Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
95 online now:
anglagard, LamarkNewAge, nwr, xongsmith (4 members, 91 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,670 Year: 5,316/14,102 Month: 237/677 Week: 42/54 Day: 25/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 181 of 244 (888488)
09-18-2021 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by PaulK
09-18-2021 5:59 PM


Re: Another YAWN topic
My apologies. The correct reference is Deuteronomy 18:22

There is no contradiction.

Deuteronomy 18:22 writes:

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Ezekial 3:18-20 writes:

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Jonah 3 writes:

And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

2Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

3So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.

4And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

5So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

6For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

7And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2021 5:59 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 2:03 AM Christian7 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 182 of 244 (888489)
09-18-2021 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:15 PM


gobbledygook
The experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature.

This is foolish. The brain is a physical entity. All our evidence, of which there is much, shows your thoughts, your feelings, your very awareness, are physical responses to physical stimuli.

Mind is an emergent property of matter.

In our present hypothesis of mind, love, for example, is the interplay of the ordered firing of electronic pulses through millions of neurons combined with the release of specific hormones. A complex cascade of matter and energy manifests as the grandest emotion humans can experience.

You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?

But it would be as though there were nothing, for there would be no sight of it, nor hearing of it, nor feeling of it, nor smelling of it, nor perceiving it in any fashion, though there might be many cameras throughout the universe.

That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.

What you think your mind is after death, that is what your physical brain should produce.

Say what? You want my dead brain to produce something? Scary.

After death the brain is just a putrid glob of rotting meat. Kinda like yours is now except it usually can't access the internet.

The hypothesis: the mind after death ceases to exist. Yes, we have copious amounts of data that evidence this hypothesis. What have you got? Your personal feels?

For, if a theory could be formed that explained the universe in terms of quantum physics, with a single equation, concerning the physical forces of nature and the movement of particles ... it would not demonstrate that anything consciousness could be formed.

Of course not. That is not what such a theory would be produced to model. But having such a model would tell us better how all those particles and forces interact in such manifestations as minds and singularities.

It would demonstrate that the most sophisticated object in the universe is nothing but changing states and positions of particles.

Welcome to understanding. This is exactly the universe we have.

The happens space, which, as far as I know, is not sentient, nor has any property leading to sentience.

Sentience is another one of those emergent properties of humans, but not rocks. There are reasons why biology is so productive at creating these emergent properties. Has to do with the speed, depth and number of reactive state-and-position changes involved.

You cannot deny that you have a mind, and that it sees colors, which cameras do not, and which androids do not. Though cameras receive light, they do not see anything.

Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.

But we see, and our sight is not physical.

There is nothing but the physical. You can show nothing else.

Remember, all your emotions and all your ideas are physical constructs in your head so don't try citing emotion or math, or sight, as non-physical. Their manifestations appear to be most certainly physical and you have nothing to evidence otherwise.

For not in bounds alone are our perceptual fields separated, but they are completely unjoinable in any fashion.

gobbledygook

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 183 of 244 (888490)
09-18-2021 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by AZPaul3
09-18-2021 7:13 PM


Re: gobbledygook
quote:
This is foolish. The brain is a physical entity. All our evidence, of which there is much, shows your thoughts, your feelings, your very awareness, are physical responses to physical stimuli.

Mind is an emergent property of matter.

In our present hypothesis of mind, love, for example, is the interplay of the ordered firing of electronic pulses through millions of neurons combined with the release of specific hormones. A complex cascade of matter and energy manifests as the grandest emotion humans can experience.

You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?


The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.

quote:
That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.

Was it able to defy logic before we existed?

quote:
Say what? You want my dead brain to produce something? Scary.

After death the brain is just a putrid glob of rotting meat. Kinda like yours is now except it usually can't access the internet.

The hypothesis: the mind after death ceases to exist. Yes, we have copious amounts of data that evidence this hypothesis. What have you got? Your personal feels?


No. I was saying this: What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.

quote:
Of course not. That is not what such a theory would be produced to model. But having such a model would tell us better how all those particles and forces interact in such manifestations as minds and singularities.

But all models of higher levels must depend on models of the lower levels for the emergence of systems in the higher level, and there is no way that sentience emerges from biological, chemical, or quantum mechanical processes. For all biological processes are chemical processes, and all chemical processes are quantum mechanical processes, just as all electronic devices are not merely made of components, but the things that constitute those components. At the lowest level, everything is just energy, pure physical energy. Anything that emerges, emerges from the interaction of the energy. What we see as a house, is not a house without our minds. So how can our minds be minds without our minds?

quote:
Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.

So what? They're still all physical objects moving around and changing states in space. There is nothing qualitative about it. They are purely quantitative, (not sure if I used that term correctly). They have no color. Just because photons hit them get absorbed and bounce off doesn't mean they have any qualitative color. These are percepts, and percepts require sentience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 7:13 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by AZPaul3, posted 09-18-2021 9:23 PM Christian7 has responded
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 10:44 AM Christian7 has responded
 Message 220 by Parasomnium, posted 09-20-2021 3:10 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 184 of 244 (888492)
09-18-2021 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Christian7
09-18-2021 10:38 AM


Christian7 writes:

I did not avoid the topic, but used an argument to respond to an argument. I dealt with the topic.

Not that anyone could tell.

If our knowledge that the laws of physics never changed is tentative, and all scientific knowledge is tentative, and nothing is proven, how can you make any claim about the universe, contrary to my "assertions", and be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong?

You wouldn't bet on a theory with no evidence, would you? Of course you wouldn't. In this you're just like everyone else.

So let's say there's a box with a million pebbles in it. You can't see inside, but you can reach in and pull out one pebble at a time. The first hundred pebbles you pull out are white. You're asked to guess the color of the next pebble. What color would you pick?

You'll choose white, of course, because the evidence gives you a fair amount of confidence it will be white. Now you choose an additional thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the next one will be white. Higher, right? Now you choose an additional ten thousand pebbles, and again all are white. What's your confidence now that the the next one will be white? Even higher, right? You and everyone else thinks this way.

There are trillions and trillions of stars and galaxies and nebulae and black holes and planets and sources of radiation out there, and every one we've ever looked at (which must number in the thousands at least) displays the exact same laws of physics we're familiar with here on Earth. What is your confidence that the next astronomical object we discover will also display the same laws of physics? Very high, right? Because of the tremendous amount of evidence, right?

And if you cannot be certain that you are right, and that I am wrong, but are merely confident, there should be doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm.

Since we said science is tentative, why are you asking about certainty? There is no certainty in science. My confidence that I am right and you are wrong derives from my awareness of the evidence supporting my position and how clear you've made it that you have no evidence for anything you say. All you do is keep repeating the same fallacious rhetorical arguments.

And if there is no doubt in your mind concerning what you affirm, then you are trusting in propositions, having faith in those propositions, seeing you know that the truth cannot be otherwise, as there is no proof that it is not.

There is no proof in science, either. Proving things is the realm of logic and mathematics.

And this is evident, because all scientific knowledge is tentative, and can therefore be revised, even rejected, by future scientific findings.

The Millikan oil drop experiment is instructive. Millikan devised experiments to measure the charge of the electron. He measured its negative charge to be 1.5924×10−19 coulombs. Other scientists tried to repeat his experiments or devised their own and found similar though slightly higher values. As the experiments were refined and became increasingly accurate they gradually honed in on the current value and began adding decimal places. The currently accepted value is 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs, only about 0.6% greater than what Millikan first measured.

Millikan's initial value was highly tentative, but each successive experiment gave greater and greater confidence that scientists were getting closer and closer to the actual value.

Can the value be further revised? Possibly. My guess is that our confidence in that final digit isn't that high.

But can the entire value be rejected, in the sense that it's found to be just plain wrong, perhaps not even negative? It's very difficult to imagine how that could be possible. For one thing the proton has an equal and opposite charge, as does the positron. Many other elemental particles also carry an electric charge either equal or opposite to the electron's. If we're wrong about the charge of the electron then we'd have to wrong about much else. That's inconceivable.

That's the way much of science works. Scientifically established values, hypotheses, theories and laws are not isolated from each other but are interdependent, woven into the entire fabric of science. There's very little in science that stands in isolation. If one thing changes then a lot of other things have to change, too.

So of course science is tentative and never achieves certainty, but our confidence in much scientific knowledge is extremely high. Your claim that scientific tentativity means that anything in science can be wrong and can therefore be ignored deeply misunderstands the strength of the evidence and the interwoven nature of science.

I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying. I did nothing to thwart discussion of the topic at hand. I engaged in discussion with everyone that responded to my posts as far as I was able to, and I responded to their arguments with arguments and explanations. If I responded with a single sentence, it is because I was getting tired, as it was late last night when I was on the forum. Perhaps I should not be debating when I am tired.

I think all most people want is a sincere effort at discussion. Single sentence answers saying it could all be a dream and whatnot is really poor form. Show some regard and respect for others.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Moved a phrase in a sentence to add grammatical clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:38 AM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:25 PM Percy has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 185 of 244 (888493)
09-18-2021 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Christian7
09-18-2021 8:33 PM


Re: gobbledygook
You care to challenge this hypothesis? We have chemistry and MRIs. What evidence do you have?

The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.

Yes, the evidence shows that mental state is dependent on physical brain state.

So if you challenge this and the mental state is not dependent on physical state then what is it and what evidence do you cite?

Was it able to defy logic before we existed?

Since logic was born with us the answer is no. Before us there was no logic to defy.

What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.

Your mind won't be after death and your brain has no other option than matter/energy. Your mind is just chemicals.

If you are trying to say the mind transcends death then show us your evidence. Right now oblivian is the only evidenced path we can see.

... ?????? ... So how can our minds be minds without our minds?

What a twisted pile of crap.

They have no color. Just because photons hit them get absorbed and bounce off doesn't mean they have any qualitative color. These are percepts, and percepts require sentience.

Color is one of those human constructs we use to define the perception we experience when we record various frequencies from the EM spectrum. I don't know what an ant sees but it sure does perceive its world with eyes and optic sensory neurons just like us. We could argue whether an ant was sentient.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 186 of 244 (888494)
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws. Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere, and not without cause they went through many eras. There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment? If nothing was, and the world appeared, in a non-casual event, why do we limit non-casual events to the appearance of virtual particles? Should not we fear the occurrence of destruction, happening without a cause?

And if nothing was, no potential was, and no potential for events, even those which are non-casual, nor is there anything of nothing that is sayable which contradicts its nothingness. For if no potential was, then no certainty that nothing should form could not have been, for there was no such polarity. Nothing is nothing, the absence of all things, where there is no distinction, thus no contradiction to its own lack of power to bring forth. In nothing, there is no power. Without power, there is no action. Without action, there is no emergence. Without emergence, there is no thing. Without things, there is nothing.

Nothing is not a vacuum which nature abhors, as though nature had a mind or even existed. You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing? Why is it that a mind was not first formed? Why is it that no non-physical things were formed? Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?

In nothing is not the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing. But if it were so, then the absence of the absence of purpose would be in nothing. Therefore, would there not be purpose to the universe, according to your physical models? Would there not be everything, then, if in nothing is not even nothing? Nothing is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. We impose linguistic obligations on the concept of nothing, for nothing is not an individual. There is no logic in nothing. There is no math in nothing. There is no reality in nothing.

When there is nothing, there is no reality. Therefore there will never be anything. For without reality there is no action, truth, potential, behavior, or anything. Thus, the concept of a causeless event where there is nothing is absurd. Where there is nothing, there is no reality, and where there is no reality, there is no event.


Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:47 AM Christian7 has responded
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 12:35 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 187 of 244 (888495)
09-19-2021 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Christian7
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws. Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere, and not without cause they went through many eras.

Hell, I don't know. Neither do you. You can't even begin to analyse this nothing since you don't know that it really existed as you so vividly imagine. Nobody knows if there was nothing or not. That's what "don't know" means.

There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment?

First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.

Second, endings are different from beginnings. Totally different sets of rules.

But, what you're trying to claim is: if the universe sprang from nothing with no cause then the universe may as well return to nothing, disappear, just as well from no cause.

Answer: Maybe. Nobody knows.

If it gives you nightmares then just remember the void IS out to get you.

And if nothing was, no potential was ... yada yada

Since we don't know (and we includes you) your creation angst is unwarranted. I think it might actually be unhealthy. It can't be easy on the blood pressure and your psyche to constantly raise a vein in your neck over 'nothing' which is something you don't know.

Without things, there is nothing.

Did jesus teach you that?

You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing?

Probably not. I am rather unique. Once the thermal excess of my mind dissipates into the surrounding aether QFT makes it near impossible to put it all back together. I am a one-off never to be repeated.

Why is it that a mind was not first formed?

Facts are that it took the universe 14 b yrs to evolve the vessel to develop our mind. Do you not appreciate all the stuff that had to happen first before mind could emerge? You know how many suns had to blow up to make the stuff of mind? And all the chemistry from DNA to the Krebs cycle had to develop first. As for any why, it's a useless question so I'll leave that to the philosophers.

Why is it that no non-physical things were formed?

I don't know from why. See your local horde of garden gnomes. What we do know is that, in this universe, it appears that everything is physical and nothing of a non-physical nature (whatever that might be) is evident.

Our best laws of the universe, our models, do not account for anything non-physical because there is no observation, fact, reason, logic, hint, to evidence anything non-physical exists. If there were a non-physical thing as the religious weenies would define it then there most certainly would be evidence. Lots of it.

Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?

Given the workings and relationships of particles and their energies the universe didn't have much choice. Matter was going to clump, fuse, explode and, in one case at least, make life and intellect. As for where those relationships came from, they came from the same place the universe came from. We no friggin' idea, and, again, to emphasize the point, neither do you.

The rest of your post is just drivil.

You go on and on about nothing, literally, when it is not nothing that is evident. As for cosmic genesis, what is evident is 'we don't know'. That is considerably different from this 'nothing' you get so much heartburn over.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 11:07 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 11:32 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 200 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 2:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 188 of 244 (888496)
09-19-2021 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Christian7
09-18-2021 6:48 PM


Re: Another YAWN topic
So you say:
quote:
There is no contradiction.

Then you repeat the quote from Deuteronomy, an irrelevant quote from Ezekiel and a quote from Jonah that contradicts Deuteronomy. You don’t even bother to address Jeremiah,

All without explanation.

What’s the point of that?

[ABE]
Oh wait a minute I think I see it!

The Ezekiel verses contradict Deuteronomy, too - at least as you’re reading them.

So you’ve added two more contradictions of Deuteronomy.

The math is 1 + 1 + 1 = 0 - a clever denial of the Trinity.

It really needs more explanation but it really is quite a clever bit of anti-Christian work.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 6:48 PM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 10:02 AM PaulK has responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 189 of 244 (888497)
09-19-2021 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
09-19-2021 2:03 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
This might sound a little nuts, as I've found no support for this in any doctrinal online source, but when I looked at the Hebrew word for "shall be overthrown" in the strong's concordance, I found that although one meaning of it is overthrow, another is change, another is turn. I'm not sure about the usage of this Hebrew word, or the meaning of the definition. But is it possible that this prophecy was an pun, of which either interpretation could have been true depending upon the Ninevites response?

H2015 - hāp̄aḵ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 2:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 10:22 AM Christian7 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17009
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 190 of 244 (888498)
09-19-2021 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Christian7
09-19-2021 10:02 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
quote:
This might sound a little nuts, as I've found no support for this in any doctrinal online source, but when I looked at the Hebrew word for "shall be overthrown" in the strong's concordance, I found that although one meaning of it is overthrow, another is change, another is turn. I'm not sure about the usage of this Hebrew word, or the meaning of the definition. But is it possible that this prophecy was an pun, of which either interpretation could have been true depending upon the Ninevites response?

Jonah 3:10 is quite clear:

10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
(NRSV)

So, no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 10:02 AM Christian7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 11:18 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Christian7
Member
Posts: 627
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 191 of 244 (888499)
09-19-2021 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
09-19-2021 10:22 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
I don't think God changed His mind, having never intended to destroy Nineveh at that time to begin with. When the Bible says God repented or changed His mind, it is simply a figure of speech attributing human characteristics to God so that we can relate to Him from a human perspective. For example, when God blinded the Jews and granted salvation to the Gentiles, it looks like God changed His mind, and it looks like the NT writers just used clever rhetoric to cover up failed prophecy, but already told us in the Old Testament that He would return to His place until Israel acknowledge their offense. And He would be there for at least 2 days, or 2,000 years. The gathering in of Jews and Gentiles in this dispensation of grace until God returns to dealing with the Jews was not known to the Jews before it happened, because it was a mystery. In the Bible, a mystery is something not yet revealed.

God doesn't change His mind. I don't want to compare God with a lifeless algorithm, but can it be said that an artificial intelligence ever changes its mind? No. It just follows the intention of the programmer. As the instructions are fetched by the processor and executed, the program does exactly what it always would have done. If the program knew the future, as God knows, then that proves that there is no change of mind in God. God simply acts as though He changed His mind, but this is not even hidden from us. Clearly, the statements in the Bible that God repented are not literal, they are figurative.

The Bible is not written in a plain, literal style like a textbook. Some books in the Bible are highly poetic and literary. Numerous rhetorical devices are used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2021 10:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 12:50 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 192 of 244 (888500)
09-19-2021 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Christian7
09-17-2021 9:41 PM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
Your post consists only of single line declarative answers that don't address most of what is said and are completely devoid of evidence and explanation. Please have some respect and regard for the people you're discussion with by providing sincere and serious responses.

Christian7 writes:

That's why, in the end, you have faith, either in God's word, or in something else.

You keep repeating this without evidence. Either provide the evidence and rationale for this claim, or, like any honorable person would do, drop it.

quote:
What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.

If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way.


I mean to change, or to run, or to operate according to its animate nature.

Again, is English a second language for you? If so just say so and we'll work together to try to figure out what you're trying to say. But if you're a native English language speaker you know you're talking nonsense, and please stop.

quote:
For knowledge is certainty of truth.
"Truth" isn't really a scientific concept.

Then is science based on truth, or is truth based on science?

"Truth" as you're employing it plays no role in science. How are you not getting this? The scientific concepts that apply to what you're calling "truth" would be accuracy, precision, statistical likelihood, replication, consensus. A scientific theory that is an accurate model of reality, say the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is not "truth" but widely supported, validated and accepted theory behind which stands an extremely strong consensus among scientists in the relevant fields, probably very close to 100% (mavericks exist in all fields, so no theory garners a 100% consensus).

quote:
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity.

Then evolution is not certain.

Nothing in science is certain. Everything in science is tentative. But tentativity, the concept that tells us we don't know everything and that what we do know cannot be known with 100% confidence, does not mean we don't know anything, which is the road you keep going down.

Let me try explaining this another way. A car stops and asks you for directions for the fastest way to get somewhere. You say there are two ways to get there, but you can't know which is fastest due to unknown factors like traffic, the timing of traffic lights, backups at stop signs, and so forth. The driver shakes his head, laughs at you, says you don't know anything, that your directions would only get them lost, calls you an ignorant local, then pulls away. Does that seem fair or even make any sense to you?

It doesn't, right? Yet you're doing the exact same thing when you say if science is tentative then the universe could turn into an elephant. I hope we see nothing like this from you again.

quote:
Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2, but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge.

But does this knowledge get you anything beyond this life? Will it mean anything once the universe is dead?

You've gone completely off-topic. You've got to fight your strong tendency to do this every time you encounter something you don't understand. You must begin working at understanding what people write instead of ignoring it.

The subject is tentativity, not how to win points for the afterlife. Did you find the example of the gravitational constant helpful in understanding how science can work excellently well despite its necessary tentativity? If not, do you have any questions?

quote:
Maybe you should become a mystic.

Why?

Because that's what all your answers so far suit you for.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 9:41 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 193 of 244 (888501)
09-19-2021 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 1:47 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Christian7 writes:

There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment?

First, of course there had to be a cause. We just don't know what that cause was, and neither do you. May as well be a quantum spark from nothing as well as any other speculations people care to imagine.

It looks like we might have different views on this. My view is that we don't know whether the Big Bang had a cause or not. One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.

Other phenomena for which know of no cause is the timing of radioactive decay and the spin (or other subatomic property) an entangled particle takes on once observed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:05 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20334
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 194 of 244 (888502)
09-19-2021 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Christian7
09-18-2021 4:15 PM


Christian7 writes:

The experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature.

Let's test your theory with a little mind experiment. Your theory is that the experience of awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc, are not physical in nature. Let's take a standard white laboratory mouse and stop its brain so that synapses no longer fire. Is the mouse experiencing any awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc? The answer is no, right?

Do you have any experimental results from anywhere demonstrating any awareness, thought, emotions, senses, etc., when there is no brain activity. You don't, right?

Therefore, the available evidence indicates that brain death and mind death go hand in hand, and that the mind is the expression of physical processes within the brain.

Without a mind, according to your claim, the universe would be going on.

Why do you keep questioning this? You obviously have nothing but the baseless claim that the universe requires the mind in order to exist. You have no evidence for this position, but you keep stating it in pretty much the same way over and over again.

We have evidence that the world formed around 4.5 billion years ago. Man was not around at that time, yet the world formed anyway. We've found stars that formed more than 13 billion years ago, and man was not around for that, either. Why do you keep insisting on your baseless claim that the existence of the universe depends upon the human mind?

I'm going to ignore and not even quote your sentences that make no sense.

What you think your mind is after death, that is what your physical brain should produce.

After brain death there can be no mind.

For, if a theory could be formed that explained the universe in terms of quantum physics, with a single equation, concerning the physical forces of nature and the movement of particles, (I do not know exactly how the math describe things. I speak in some ignorance), it would not demonstrate that anything consciousness could be formed.

Consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity that isn't well understood, but one thing that's been demonstrated over and over and over again is that there can be no consciousness without brain activity. Your statement that you speak in some ignorance is an understatement - concerning science you speak in almost total ignorance.

It would demonstrate that the most sophisticated object in the universe is nothing but changing states and positions of particles.

Assuming that by "the most sophisticated object in the universe" you mean the human brain, then yes, evidence indicates it is nothing more than matter and energy following the laws of physics.

The happens space, which, as far as I know, is not sentient, nor has any property leading to sentience.

There's a grammatical problem here I can't figure out. I can tell you're declaring that space isn't sentient, which few would argue with, but I can't see how it fits into your larger argument.

You cannot deny that you have a mind, and that it sees colors, which cameras do not, and which androids do not. Though cameras receive light, they do not see anything. But we see, and our sight is not physical.

You're speaking nonsense again. Of course sight is physical, beginning with the eyes, then the optic nerve, then the occipital lobe. Anyone missing any one of those has no sight.

For not in bounds alone are our perceptual fields separated, but they are completely unjoinable in any fashion. Only through the physical medium can our minds interact. Even twins who are joined together have separate visual fields. If one eye belongs to one, they see through that eye, if the other other eye belongs to the other, they see through that eye. But neither sees through the other one's eye, for their perceptual fields are not simply isolated in bounds alone, but in much more than that. Cameras do not have this property, for their lenses and rams are isolated merely in bounds.

The siamese twin stuff is irrelevant, and the camera stuff is ignorant nonsense.

I'll return to the topic.

Oh, be still my heart! So have you figured out that not everything has a cause yet?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 4:15 PM Christian7 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6032
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 195 of 244 (888503)
09-19-2021 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
09-19-2021 11:32 AM


One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.

Then brane collisions, or interaction among multiverses, would be the cause, would it not?

We may not know the cause. We'll have to go find it, but there is one there, somewhere. In the mean time our best response is to admit ignorance and study harder.

I don't think, philosophically, that anything about this universe is un-caused. We're just too ignorant of how this place operates to have figured it out, yet.

Rather than put these things in the 'un-caused' bin I prefer to leave them in the 'ignorance' bin for a few more centuries to see what happens.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 09-19-2021 11:32 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 09-20-2021 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021