Are the laws of physics based on magic?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Mazulu, Sep 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,627
    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?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    That's a good idea. I've done it with other intellectual black holes, maybe I'll try it with him.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I live to answer questions. Please present yours.
     
  8. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I wouldn't blame you if you did. You seem unwilling to engage in HONEST debate anyway.
     
  9. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    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.
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    This borders on word salad. What do you mean by a "coexisting spiritual reality?"

    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?

    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.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    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.
     
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,236
    @ 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?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855

    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.
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    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?
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    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.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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.

    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.

    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!"

    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.

    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.]

    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.

    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.

    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. 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?
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    But the angels are minions of God. Anyone who believes that Gabriel is real almost surely feels the same way about God.

    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?

    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.

    Good reason not to be a follower then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not a leader either, so I'll just obey the old slogan and get out of the way.
     
  19. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,458
    Bullshit. "Where did god come from?" is obviously the next logical question.
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    They are particles and thus material. Energy is material.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It may come to that. For now, only wellwisher deserves that honor from me.
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    These are all qualities of material things.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page