|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Your analogy falls at the first hurdle in that none of these are natural systems... (Oh and there is no "information" in the ink only in the patterns it forms on the paper...) And how are you defining "information" carried by biological organisms anyway? We hear this argument a lot but so far no-one has stepped up to the plate and defined "information" in a biological sense... 2)Its a baseless assumption and one that requires circular reasoning... You must take the fact that artificial (defined as not observably naturally occuring) systems are designed, you then assume that this applys to all systems, therefore assuming that life is designed, you then say life is designed so there is a designer.... You already assumed a designer by your assumption that all systems not just artificial ones are designed... 3)Matter does come from nowhere it has been experimentally observed, its called quantum vacuum fluctuatuion.... Abiogenesis has more evidence for it than Genesis, the Urey-Miller experiments etc.... Again you use the term "information" without prior definition, please define what "information" is and how you quantify it?.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)The problem with these incidents is that 100% of humanity didn`t directly experience them (did you yourself experience them?) therefore an attitude of doubt in the Cartesian sense "This may look convincing but it as I am relying on someone elses account how do I know they are not decieving me?"(Descartes actually employed the same doubt to phenomena he experienced directly through his senses...)) is perfectly justified... 2)Actually logically speaking this sort of divine foreknowledge implys predestination ergo no free will...... 3)The difference is that QVF is observable in a lab by anyone (anyone who has the requisite level of knowledge and experimental ability that is).... Can you say the same for special creation? Can anyone experience first hand God creating the universe? [This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Actually he is a cosmologist.... And his ask ask the astronomer page that you presumeably quote from (as you didn`t give a book or journal reference) is here:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/acosmbb.html So which question does he answer that to? This is the perfect opportunity to examine a creationists quote along side the original....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Don`t worry I found it myself...
(added by edit - Ah I see you provided the link, probably as I was typing this) "How could a quantum vacuum fluctuation produce a universe with well- ordered laws of physics, rather than complete randomness? We do not know. It is not known just how or where the 'laws of physics' are ultimately proscribed for our universe. One possibility is that there is/are/ were an infinite number of alternate ways that our universe could have emerged from this quantum process. In some sense, all of these alternate versions were/are realized, and that our universe is one of a large number that were imparted with the right laws to continue the Big Bang and the evolution of our universe. Of course we do not know why there even are natural laws in the first place, but we do know that increasing temperature and energy can seriously alter the way these natural laws behave, and also the properties of the particles that they interact with. The natural laws at the 'beginning' of the Big Bang may not have looked anything like the ones we now see, if you believe the hints that seem to be coming from high energy physics experiments. Some physicists in the last 10 years have speculated that at sufficiently high energies, all is complete chaos, and that natural laws emerge from this the way that ice emerges from water cooled low enough. The vacuum fluctuation served to bring into existence the spacetime 'stage' and populate it with raw energy in the form of a small number of fundamental fields, perhaps even gravity as the MOST fundamental field. All else may have emerged...almost miraculously...as this quantum system cooled and found itself by chance trapped into one path of evolution favoring universes like ours as the outcome. The same system, however, could have evolved along other paths to produce a very different universes. " From:
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2030.html However the quote you gave is just part of an answer that addressed the issue of why fundamental constants and laws are what they are.... As such his answer states that QVF abrought the material into being and that that became our universe with our constants and laws, the miraculously part comes about because he hypothesises that there were other possibilities (which he cannot know for sure as he has only experienced the laws and constants of this universe...) and that our universe could be considered to be one possible state of a quantum system, i.e part of a wavefunction of possible universes.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)No I merely point out that a Cartesian position of doubt (i.e this looks convincing but is it a deception) is valid in cases where the phenomena is not personally observed (indeed Descartes would have us doubt even then...) is a perfectly acceptable alternative to assuming that people never lie... The difference is that a scientific experiment is repeatable, thus anyone can reconstruct the experiment and obtain results that agree with the original. Miracles by their very nature cannot be experienced by choice and therefore are not directly observed.... I can doubt the results of an experiment if I do so I can perform the experiment for myself, if I doubt a miracle I cannot go out and prepare one and experience it.... 2)If God knows what you will do you will do it, thus predestination, hence no free will.... What part of that logic looks flawed to you? 3)Hmmm lets see particle occuring spontaneously in vacuum..... How is this not something from nothing? Ergo your statement is false.... Actually its gravely dishonest of you to include life in that statement QVF can produce matter not life.... Also QVF has been observed, special creation hasn`t ergo from a purely empirical standpoint QVF is a better bet... 4)Please remove this it makes it look like I edited your post..... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Oh goody quotes!
Of course if you were to actually explain what the quantum vacuum is and what quantum vacuum fluctuations are and how they can`t happen before the end of the Planck era I`d be more impressed, stunned in fact.... Heres some information to help you get started:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html Note:"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level. The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time (added by joz before you mention it this isn`t a problem as time itself only starts at the end of the Planck era). There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws. The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe. In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence." And:"The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur). For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen. The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence." LOLAY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Or i could just bang a few quotes of my own up....
Seeing as you can find them here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html I`ll save Percy the storage space....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I agree with most of what you post but I would not define atheism as a belief.... Consider the following... 1)I don`t see any evidence of 60 ton pink bunny rabbits so I don`t believe in them... 2)I don`t see any evidence of God so I don`t believe in God... Defining atheism as a belief in the context of this discussion implys that it is adopted by decision, in 1) I do not make a choice to not believe in gargantuan pink bunnys, the lack of belief is inherrant due to the lack of evidence... Case 2) is identical except that God has beeen substituted in for the pink 60 ton rabbits.... IMHO the two scenarios are directly analogous... C`mon lets face it untill there is evidence for a phenomena it is hardly a matter of belief to not believe in it, atheism only becomes a belief in the presence of evidence of a deity.... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Just a real quick question how many of those quotes do you think came from Physicists and how many came from Philosophers?
I`m also surprised that you quoted both W.L Craig and Quentin Smith in support of your argument... My reason for being surprised? Have a look at this and see if you think they BOTH support your view....
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html So any physicists (i.e the buggers who know the most about quantum mechanics) on your list?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Sorry it appears that you did quote some physicists, Barrow and Tipler, of course they wrote the anthropic principle of which W.L.Craig writes:
"Not that Barrow and Tipler are endorsing a design argument; on the contrary, although scientists hostile to teleology are apt to interpret their work as sympathetic to theism and although I have already seen this book cited by two prominent philosophers of religion in support of the teleological argument, the thrust of the book's argument is in the end anti-theistic." Which raises the interesting point of..... Why in the name of all thats good data did you quote them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Why bother debating the issue then? 2)Interestingly though you seem to ignore the fact that a quantum vacuum is spacetime with zero curvature, exactly what one would expect to find in the absence of a universe.... 3)Yes time in the sense of observable time started at the end of the Planck era, 10 dimensions also dropped down to 4 so arguing that QM is invalid before the Planck time is a bit fishy, this line of reasoning would be valid if we aquired more dimensions at the end of the Planck era but we actually lost some.... 4)Actually the quote says they are not deterministic fully didn`t enter into it..... If your going to conduct your side of this discussion as an appeal to authority please: a)Investigate the positions of the people your quoting before posting little soundbites which appear to support your argument... b)Consider the authorities that support the other side as well, on the one side you have Hugh Ross an astronomer who spends a large portion of his time preaching, on the other Hawkings et al.... If you want this to descend into an argument of "my expert thinks this" "well my expert thinks that" I will be happy to oblige however I think it will be a monumental waste of both of our time... For the record I don`t deny the validity of a causative God I just personaly don`t subscribe to that belief and think that QVF etc provides a perfectly acceptable alternative. Because events before the end of the Planck era cannot ever be observed no one can ever say with any degree of certainty if the universe had a deterministic cause or not, or even if that cause was God or not.... My wife (she is a catholic) happens to believe that God caused the universe I don`t say she is wrong, however she accepts that there exsists a possible non deterministic cause provided by QVF....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: How about type 4:"I don't know, you don't know, nobody can know and I really don`t give a damm what you think provided you accept what I think as being a valid alternative..."?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Although simplistic this pretty much accords with our position.... It is worth noting however that with large time frames and multiple events (i.e more than one set of reactions for abiogenesis etc) such probabilities quickly approach unity when considered for populations far larger than 1....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Because we experience it and therefore have empirical evidence of its exsistence... 2)Ahh the old pond sludge to philosophers routine... You neglected to mention selection for favourable traits (in this case intellect) in your straw man version of evolution... 3)Yep.... Of course a calculator could be built that said 1+1=3 and another would say 1+1=2 which do you think is right? In both cases there is a physical system that gives an answer, however they are not as a result of this similarity equally true, one is demonstrably false.... 4)Well lets see, would no evidence for your beliefs and plenty for the theorums that I accept count? 5)What makes you think religion has a copyright on reason? From our perspective "reason" evolved because even the most rudimentary degree of sentinence is a huge boost to fitness, and the more of it you have the better... 6)I hear that one a lot, and never from atheists but usually from rather over religious characters... It seems that they have never heard of humanism, doing right for others because it is the right thing to do, which as far as I can tell most atheists subscribe to.... Absolute standards of right and wrong don`t exsist, here on these very boards we have the example of mother Theresa, Lee for example feels very strongly that she was a good person whose actions benefited those she sought to help, I would contend that while her intentions were exemplary a lot of those people would have been better served with chemical or barrier method birth control than with the "natural birth control" (control????) put forward by the catholic church, I also remember reading something about the nursing techniques used being increadibly dated. While mother Theresas intentions were exemplary the "benefit" of her undermining the introduction of modern birth control is disputable..... 7)I could follow the rest of your post but WTF are you trying to say here? You gave no argument against the natural occurence of "reason" bar a weak venture into the "pond scum to philosopher" argument from incredulity, your statement of which was flawed by your exclusion of selection mechanisms.... How is it unsupported, naturaly occuring "reason" is a logical consequence of the hypothesis "there is no God" supported by ample evidence for evolution, and a dearth of evidence for God.... We base our result of there`s no God on evidence using our "reason" of unknown origin, then by elimination our "reason" is naturaly occuring.... The origin of "reason" doesn`t play a part in our adoption of atheism....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: It was Darwin Storm and to be fair it was part of a list following this statement: "Best not to go down the path of absolute "right and wrong", since christianity can't make the same claim either." IOW he was saying that mentioning any moral lapses committed by atheists can be met by reference to comparable non atheist inhumanities.... Not trying to invalidate christianity, but any possible claims of moral superiority... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-11-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024