An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

@Reconstructo,

I have no real way to prove it, nor do I think that it really matters, but essentially why would I lie? Wouldn't it make more sense to lie and say that I'm older so my points seem more valid because it seems I have more experience with the topic? Either way, it doesn't really mater to me whether you believe me or not.

0 Replies

@north,

You are siting organic matter as an example, but we know that energy CAN reach equilibrium. Put an ice cube in an empty room and it will eventually melt, then the water will dry, and eventually you won't even be able to tell the ice cube was there in the first place, except that rooms heat will have decreased slightly. It will never reform into an ice cube.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

It will never reform into an ice cube.

The prevailing view is that it's unlikely to reform an ice cube, but that it is not impossible.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

Without any external forces at play, and if the room is more than 32 degrees Farenheit it would be a thermodynamic miracle that would probably require quantum physics for it to reform into an ice cube. An event so unlikely it would be effectively impossible.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

We have a word for above reason: "unreasonable."

A
R
T

What does to go above reason mean ?
I'm not talking about some blind faith.
To go above reason means that after examining, scrutinizing and checking everything within reason, in a solid way, a calculation is reached that there is a higher force or even mind thats lying outside creation, above reason, and is the cause of creation.
To be able to go above reason is an attainment that comes after examination in reason.
It doesn't mean unreasonable.
All those who are asking the greater questions in life, within reason, will also find that oneday they too will have to go above reason to search for the answer.

1 Reply

No god? No Christ in Christmas!

0 Replies

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

failures art wrote:
We have a word for above reason: "unreasonable."

What does to go above reason mean ?

Usually it means that the conclusion that they desire is irrational and when reason won't provide the needed bridge, they entertain some florid notion of explanations beyond reason.

ABYA wrote:

I'm not talking about some blind faith.

If you say so.

ABYA wrote:

To go above reason means that after examining, scrutinizing and checking everything within reason, in a solid way, a calculation is reached that there is a higher force or even mind thats lying outside creation, above reason, and is the cause of creation.

This is awful. I can't understand what you wrote here. How can a conclusion be reached once outside of reason? There is no substance in this.

ABYA wrote:

To be able to go above reason is an attainment that comes after examination in reason.

In other words, to go above reason is mental gymnastics.

ABYA wrote:

It doesn't mean unreasonable.

A conclusions outside of reason = unreasonable. You're comfortable going out of reason, so why be bothered by accepting it is unreasonable?

ABYA wrote:

All those who are asking the greater questions in life, within reason, will also find that oneday they too will have to go above reason to search for the answer.

"Above" assumes a lot. The answers that people get within reason are plenty substancial. I can't see any benefit to betray reason and adopt non-sense.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Causality is not a universal principle. The science of quantum mechanics has been strongly established by nearly a century of research. Particles DO spontaneously pop into and out of existence with no cause, so long as the mass-energy of the universe remains constant. Causality is a principle that makes sense in the every day world, but it simply does not have to apply at the rudimentary level.

1 Reply

@AwTin,

AwTin wrote:

Causality is not a universal principle. The science of quantum mechanics has been strongly established by nearly a century of research. Particles DO spontaneously pop into and out of existence with no cause, so long as the mass-energy of the universe remains constant. Causality is a principle that makes sense in the every day world, but it simply does not have to apply at the rudimentary level.

I like how people say, "Particles DO spontaneously pop into and out of existence with no cause." As if that is a fundamental truth. No, I have never heard any physicists say such a thing. We simply do not know the reason, it does not mean there is no cause, surely there would have to be a cause. We just don't know it because it either is not fully understood or we are not capable yet of seeing the process. So quit saying this.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

We simply do not know the reason, it does not mean there is no cause, surely there would have to be a cause.

Why?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I like how people say, "Particles DO spontaneously pop into and out of existence with no cause." As if that is a fundamental truth.

It's a fundamental part of quantum theory, which is generally accepted as "true" (or at least, accurate).

More specifically...

Quote:

The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory, an approximation scheme in which interactions (essentially forces) between real particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram which facilitates the understanding of calculations.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

>>I like how people say, "Particles DO spontaneously pop into and out of existence with no cause." As if that is a fundamental truth. No, I have never heard any physicists say such a thing. We simply do not know the reason, it does not mean there is no cause, surely there would have to be a cause.<<

Ever heard of quantum jitters?

It is a widespread assumption that everything must have a cause. This is not an established universal principle. The concept of 'cause' is virtually irrelevant in quantum mechanics. It laughs in the face of common sense.

A supreme arrogance among humans is that we think that if something doesn't make sense to our brains that it can't be real.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

The part of the statement that I have the issue with is the "no cause" aspect. It simply is not the case. We just do not understand or see what that cause is yet. Quantum physics is almost entirely theoretical in nature. So I want to see where those people who are saying it is "a fact" where they are getting their information from. There is very little fact in QM and a whole lot of theory. I am not against the idea, I am simply trying to remind those who say "without a cause" are being a little overly zealous with the statement.

Just look at how long we have understood gravity? We still do not fully understand it even on a very fundamental level. The theory of gravitons has it's position in the theory but yet to actually find supporting maths which would allow their existence to manifest themselves. I am not opposed to the theory but I think certain comments are a little over bearing at times with their "mater of fact" aspect about them.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Yeah but this still does not say they spontaneously arise without any cause. Just like with the work within quantum computers. Specifically with the idea of entangled particles that can be created in two separate locations and information can be imposed on one particle and instantly acknowledge by the second entangled particle. The implementation of such a technology would make information exchange instantaneous but it says nothing about how these particles arise or behave. I bet there is an underline reason for why some particles can be entangled and why not all particles are entangled.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

The part of the statement that I have the issue with is the "no cause" aspect. It simply is not the case. We just do not understand or see what that cause is yet.

Sure, and I'm asking how you support this claim.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Yeah but this still does not say they spontaneously arise without any cause. Just like with the work within quantum computers. Specifically with the idea of entangled particles that can be created in two separate locations and information can be imposed on one particle and instantly acknowledge by the second entangled particle. The implementation of such a technology would make information exchange instantaneous but it says nothing about how these particles arise or behave. I bet there is an underline reason for why some particles can be entangled and why not all particles are entangled.

not ALL particles are entangled ..... hmmm , interesting

give an example , for what you say is true

I'm not being sarcastic here , I'm really interested in this

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

not ALL particles are entangled ..... hmmm , interesting

give an example , for what you say is true

I'm not being sarcastic here , I'm really interested in this

A team from the Laboratoire de Photonique et de Nano-structures (LPN) of CNRS has developed a light source of entangled photons twenty times brighter than all existing systems. The researchers have invented a novel "photonic molecule" system in which a semiconductor quantum dot1 emits a pair of entangled photons per excitation pulse. This photonic molecule constitutes a trap for each of the photons of the pair and allows them to be collected efficiently. This new source operates at a rate of one pair of photons collected every 8 pulses (compared to less than one pair every 100 pulses so far).

From science daily. This implies that not all particles are entangled.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

north wrote:
not ALL particles are entangled ..... hmmm , interesting

give an example , for what you say is true

I'm not being sarcastic here , I'm really interested in this

A team from the Laboratoire de Photonique et de Nano-structures (LPN) of CNRS has developed a light source of entangled photons twenty times brighter than all existing systems. The researchers have invented a novel "photonic molecule" system in which a semiconductor quantum dot1 emits a pair of entangled photons per excitation pulse. This photonic molecule constitutes a trap for each of the photons of the pair and allows them to be collected efficiently. This new source operates at a rate of one pair of photons collected every 8 pulses (compared to less than one pair every 100 pulses so far).

From science daily. This implies that not all particles are entangled.

this is new to me ( define the acronms ) where can I get more info

0 Replies

@Krumple,

>>We just do not understand or see what that cause is yet. Quantum physics is almost entirely theoretical in nature. So I want to see where those people who are saying it is "a fact" where they are getting their information from. There is very little fact in QM and a whole lot of theory.<<

You are very, very incorrect here. Quantum physics does have a lot of theory, just as most physics does. However, to state that quantum physics is not based in experiment is ludicrous. As I have stated now three times, a century of scientific research has confirmed almost aspect of quantum mechanics.

Quote from Wikipedia's article on quantum mechanics: "Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor (and thus the microchip), the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics."

Quantum mechanics has very relevant applications to modern technology, as you can see. No purely theoretical construct has real-world applications.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

>>I am not against the idea, I am simply trying to remind those who say "without a cause" are being a little overly zealous with the statement.<<

I could argue the same about your association with causality.

The macroscopic world and the microscopic world are nothing alike. Almost all logic that applies to what we can see is irrelevant to the world of atoms. To argue that everything that happens needs a cause applies, as far as we know, almost universally in the macroscopic world. But to apply the same logic to quantum mechanics is comparing apples to oranges.

0 Replies

An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know