Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because after God, nobody gives a damn what's beyond that.

That's not how theists who employ the argument of God not requiring a creator handle infinite regression. They simply reject it as a notion, even though doing so contradicts the logic of their own argument. (ie "All things require a creator, therefore the universe requires a creator")

If you're going to be an apologist for irrational thought, you might as well learn the rote.

You got a chance to reincarnate. You got a chance to live, to make a difference, to change other people's lives, to experience the grand cosmic adventure, you got a chance to experience the intensity of life to its fullest, you got the chance to push yourself hard, to push yourself beyond your personal limitations, you got a chance to play the game of life, no holds barred, you got a chance to fight for what you believe in, you got a chance to fly a banner of YOUR CHOICE, you got a chance to make your own decisions and to reap whatever rewards or consequences that came with it, you got a chance to suffer and die for your beliefs, you got a chance to experience what it is to be alive...

Unless you're born mentally retarded, or physically deformed. Or born diseased, or die shortly after birth (aka way before you ever get a chance to make a choice of your own). Or any number of scenarios that don't involve you having the choice or the opportunity to make any kind of a life for yourself. Not to mention the countless generations in prehistory that lived and died in utter poverty, always near starvation, always in fear, literally fighting for every meal. Some "plan."

I've never met a zealot who could reconcile all of their solipsistic beliefs about design or "God's plan for us all," but you don't seem to have given this stuff any thought at all. It's as if you got an idea in your head one day, decided it was the truth, and have defended it as such ever since. Unless you're content as being the Glass Joe of this and many other forums, I suggest educating yourself. Even if you just take a lesson from some of our resident apologists. None of them can stand up to a reasoned argument, but some of them at least give the appearance of intelligence.

There is no evidence that anything material existed prior to the big bang.

You say that as if we've been there and didn't find anything. Again, my only and best advice here would be to educate yourself. You're clearly speaking from ignorance.
 
Has it ever occurred to anyone how much more intelligent the discourse of this forum would be if only more people would put Mazulu on ignore? Even if only as an experiment for a week?
 
Has it ever occurred to anyone how much more intelligent the discourse of this forum would be if only more people would put Mazulu on ignore? Even if only as an experiment for a week?

That's a good idea. I've done it with other intellectual black holes, maybe I'll try it with him.
 
That's not how theists who employ the argument of God not requiring a creator handle infinite regression. They simply reject it as a notion, even though doing so contradicts the logic of their own argument. (ie "All things require a creator, therefore the universe requires a creator")

A coexisting spiritual reality that gives rise to the big bang solves the infinite regression problem. A spiritual reality is itself invisible/undetectable. Whatever gave rise to that, is even more invisible/undetectable, a few iterations of that, and you are indeed starting from nothing.
 
A coexisting spiritual reality that gives rise to the big bang solves the infinite regression problem.

This borders on word salad. What do you mean by a "coexisting spiritual reality?"

A spiritual reality is itself invisible/undetectable. Whatever gave rise to that, is even more invisible/undetectable

A thing is either invisible or it isn't. A thing is either undetectable or it isn't. There are no varying degrees of either. And where does this notion even come from? What evidence is there to support it?

a few iterations of that, and you are indeed starting from nothing.

Absolutely nonsensical. Visibility and detectability have no bearing on the existence of an object. You're working with terms so poorly defined even you don't understand them.
 
But martyrdom for what cause or purpose? Who's going to deliberately die for the sake of something he knows is untrue? Not to mention, martyrs feel secure because they "know" that their god will be impressed and they'll be transported to a very nice wing of heaven the moment they die. Who's going to sign up for an early death, for a fraudulent cause, if they know that death is truly final?

Sure, I know that some people are simply wired wrong so we can't understand the motivation for their decisions. But the people who have volunteered to die for Jesus, Mohammed, and the more subtle differences between religions are legion. If there are that many crazy people on earth, then why are they all so crazy in the same way? Why aren't thousands of people going to war because they think baseball is better than football, or Fords are better than Chevys, or reggaeton is better than hip-hop, or Coke is better than Pepsi?

Seems to me that it's only the sports that actually generate a bit of that violent competition, and it pales in comparison to the violent competition among earth's religions. How many people are killed in soccer (European football) riots in an entire decade? Three hundred?

Buddhists don't even wait for a confrontation, they just set themselves on fire!

Martyrdom in Islam, for example, is all about submission to Islam, to what is good and what is bad (jihad) conveyed through the prophet Muhammad, it is to a cause; surrender and peace through action, beliefs and practices, thought, word, and deed.

Of course, many Muslims don't seek martyrdom, but they will lie through their teeth regarding whatever has been conveyed through Muhammad; Islam.
 
@ Mazulu;

Can't multi quote from my phone :/ I can, but it always proves to be an arduous task.

But for now, to your point...if God's existence could be proven or linked to the BB, then you're suggesting no one would care beyond that....to that I say, why wouldn't anyone care?

See, what I finally get from your posts is that you don't want science to prove the existence of God, you feel that the inability of science (currently) to answer certain questions about the universe, should be proof enough that he exists.

Am I sorta gettin' what you're driving at? :)

If that is your stance, to that I say ... Science may seem limited right now, but it does provide some plausible alternative ideas as to what might have caused the BB. Just sayin' ...If there were absolutely ZERO alternative ideas out there i'd say ...ok, maybe we need to look beyond the norm for answers.

Any way we slice this pie, there is just no true reason to believe that the universe was caused by a supernatural "being."

Ill reply to your other quote later.
 
Have you looked at the definition of the word supernatural? Whatever caused the big bang is beyond what science can understand, beyond what they can test. There is no science for the creation of LAWS OF PHYSICS or for PHYSICS CONSTANTS. Whatever created those is, by definition, supernatural. :)


The problem with your assertion is that you or anyone else is unable to even hypothesize the force that is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature attributed to any kind of creation. The reason for that is because nothing has ever shown to have any such force as it's origin. You and other religionists will opine that it is your God, but no gods have ever been shown to exist. It is a failed assertion.
 
A coexisting spiritual reality that gives rise to the big bang solves the infinite regression problem. A spiritual reality is itself invisible/undetectable. Whatever gave rise to that, is even more invisible/undetectable, a few iterations of that, and you are indeed starting from nothing.

That is circular, you can't assert the existence of something that is invisible and undetectable if it is indeed invisible and undetectable, how would anyone opine something that simply isn't there?
 
Because after God, nobody gives a damn what's beyond that.

...you got a chance to fight for what you believe in... you got a chance to suffer and die for your beliefs...

That is why your religion causes so much conflict in the world. Those have to be some of the stupidest reasons for following in a God. But, it certainly does show that religions teach people to lie, fight and hate others.
 
Name one thing that isn't material.
Light and other forms of energy. The typical dichotomy used to analyze the universe is: matter vs. energy. Of course Einstein muddled that when he discovered that matter can be changed into energy, but the dichotomy is still in standard use. The Four Fundamental Forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are not material.

The new paradigm of elementary particles--quarks, leptons and bosons (one level deeper than the paradigm I learned in high school 55 years ago)--spells this out in more detail. By going to a lower level it has dispensed with the matter/energy dichotomy. But outside the academy's Cosmology Wing, the rest of us still use the convenient dichotomy of matter versus energy.

So light, indeed, is not material.

Have you looked at the definition of the word supernatural? Whatever caused the big bang is beyond what science can understand, beyond what they can test.
You keep forgetting the "YET." How many scientists have you met who just throw up their hands and say, "We'll never understand the Big Bang so I guess we'll all have to start going to church"?

I repeat: We've only known about the Big Bang for approximately one century. That's not enough time to completely understand it. And once again, I have to repeat these things to you because you appear to be completely unable to comprehend them, which makes your participation on a science board pointless for you and a big pain in the ass for everyone else who is thinking twenty times faster than you are.

I feel like I've got a precocious seven-year-old here. You can pronounce the words and you have a basic understand of the meanings of a few of them, but you can't understand the sentences in which they're used.

Which brings me back to my oft-repeated observation: Religious people are stuck in the mind-set of a seven-year old. Believing in God in adulthood is not qualitatively different from believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

There is no science for the creation of LAWS OF PHYSICS or for PHYSICS CONSTANTS.
Again, you omit the word YET. Many of these laws (e.g. relativity) and constants (e.g. the speed of light) have only been known for approximately one century. You need to be more patient as we now struggle to figure out why they are what they are.

Again, this impatience belies the mindset of a seven-year-old. "I don't want to have to go to school for eleven more years before I can vote. I want to do it right now!"

Whatever created those is, by definition, supernatural.
How the hell can you know this, considering that we've barely begun the investigation into their origin? Again: no patience, no maturity, no ability to comprehend science.

What's wrong with "I don't know?"
One of many wonderful lines of dialog that Gene Roddenberry (and his staff) wrote for the Star Trek franchise was:

The basic statement of science, indeed the foundation of science, is "I don't know." [Spoken by Data in TNG if I'm not mistaken, and surely not quoted accurately.]

There is no evidence that anything material existed prior to the big bang.
Once again the seven-year-old comes back to haunt us. I've explained that at least three times and this makes four. The total of matter and antimatter in the universe is zero. In other words: nothing material exists now. All that exists is order and the Second Law of Thermodynamics permits local increases in order.

If you don't want us to think of you as a hopeless child, then please STOP ACTING LIKE ONE! Why do you need everything to be repeated four times? If you disagree with the explanation, well that's okay, but then it's up to you to state your disagreement. You don't get to come back three times and speak as though the explanation was never posted. That is trolling and it's a violation of the rules of the website. And it makes you look like a complete fool. I don't understand why you enjoy that.

Has it ever occurred to anyone how much more intelligent the discourse of this forum would be if only more people would put Mazulu on ignore? Even if only as an experiment for a week?
I'm holding onto the hope that this discussion is very instructive to the young people who log on just to see how science works. If we can deal with Mazulu, then we can handle anything.

Martyrdom in Islam, for example, is all about submission to Islam, to what is good and what is bad (jihad) conveyed through the prophet Muhammad, it is to a cause; surrender and peace through action, beliefs and practices, thought, word, and deed.
But everything the Prophet conveyed was (according to doctrine) revealed to him by God. If there is no God then Mohammed is just one more wacko. Who's going to become a martyr for the sake of a wacko who cannot in fact promise them eternal life starting out with 72 virgins?

Of course, many Muslims don't seek martyrdom, but they will lie through their teeth regarding whatever has been conveyed through Muhammad; Islam.
Of course. This is simply politics and manipulation, and imaginary theology is a great way to found a political system. But it's not one that the founders would die for, since they're in on the scam.

But your premise is that even the followers are in on the scam. You still haven't explained why they would be willing to die for it.

Lots of people were willing to die for Hitler who didn't really agree with him, because he had the power to kill their entire family if they didn't obey. But imaginary gods don't have that power. So why would anyone be willing to die for an imaginary god?
 
But everything the Prophet conveyed was (according to doctrine) revealed to him by God. If there is no God then Mohammed is just one more wacko. Who's going to become a martyr for the sake of a wacko who cannot in fact promise them eternal life starting out with 72 virgins?

It's not about the 72 virgins, it's about the cause, which Muhammad conveyed and claimed was revealed not by God, but by the angel Gabriel. Muhammad was considered a great leader, then, not a wacko. The cause was all about Mecca and how the rich merchants were getting richer and the people getting poorer, this was all due to the fact Mecca was the center of tribal gods, some 300 of them at that time.

Of course. This is simply politics and manipulation, and imaginary theology is a great way to found a political system. But it's not one that the founders would die for, since they're in on the scam.

But your premise is that even the followers are in on the scam. You still haven't explained why they would be willing to die for it.

Few are actually willing to do for their cause, but those who are willing usually want their names in lights, remembered forever, something they probably could not achieve any other way.

Lots of people were willing to die for Hitler who didn't really agree with him, because he had the power to kill their entire family if they didn't obey. But imaginary gods don't have that power. So why would anyone be willing to die for an imaginary god?

The followers have the power, which is all that matters. Those who are willing to die only care about impressing the other followers, far more than their gods.
 
It's not about the 72 virgins, it's about the cause, which Muhammad conveyed and claimed was revealed not by God, but by the angel Gabriel.
But the angels are minions of God. Anyone who believes that Gabriel is real almost surely feels the same way about God.

Muhammad was considered a great leader, then, not a wacko. The cause was all about Mecca and how the rich merchants were getting richer and the people getting poorer, this was all due to the fact Mecca was the center of tribal gods, some 300 of them at that time.
Sure, nobody thought Mohammed was a wacko. But you say that virtually no one believed then or believes now that the God he spoke of so earnestly was/is real.

Therefore, are you saying that people were willing to die for Islam because it promised to reform their economic system? I can accept this, considering the number of Americans who are willing to die to impose our way of life on other countries. (Actual bumper sticker: "Don't piss off America or we'll bring freedom and democracy to your country next!")

But what does that say about the rerun of the Crusades? Are the members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda willing to die simply to hang onto their medieval tribal system of government, with no rights for women, etc? I suppose in a snarky mood I'd be happy to see them die for that cause, leaving behind the people who disagree with them and making the world incrementally better for everyone. But I'm not happy to see thousands of young Americans die so we can decide how people in another country should live. Especially since so far that hasn't worked. Korea was the only war since WWII that actually yielded anything, and did all those people need to die just so we could have Hyundais?

Few are actually willing to do for their cause, but those who are willing usually want their names in lights, remembered forever, something they probably could not achieve any other way.
There are an awful lot of men in the Middle East who are willing to die for whatever we agree is the goal of the people who are fighting on the other side of the New Crusades. Are you saying this is merely to be remembered? They don't actually have a cogent cause?

I can understand the Palestinians. The Jews are punishing them for the Holocaust because we never let them bomb Germany. They genuinely hope that their sacrifices will result in a better life for the loved ones they leave behind. But few conflicts are so clear.

The followers have the power, which is all that matters. Those who are willing to die only care about impressing the other followers, far more than their gods.
Good reason not to be a follower then. ;) I'm not a leader either, so I'll just obey the old slogan and get out of the way.
 
Light and other forms of energy. The typical dichotomy used to analyze the universe is: matter vs. energy. Of course Einstein muddled that when he discovered that matter can be changed into energy, but the dichotomy is still in standard use. The Four Fundamental Forces: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are not material.

The new paradigm of elementary particles--quarks, leptons and bosons (one level deeper than the paradigm I learned in high school 55 years ago)--spells this out in more detail. By going to a lower level it has dispensed with the matter/energy dichotomy. But outside the academy's Cosmology Wing, the rest of us still use the convenient dichotomy of matter versus energy.

So light, indeed, is not material.

They are particles and thus material. Energy is material.
 
Has it ever occurred to anyone how much more intelligent the discourse of this forum would be if only more people would put Mazulu on ignore? Even if only as an experiment for a week?

It may come to that. For now, only wellwisher deserves that honor from me.
 
Agreed. Properties, ideas, numbers, geometric shapes, space, time, minds, consciousness, values, holes, wavefunctions, the quantum vacuum, singularities, attractors--many examples of nonmaterial realities.

These are all qualities of material things.
 
They are particles and thus material. Energy is material.
That may be grammatically correct. But to call quarks and leptons "material," just because the only word scientists could come up with for them was "particles," is a pretty weak argument.

As I've noted many times on this forum, scientists are absolutely crappy communicators, particularly when they attempt to communicate with laymen. There is no better example than their use of the word "theory" to mean a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, such as evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, and then turning around and coining the term "string theory" for a conjecture that is nothing more than a few mathematical formulas and a whole lotta arm-waving.

Photons (one of the five known kinds of bosons) have zero mass. Doesn't this suggest that calling them "particles," which encourages us to think of them as "matter," is misleading?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top