28 Jan 08
KM: There is no reason to think that a reason for quantum particles emerging might not yet appear.
Even Einstein couldn't believe it; he said "God does not play dice [with the universe]". Yet the reality is that quantum mechanics are utterly random and uncaused. And you fundamentally misunderstand reality if you think that someone, someday will find something that changes this reality.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI steadfastly maintain that your interpretation of the Catholic source is flawed. I will, however, bow to the consensus of any theists who wish to comment on this matter. If they rule in your favor then I will accept it.
Very simple. I look at the Catholic counterpart which affirms that I am right. The Catholic page is just a tad more qualified than the wikipedia rival: you will find at the bottom of the page a nihi obstat and imprimatur which declare that the page is free of doctrinal errors.
Of course, the wikipedia page is unlikely to be steeped in the ...[text shortened]... menclature as the Catholic one, so no wonder you blundered in with your half-wit interpretation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettAgain:
I steadfastly maintain that your interpretation of the Catholic source is flawed. I will, however, bow to the consensus of any theists who wish to comment on this matter. If they rule in your favor then I will accept it.
Who is Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.
The words are so unambiguously clear that I should think interpretation redundant - unless you replace "his" with "the" and then abandon any reasonable sense of textual analsys.
28 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettoh, ok. i understand. a while back i referred to the big bang as a theory (in another thread), ; i was shunned for it. i got replies such as "gravity is theory but we know it to be true." so when it is convenient for you, you say theory is just a possibility, but when it is not convenient, you say it is a possibility.
Shut up, pig!
Now that is an example of a rude statement. Calling a ridiculous notion ridiculous is not rude. But getting back to your ridiculous notion; when the theists present their god as the first cause, they're claiming it is the absolute truth. When cosmologists speculate as to what (or if anything) preceded the Big Bang, they present th n which there is no wide consensus. Questioning the former in no way impinges upon the latter.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYet the reality is that quantum mechanics are utterly random and uncaused. And you fundamentally misunderstand reality if you think that someone, someday will find something that changes this reality
KM: There is no reason to think that a reason for quantum particles emerging might not yet appear.
Even Einstein couldn't believe it; he said "God does not play dice [with the universe]". Yet the reality is that quantum mechanics are utterly random and uncaused. And you fundamentally misunderstand reality if you think that someone, someday will find something that changes this reality.
---no1marauder---
And you know this for sure , how ?.......mmmm indulge me.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixIt might be that the universe we observe consists of trends that emerge from trillions and trillions quantum particles behaving randomly and uncertainly a hundred million times a second.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .If you have no cause and effect you have no why? how? or when? Rational enquiry itself then becomes a study of the illusionary , so why place so much faith in it. You have just sawn off the branch you are sitting on.
Not at al ...[text shortened]... cientists are deists, just as most evolutionary biologists are.[/b]
---darth---
And why would any such trend occur from a process that was utterly random? Surely no such trend should emerge...surely the only trend we should expect would be more and more chaotic randomness with no pattern to it. Have I missed a trick?
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy bother? You'd have to make an effort to actually understand quantum mechanics. But you have no real interest in it at all. It's tiresome to describe scientific theories and the overwhelming evidence that they are true to people who refuse to listen in any meaningful way because they think that facing the realities of the physical world might cause some dents in their irrational, emotionally driven beliefs in a SuperDuper God.
Yet the reality is that quantum mechanics are utterly random and uncaused. And you fundamentally misunderstand reality if you think that someone, someday will find something that changes this reality
---no1marauder---
And you know this for sure , how ?.......mmmm indulge me.
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixI'm suggesting that what you imagine are the solid rules of cause and effect might not be so solid; you've developed them based on your subjective experience, but they may not be fundamental aspects of the universe. I don't think you're being fair by dismissing that as a semantic quibble. ---darth---------
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .If you have no cause and effect you have no why? how? or when? Rational enquiry itself then becomes a study of the illusionary , so why place so much faith in it. You have just sawn off the branch you are sitting on.
Not at al ...[text shortened]... cientists are deists, just as most evolutionary biologists are.[/b]
Fair enough , so does this mean that the truth that I thought was real and solid (cause and effect) is flimsy and is undermined by a more solid "ultimate" truth at the quantum level? Could one argue that the quatum level is more "ultimate" and "fundamental" since everything is "made" of it?
Do you see what I mean by ultimate truth now? Even you allude to something like it.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by darthmixThat's a mistake a lot of people make when they grapple with quantum physics for the first time. You're also trying to apply your own assumptions about cause & effect, even though you don't have any basis for doing so. You're thinking "there must be a cause... because... that's just how things work!" Except, when we're talking about quantum reality, it isn't. You have to re-examine your assumptions ---------darth----------
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]What you forget is that all logic and rationality is based on cause and effect .If you have no cause and effect you have no why? how? or when? Rational enquiry itself then becomes a study of the illusionary , so why place so much faith in it. You have just sawn off the branch you are sitting on.
Not at al ...[text shortened]... cientists are deists, just as most evolutionary biologists are.[/b]
It's not the first time and I don't think "there must be a cause" I only question how we know for sure there is no cause. How is that verified? If we don't know something about the universe (that would give a cause) then we wouldn't know that we don't know it. Science is full of situations where we thought that we had got it only to find the curtain of nature pulled back even further to reveal something else. What makes us so cock sure about randomness and uncaused uncertainty to think that's all there is to it? Sounds like faith to me (LOL)
Don't forget that I believe in an Uncaused cause that is the fundamental truth behind all reality so I am hardly going to have a problem with the idea am I?
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by no1marauderKop out! If you had known how to prove you knew this for sure you wouild have done so. I know an evasion when I see it. You find time enough to slag me off , why not the time to explain your faith ....sorry knowledge.
Why bother? You'd have to make an effort to actually understand quantum mechanics. But you have no real interest in it at all. It's tiresome to describe scientific theories and the overwhelming evidence that they are true to people who refuse to listen in any meaningful way because they think that facing the realities of the physical world might cause some dents in their irrational, emotionally driven beliefs in a SuperDuper God.
29 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLook, I've laid out my position. You've laid out your's. We've each gotten in our requisite insults. There's nothing more to be accomplished here. I'm not going to waste my time with an endless repetition of "yes it is/no it isn't."
Again:
Who is Himself His own reason of existence, Who is for Himself His own exemplary and final cause.
The words are so unambiguously clear that I should think interpretation redundant - unless you replace "his" with "the" and then abandon any reasonable sense of textual analsys.
But I'll make you a sporting proposition. I've offered to defer to the judgment of our resident theistic community already. But I'm prepared to tighten that process down a bit more. I say we get Ivanhoe to judge our positions. He's a Catholic. I could PM him and ask him to read through our entire exchange and render his verdict on the matter. I will abide by his judgment and expect you would do the same. If you accept my challenge, I propose that this thread be closed to any further relevant posts on the matter from either of us.
Do you accept my challenge?
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomSome theories are obviously better established than others. There is a broad consensus within the scientific community on the matter of evolution, for example. Many other theories are more tentatively established and lack any broad consensus. Or there may be competing theories. What happened before the Big Bang (if anything) is one such matter.
oh, ok. i understand. a while back i referred to the big bang as a theory (in another thread), ; i was shunned for it. i got replies such as "gravity is theory but we know it to be true." so when it is convenient for you, you say theory is just a possibility, but when it is not convenient, you say it is a possibility.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou don't know s**t and are happily ignorant. Good for you. Explaining quantum mechanics to someone who doesn't have the slightest interest in the subject is a complete waste of time. Quantum mechanics requires no "faith" at all; sadly for you, its predictions are invariably correct and are observed to be true probably oh, a million times a day. If you are really interested, buy a book.
Kop out! If you had known how to prove you knew this for sure you wouild have done so. I know an evasion when I see it. You find time enough to slag me off , why not the time to explain your faith ....sorry knowledge.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettThere can't be a scientific theory about what happened before the Big Bang; there is no way to have information that precedes the BB. All such musings are in the real of metaphysics.
Some theories are obviously better established than others. There is a broad consensus within the scientific community on the matter of evolution, for example. Many other theories are more tentatively established and lack any broad consensus. Or there may be competing theories. What happened before the Big Bang (if anything) is one such matter.
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterOkay, suppose I'm right, and that what you and I perceive as cause & effect in our everyday lives really is a scale illusion, the result of trillions of uncertain little subatomic particles. That would be interesting to know, especially if you happen to make your living in the field of particle physics. But does it mean you're going to stop paying attention to cause & effect in your daily life? Does it mean you'll, say, drive your car off a cliff, since according to quantum uncertainty your death will only be virtually certain and not actually certain? Does it mean you, I dunno, love your wife any less, that you enjoy ice cream any less, etc? Does it make your life more or less meaningful? I submit that it doesn't, really. It is one truth, and it may in fact be the truth on which our entire existence depends, but that's not to say it's the "ultimate" truth - and neither does it suggest that there can't be some other truth we'll find more meaningful, more profound, and with greater implications for our lives.
Fair enough , so does this mean that the truth that I thought was real and solid (cause and effect) is flimsy and is undermined by a more solid "ultimate" truth at the quantum level? Could one argue that the quatum level is more "ultimate" and "fundamental" since everything is "made" of it?
Do you see what I mean by ultimate truth now? Even you allude to something like it.
I guess what I'm saying that causality is just a subjective criteria for ultimate truth, and it's a pretty crappy one at that. We can argue that one truth is important because it lays the foundation for others, or we can argue that the other is more important because the first exists to support it. The universe, as far as we know, could care less; it's a unverse of facts, not value judgments, so one truth is incapable of giving another value in objective terms.
As an atheist I personally think we have to decide which truths are important to us, and we have to do that on our own. The universe isn't going to be much help. You'll disagree; but I hope you can understand that just because I think we came from dust and randomness doesn't mean I think that's all we are now, or that the dust defines our existence. It's not our ultimate truth; it's just our material cause.