'Matter is designed' argument for GOD...
02 Jul 2016, 10:13 pm
I believe in a higher intelligence "God", because of the physical order of matter. Not a personal GOD, more like matter is "God goo" that comes from some higher intelligence.
Theoretical physicists Einstein and Kuku make the same argument ...
Albert Einstein: " He said the Universe could have been chaotic, random and ugly—and yet we have this gorgeous synthesis at the origin of the Universe itself, giving birth to the galaxies, the planets, DNA, life. Einstein said that the harmony he sees could not have been an accident".
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/w ... -not-blush
Michio Kaku (co-founder of 'String Theory'): "God is the GOD of order". "God is a mathematician". "God is a musician". The strings vibrate throughout galaxies/universes/dimensions.
source: Youtube Big Think videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkrI-K7yBo
NOTE: I omitted a lot of science and just left it as a superficial argument.
Questions:
1. Do you find this argument appealing or not?
2. Won't the atheist argument that matter randomly formed become much less believable in view of modern physics? Especially, if string theory gives us math that shows us how matter works and functions across many galaxies/universes/dimensions?
02 Jul 2016, 10:47 pm
1. Not.
2. The question assumes that there is one argument that all Athiests share. For example, there is one speculation among many that randomness is inherent in the creation of the universe as we know it. That is, there may have been an infinite number of values for the physical constants, with only a small percentage of those combinations that result in a stable, expanding universe like our own. Other combinations would result in a universe that fails to coalesce matter, resulting in a universe containing only energy; or a universe in which all of the energy immediately coalesces into matter, resulting in a universe contained in an infinitely dense black hole; or a universe in which the gravity constant is insufficiently high for hydrogen atoms to compress and fuse to form helium, resulting in a universe full of nothing but hydrogen atoms in various states of non-degenerate compression.
At the bottom of it all is the reason that our universe was created is unknown. Thus, the reason why our universe has remained stable for ~13.7x10^9 years is also unknown, and "Why" is irrelevant. Our universe simply exists, and that's all that matters, except to philosophers, theologians, and dreamers ... and the existence of God is not proven.
03 Jul 2016, 1:12 am
Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. Einstein may have been a great man who created some great theories, but that doesn't make him right about everything. Same goes for Kuku, he's smart but not omniscient.
Also, as Fnord already said, there is no official atheist argument. In my case I suspect that the prospect of multiple universes may be the answer. We are life, and life as we know it will only form in universes with the ability to create stars, planets, and DNA so it makes sense that as life we will find ourselves in such a universe. If this universe were completely chaotic then we wouldn't be there to point it out. No God necessary.
_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.
Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.
Deviant Art
03 Jul 2016, 2:02 am
mikeman7918 wrote:
Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. .
Many of the quantum models permit determinism ("God Does not play dice"), for example, the "Broglie–Bohm theory".
"Interpretations of quantum mechanics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations
mikeman7918 wrote:
Also, as Fnord already said, there is no official atheist argument. In my case I suspect that the prospect of multiple universes may be the answer. We are life, and life as we know it will only form in universes with the ability to create stars, planets, and DNA so it makes sense that as life we will find ourselves in such a universe. If this universe were completely chaotic then we wouldn't be there to point it out. No God necessary.
You are stating the "multi-verse" theory.
The multi-verse is an attempt to explain why a universe is life-permitting.
However, this is a more basic argument.
This is about seeing such remarkable "beauty" in the design of matter that you can't help but conclude in a higher intelligence.
String theory attempts to find this design.
Here is an interesting NOVA series on "String Theory" ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/el ... verse.html
03 Jul 2016, 2:16 am
Fnord wrote:
1. Not.
2. The question assumes that there is one argument that all Athiests share. For example, there is one speculation among many that randomness is inherent in the creation of the universe as we know it. That is, there may have been an infinite number of values for the physical constants, with only a small percentage of those combinations that result in a stable, expanding universe like our own. Other combinations would result in a universe that fails to coalesce matter, resulting in a universe containing only energy; or a universe in which all of the energy immediately coalesces into matter, resulting in a universe contained in an infinitely dense black hole; or a universe in which the gravity constant is insufficiently high for hydrogen atoms to compress and fuse to form helium, resulting in a universe full of nothing but hydrogen atoms in various states of non-degenerate compression.
At the bottom of it all is the reason that our universe was created is unknown. Thus, the reason why our universe has remained stable for ~13.7x10^9 years is also unknown, and "Why" is irrelevant. Our universe simply exists, and that's all that matters, except to philosophers, theologians, and dreamers ... and the existence of God is not proven.
2. The question assumes that there is one argument that all Athiests share. For example, there is one speculation among many that randomness is inherent in the creation of the universe as we know it. That is, there may have been an infinite number of values for the physical constants, with only a small percentage of those combinations that result in a stable, expanding universe like our own. Other combinations would result in a universe that fails to coalesce matter, resulting in a universe containing only energy; or a universe in which all of the energy immediately coalesces into matter, resulting in a universe contained in an infinitely dense black hole; or a universe in which the gravity constant is insufficiently high for hydrogen atoms to compress and fuse to form helium, resulting in a universe full of nothing but hydrogen atoms in various states of non-degenerate compression.
At the bottom of it all is the reason that our universe was created is unknown. Thus, the reason why our universe has remained stable for ~13.7x10^9 years is also unknown, and "Why" is irrelevant. Our universe simply exists, and that's all that matters, except to philosophers, theologians, and dreamers ... and the existence of God is not proven.
I failed to be clear.
What if you simply look at matter?
We have names for how matter functions: forces, fields, orientations, spin, charge, attraction, repulsion , bonding, ...
Do you see pure randomness as the cause of why makes matter functions the way it does, or perhaps the hands of a higher intelligence?
How does the "random creation" argument hold up if String theory shows matter is actually connected across universes and dimensions?
03 Jul 2016, 3:39 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
This is about seeing such remarkable "beauty" in the design of matter that you can't help but conclude in a higher intelligence.
Seriously? Not this crap again...
This is nothing more than fashionable nonsense.
And it proves - once again - that you (despite numerous explanations by other WP posters) still haven't grasped a basic understanding of the scientific method.
The Argument from Design is not a valid scientific argument, because
- It is an inductive argument - It does not test its theoretical claim
- It is not falsifiable - It cannot test its theoretical claim
- It is a Non Sequitur - Its theoretical claim is does not follow from its empirical claim
Or more specifically, the Argument from Design is guilty of the fallacy of "Affirming the consequent":
Behold:
If the universe was created by design, then it would be highly complex.
The universe is highly complex.
Therefore, the universe was created by design.
Looks good, right? Except...
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
... oh...
And no amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
Stick a fork ... and a pitchfork... and a tuning fork... in the Argument from Design. It's done...
Oh, and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District
03 Jul 2016, 4:40 am
Depends how you define God.
It's a miracle that I exist. I could choose to attribute this to some mysterious God creature but I prefer to simply say it is a miracle. Nobody knows. The scientists can discover more and more and more but they will never discover the origin of the universe. If you'd like to define this as God than I have no problems with that. I don't think there's much more to say on this topic.
03 Jul 2016, 5:37 am
GGPViper wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This is about seeing such remarkable "beauty" in the design of matter that you can't help but conclude in a higher intelligence.
Seriously? Not this crap again...
This is nothing more than fashionable nonsense.
And it proves - once again - that you (despite numerous explanations by other WP posters) still haven't grasped a basic understanding of the scientific method.
Arguments for/against GOD are philosophical not scientific.
GGPViper wrote:
And no amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
I mislead or misquoted?
Likely, I failed to explain myself enough.
GGPViper wrote:
Stick a fork ... and a pitchfork... and a tuning fork... in the Argument from Design. It's done...
I tried to clarify this in an earlier response.
This argument is not above the design of the universe.
Einstein and Kaku very likely don't believe in "intelligent design" of the universe.
However, they both acknowledge the remarkable "beauty" and "eloquence" of matter.
Kaku in many of his videos uses phrases like "God is a mathematician", "God is a musician" ...
For example, one reason is because, Kaku sees matter in this universe as possibly interconnected to other universes and dimensions in both time and space.
He see a possible "unified order" in matter across time, space, universe, dimension.
It may sound nuts, however, watch the NOVA video I cited above.
Oh yeah, their intro points out how nuts it sounds.
03 Jul 2016, 5:57 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This is about seeing such remarkable "beauty" in the design of matter that you can't help but conclude in a higher intelligence.
Seriously? Not this crap again...
This is nothing more than fashionable nonsense.
And it proves - once again - that you (despite numerous explanations by other WP posters) still haven't grasped a basic understanding of the scientific method.
Arguments for/against GOD are philosophical not scientific.
Red herring.
BTW, the scientific method was invented by philosophers like Hume, Reisenbach and Popper...
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
And no amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
I mislead or misquoted?
Both.
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Stick a fork ... and a pitchfork... and a tuning fork... in the Argument from Design. It's done...
I tried to clarify this in an earlier response.
This argument is not above the design of the universe.
Einstein and Kaku very likely don't believe in "intelligent design" of the universe.
However, they both acknowledge the remarkable "beauty" and "eloquence" of matter.
Kaku in many of his videos use phrases like "God is a mathematician", "God is a musician" ...
For example, one reason is because, Kaku sees matter in this universe as possibly interconnected to other universes and dimensions in both time and space.
He see a possible "unified order" in matter across time, space, universe, dimension.
It may sound nuts, however, watch the NOVA video I cited above.
Oh yeah, their intro points out how nuts it sounds.
I reiterate...
No amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
03 Jul 2016, 6:16 am
GGPViper wrote:
No amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
You twice accused me of "intellectually dishonesty" yet you failed to explain yourself.
You don't seem to know anything about this topic.
Please don't waste people's time if you can't explain yourself.
03 Jul 2016, 6:24 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Depends how you define God.
It's a miracle that I exist. I could choose to attribute this to some mysterious God creature but I prefer to simply say it is a miracle. Nobody knows. The scientists can discover more and more and more but they will never discover the origin of the universe. If you'd like to define this as God than I have no problems with that. I don't think there's much more to say on this topic.
It's a miracle that I exist. I could choose to attribute this to some mysterious God creature but I prefer to simply say it is a miracle. Nobody knows. The scientists can discover more and more and more but they will never discover the origin of the universe. If you'd like to define this as God than I have no problems with that. I don't think there's much more to say on this topic.
God is the force that set the order of matter.
It may not be a thinking entity.
This is what Einstein, and Kaku refer to when they say "GOD".
03 Jul 2016, 6:50 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Depends how you define God.
It's a miracle that I exist. I could choose to attribute this to some mysterious God creature but I prefer to simply say it is a miracle. Nobody knows. The scientists can discover more and more and more but they will never discover the origin of the universe. If you'd like to define this as God than I have no problems with that. I don't think there's much more to say on this topic.
It's a miracle that I exist. I could choose to attribute this to some mysterious God creature but I prefer to simply say it is a miracle. Nobody knows. The scientists can discover more and more and more but they will never discover the origin of the universe. If you'd like to define this as God than I have no problems with that. I don't think there's much more to say on this topic.
God is the force that set the order of matter.
It may not be a thinking entity.
This is what Einstein, and Kaku refer to when they say "GOD".
My argument is this ...
Theoretical physicists are looking for a "unifying theory".
Their theories of tieing the already remarkably complex quantum level to the macro-world involves an even more complex functioning of matter.
It would seem that as science shows us that matter functions on ever increasing complexity that we begin to conclude that the GOD force has some intelligence; matter starts to seem too complex to be random.
This seems like not only common sense, but also mathematically true.
Especially, if matter is all connected, and crosses universes, and dimensions through space and time.
That's some complex stuff.
03 Jul 2016, 9:20 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
No amount of intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading and cherry-picked quotations is going to change that...
You twice accused me of "intellectually dishonesty" yet you failed to explain yourself.
You don't seem to know anything about this topic.
Please don't waste people's time if you can't explain yourself.
Fine. Here are my explanations... And the explanations from other WP posters who have similarly exposed you as intellectually dishonest:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6184772#p6184772
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6184850#p6184850
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6185194#p6185194
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6185898#p6185898
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6187768#p6187768
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6188427#p6188427
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6188811#p6188811
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6194524#p6194524
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6284108#p6284108
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6286862#p6286862
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6310520#p6310520
And finally, a summary - quoted in full:
DentArthurDent wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Many of my ideas get dismissed as nonsense, and it is frustrating, so what is the point.
-My topic on math anti-realism, dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My research about Prometheus (pre-determined evolution based on 'seeding'), dismissed as nonsense by many, and called many insults.
-My discourse on QM at the macro level (despite citing Scientific America & Yale physics professor Shankar's class on youtube), dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My topic on whether divergence exists in reality, no one took much interest also wrongly moved to 'math' when it is a philosophical question
-My topic on 'Multiple hand Single Event Blackjack', dismissed as nonsense by some Only one person, after much math explanation recognized the difference between calculating a weighted expectancy (blackjack probability over the long run) and a non-weighted expectancy (blackjack probability per a single event).
-My discourse on the Teleological argument 'Fine Tuning" *sigh* I cite right from the wikipedia page, and I was told I was 'quoting out of context' and "intellectual dishonest".
I have philosophical math topics I would like to explore, like
-whether philosophically gambling should be legal or not (given that at best a 43% chance to win at blackjack, and 49% on craps pass line)
-the randomness of pseudo random number generators
Part of it is my fault though cause perhaps I don't explain my ideas well enough. However, what is the point? See the pattern ?
-My topic on math anti-realism, dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My research about Prometheus (pre-determined evolution based on 'seeding'), dismissed as nonsense by many, and called many insults.
-My discourse on QM at the macro level (despite citing Scientific America & Yale physics professor Shankar's class on youtube), dismissed as nonsense by some.
-My topic on whether divergence exists in reality, no one took much interest also wrongly moved to 'math' when it is a philosophical question
-My topic on 'Multiple hand Single Event Blackjack', dismissed as nonsense by some Only one person, after much math explanation recognized the difference between calculating a weighted expectancy (blackjack probability over the long run) and a non-weighted expectancy (blackjack probability per a single event).
-My discourse on the Teleological argument 'Fine Tuning" *sigh* I cite right from the wikipedia page, and I was told I was 'quoting out of context' and "intellectual dishonest".
I have philosophical math topics I would like to explore, like
-whether philosophically gambling should be legal or not (given that at best a 43% chance to win at blackjack, and 49% on craps pass line)
-the randomness of pseudo random number generators
Part of it is my fault though cause perhaps I don't explain my ideas well enough. However, what is the point? See the pattern ?
Those of us who have discussed these topics with so most certainly see a pattern, you for some reason do not. I see you still have not responded to my question regarding your clear and obvious quoting of me completely out of context. The trouble is you do take things way out of context which makes having a reasoned debate with you impossible, you will quote something or someone as if they support your ideas when in fact the opposite is true. It is not that you do not bring interesting subjects to the table, for example thanks to you I have been delving into the debate surrounding the objectivity vs subjectivity of maths, even though I would like to discuss this, I wont bother because I cannot trust your use of sources to be an honest characterisation of their actual view.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=307393&p=6298089#p6298089
^ What he said...
Matthew 7:5...
03 Jul 2016, 9:53 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
mikeman7918 wrote:
Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. .
Many of the quantum models permit determinism ("God Does not play dice"), for example, the "Broglie–Bohm theory".
"Interpretations of quantum mechanics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations
mikeman7918 wrote:
Also, as Fnord already said, there is no official atheist argument. In my case I suspect that the prospect of multiple universes may be the answer. We are life, and life as we know it will only form in universes with the ability to create stars, planets, and DNA so it makes sense that as life we will find ourselves in such a universe. If this universe were completely chaotic then we wouldn't be there to point it out. No God necessary.
You are stating the "multi-verse" theory.
The multi-verse is an attempt to explain why a universe is life-permitting.
However, this is a more basic argument.
This is about seeing such remarkable "beauty" in the design of matter that you can't help but conclude in a higher intelligence.
String theory attempts to find this design.
Here is an interesting NOVA series on "String Theory" ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/el ... verse.html
NOVA series? LOL. I have read 3 books on the topic, and nowhere in the theory is a God needed for anything. String theory, among other things, explains how the universe we observe and the laws that govern it could have originated without a creator.
If you think that the idea of something complex forming from nothing is absurd, then perhaps you could answer the age old question: who/what created God?
_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.
Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.
Deviant Art
03 Jul 2016, 10:01 am
mikeman7918 wrote:
Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. Einstein may have been a great man who created some great theories, but that doesn't make him right about everything. Same goes for Kuku, he's smart but not omniscient.
.
.
Einstein was wrong about locality, which the experiments done to falsify Bell's inequality show pretty clearly.
The God who doesn't play dice is NOT the god that people go to churches, synagogues and mosques to worship.
_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
03 Jul 2016, 10:06 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
mikeman7918 wrote:
Einstein also believed that quantum mechanics was wrong, stating that "God does not play dice with the universe", yet quantum mechanics is still a thing. .
Many of the quantum models permit determinism ("God Does not play dice"), for example, the "Broglie–Bohm theory".
"Interpretations of quantum mechanics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... pretations
The De Broglie Bohm theory is not compatible with Special Relativity, which is why most physicists do not accept it. It also does not fit in with quantum field theory.
_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Does it matter if my car is not a fancy ferrari e.g.? |
11 Mar 2024, 12:08 pm |
| A Physicist Claims the Universe Has No Dark Matter & Is 27B |
29 Mar 2024, 5:13 pm |
