The Atheists bane from Quantum Physics: Explaining Particle fluxuation

[Blau&Gruen]

No, physics are a set of laws which are determinable and Science has shown how the universe expanded AFTER creation, these are FACTS....therefore it DOES follow that intelligence did create the universe since the methods used in apprehending or understanding the operation of universal laws stem from intelligence and not randomness & chance/luck.

My argument is valid.

1) "physics are a set of laws which are determinable"

Sciences are rather practical and less as you may think theoretical.

2) "Science has shown how the universe expanded AFTER creation"

Well, there is a misunderstanding in this.

3) "these are FACTS"

No, 2) is based on a misunderstanding. Point 2) does not describe facts therefore but a misunderstanding.

4) "therefore it DOES follow that intelligence did create the universe"

No, what follows is a petitio principii and a misunderstanding related to physics.

5) "since the methods used in apprehending or understanding the operation of universal laws stem from intelligence"

I would assume Isaac Newton was rather intelligent.

6) My argument is valid.

See remark related to point 4).

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Is this thread a joke or what? Oh, never mind . You're wrong, OP.

[The Unknown General]

Is this thread a joke or what? Oh, never mind . You're wrong, OP.

Well its a Christian trying to use science, what do you think?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well its a Christian trying to use science, what do you think?

There is something funnier than that and it's called "Well it's an Atheist trying to use Science, what do you think?".

Lol.

[The Unknown General]

I'd take Darwin, Sagan, Dawkins, and etc over anyone creationists or people who believe in "intelligent design".

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Intellectual myopia must be fun.

[The Unknown General]

Yes, because God said or did it is a reasonable explanation for everything

[Thanatos]

Intellectual myopia must be fun.

How is it myopic to simply demand proof prior to belief in something?

[The Unknown General]

How is it myopic to simply demand proof prior to belief in something?

Arguing with Christians, how does that work? Hopefully you get the reference if not, I'll feel silly.

[sumskilz]

This question of free will that came up earlier in the thread sort of vexes me in that I have to ask, free of what? Free of the laws of nature as theists seem to believe? If neurons are responsible for behavior as all empirical evidence points to, then the decision to act is made through the sum of neurons. This is extremely complex in humans, and hard to study for ethical reasons. But the sea slug, with its relatively simple nervous system consisting of about 10,000 large neurons, is much easier to study. The sea slug can learn and make decisions and what we’ve learned about the sea slug’s decision making process has thus far been relatively applicable to the decision making processes of far more complex creatures.

It is really difficult to have this discussion with anyone who doesn’t understand how neurons and networks of neurons function, but short of theistic mind/brain dualism, the evidence appears to indicate that we do make decisions, but given the exact set of variables at any given moment, the decision we do make, is the only decision that we could have made at that moment. Some will argue then that this excuses criminals from responsibility for their crimes, but when you understand that all decision making processes are affected by environment, we need to still be the deterrence in the environment. Then you could start to question if we really have a choice based on how this all works, but we have to understand that the empirical evidence points to something that is counterintuitive to our subjective experience. Realize though that we have an evolved understanding that is functional rather than accurate. It also appears fairly conclusive at this point that we make decisions before we are consciously aware of them; this has been studied directly in humans.

[Tankbuster]

Wonderful article from

Loka: The Buddha’s Formulation of the Universe
Richard R. Crutcher
a paper delivered to the conference:
Insights from an Ancient Tradition: Spirituality and Science in the Light of Vipassana Meditation

Quote:
"Prof. Luis W. Alvarez and his Nobel Prize-winning work with the
bubble chamber, which essentially established the rate of fluctuation of high energy subatomic
particles at the rate of 10 to the 22 power times per second."

In other words, a perfectly valid scientific conclusion being bastardized by ignoramuses. It's typical pseudo-science from the likes of Deepak Chopra.

A scientific mystery can't be solved by positing God, because doesn't actually have any explanatory power.

I posit that chance played no part in either consciousness nor the express manifesting of the universe but that God created it so.

Since God doesn't exist, that would be quite a feat.

(Yes, you do actually need to establish the existence of something before you get to assert that it created the universe, you see. Tricky how that works.)

An underlying matrix allowing for subatomic fluctuation & it's consequential metaphysic is required to explain the above phenomena.

Not if you actually understand it, it doesn't.

[Himster]

No, physics are a set of laws which are determinable and Science has shown how the universe expanded AFTER creation, these are FACTS....therefore it DOES follow that intelligence did create the universe since the methods used in apprehending or understanding the operation of universal laws stem from intelligence and not randomness & chance/luck.

My argument is valid.

Nope, it doesn't follow.
We don't know how the universe started: fact. Anyone who claims to know is either deluded or a LIAR.

To say the universe birthed itself is stupid.

Agreed, it is also stupid to say a trancendent being created the universe is stupid. The only logical thing to do is be mature and honest and admit our ignorance. Feel free to be immature and dishonest though.

Science...the scientific method disproved this.
The Atheist claims that THAT is exactly what happened,

How can you still not know what atheism means.

No God, Transcendental source, just luck or whatever an Atheists fancy is........Of course it IS comfortable to change one's views about life, morality,etc. ESPECIALLY since there is no God, right? Suuuuurrreeee.........Smoke another one.

WTF are you blathering on about?

Secondly, Your statement sir is a non-sequitur.
The statement "nobodys knows" WOULD work except for the fact that Atheists say with definitiveness that "There is NO God."

You don't know what an atheist is.

There is your overt non-sequitur, Gotcha.

Because you don't know what an atheist is: your argument is by default a non-sequitur.

Sir, I find your post "Tormenting" enough.

What is your "official" position: Atheist or Theist?

"Atheist" is everyone's default position.

[Col. Tartleton]

The "Laws" of physics are whatever trends we've noticed which haven't been invalidated yet.

There's no reason to assume God made them. It's like arguing that God made me get up and go the bathroom at some point after I drink beer. Well if there's a God sure, I guess, but that's not exactly evidence of a God. It's just evidence that if I drink beer I have to pee.

[chriscase]

I'm not saying that the position has merit, merely that both weak and strong agnosticism exist.
Strong agnosticism isn't about doubt or indecisiveness, it's the very decisive statement that knowledge is completely unattainable. It's a position that's very much grounded in belief, and imo because of that on the same level as theism.

I'm more impressed by Ignosticism. Because varieties of religious thought tend to be so difficult to pin down in logical terms, it makes more sense to ask the question of any faith whether its concepts are coherent enough for us to make any reasonable judgments about their truth.

In this light, the debate surrounding the definition of atheism also seems to change. As "a-theists" we define our position as the logical negation of something we identify as theism. The actual experience of this negation generally amounts to a denial of "that", where the "that" ranges from high-art philosophy, literature, and mysticism to outright gibberish. Never the less, it's all got some element of God-talk to it, something that puts it into the general arena of the religious.

But, if it turns out that none of these God-things really hold together logically, how then can we define a logical negation to them? We can't. There is no "thing" there, in logical terms, for us to be against. The best we can do is declare our selves to be "a-nonsense" or "a-gibberish" and leave it at that.

[Mangalore]

There is however also the strong agnostic position that states it's impossible to know, that humanity simply can not ever have the ability answer the question.
Using your murder in the woods allegory, they say that the woods are completely impenetrable and hence don't even know whether there is anything in the woods that's able to be murdered.

Sure, I don't see that point invalidate the flavours of atheism would use. Ultimately the atheistic position is the agnostic position aka "As we have no reason to think that something is the case believing it anyway is nonsensical." Similarily if something is so obscured that we do not have any indication of it having any effects on anything, what value would that have on us.

Would a God that never interfers in anything, never does anything and will eternally be beyond the knowable universe be any different than a non existant God? The effects are in both cases the very same. Unless we have certain indications that would force us to consider the concept of a divine being there is no qualitative difference to there not being one.
To me atheism is the temporary position based on our currently agnostic knowledge. Sure, it could be invalidated but it's simply the most logical conclusion from current observations while agnosticism could be elevated to be a more complete view on how to treat knowledge.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

How is it myopic to simply demand proof prior to belief in something?

Lol. Define 'proof', define 'define', define 'belief', define 'something'.

Would a God that never interfers in anything, never does anything and will eternally be beyond the knowable universe be any different than a non existant God?

Tell me, do you know anthing about causality to comment?

Oh well, let's sum up. Neither the OP, an enthusiastically naive and failed attempt, neither the atheists, are capable of explaining anything at all. That's what the lack of an adequate metaphysics/philosophy/ontology 101 does with ya.

I would recommend the OP to stop reading quantum mysticism and read Aquinas or the Last Superstition. Both books contain arguments that no modern style atheist can refute. Then he can post them on internet forums, and watch them turn blind, cover their ears, and pretend they never heard anything - which is exactly what they have done here.

[Tankbuster]

Tell me, do you know anthing about causality to comment?

Oh well, let's sum up. Neither the OP, an enthusiastically naive and failed attempt, neither the atheists, are capable of explaining anything at all. That's what the lack of an adequate metaphysics/philosophy/ontology 101 does with ya.

I would recommend the OP to stop reading quantum mysticism and read Aquinas or the Last Superstition. Both books contain arguments that no modern style atheist can refute.

Best April Fool's I've seen all day.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Best April Fool's I've seen all day.

...Meanwhile, in the world where people are interested in honest debate and impartial, un-sentimental search for knowledge.

[Manco]

Oh look. It's one of those guys who always swoop in telling everyone's wrong but never bother to explain why, relying on vagary and sophistry instead.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Oh look. It's one of those guys who always swoop in telling everyone's wrong but never bother to explain why, relying on vagary and sophistry instead.

We have already tried - in fact we could do it again. But the reaction would be predictable: your brains would blow up and you would just ignore it.

There, keep being naive. It's so lol.