you people confuse knowledge gleaned from others with thinking capacity. originality is thinking capacity my friend, originality! all else is mere opinion! 🙂

Originally posted by Scriabin
you seem able enough to remember chess openings, lines of moves -- something I have a lot of trouble doing.

but you do not seem to be able to recall how words are used or what they mean.

You also do not seem to want to face the direct question of why you mistake your concept of the universe for the reality of the universe by slapping a quaint symbol, ...[text shortened]... other things you call "holy" on top of it.

You are hiding something and I think it is fear.

oh Scriabin my learned friend, if you had spent as much time as I in staring at these 64 squares, then you would be amazed at the utter futility of it!

its kind of like drinking a beer, you know your gonna have to run at least ten miles to run of the calories, as with chess, the amount of study required to make even 50 rating points is unbelievable in comparison to the actual effort involved.

yet you chastise me for daring to cloak 'the unknown' with words! what can i say, what are supposed to think when we observe harmony, immense power, the controlled application of natural laws, dynamic energy in abundance, a causative action (is this a phrase, if not it should be?) etc etc

yes you may argue that these in themselves are nothing, but together like a tapestry they weave in our minds something discernible, yes we dare to term 'it', 'God', and why not, is he not also a god of harmony, not of disorder, a God of dynamic energy, abundant in power? furthermore these are not mere conceptions as you have determined, but realities, therefore i do not think that you can dismiss it so readily.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If a rule has exceptions then it's not a really a rule, only a arbitrary statement meaning nothing.

The fact can as well be that the universe created itself at the moment of BigBang, therefore no god needed. Call it a rule, call it exception, call it whatever, but I don't call it religion because the theory of BigBang is science.

======================================
The fact can as well be that the universe created itself at the moment of BigBang,
=======================================

How could it create itself if it were not in existence ?