3 of 6
3
Friend believes in a higher power that created all this…
Posted: 21 October 2013 08:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 07:34 PM
macgyver - 21 October 2013 07:27 PM

Jacko the whole idea of a” finely tuned universe” universe is one we are all familiar with here and one that has been discredited.

There are a number of things wrong with this argument but the main issue is that you are looking at an uncommon occurrence after the event and then asking what the odds are. To give an example, lets say you flip a coin a thousand times and get a given result. What ever the final pattern, the odds of getting that pattern is 1/2^1000th which is a pretty tiny number. The thing is that the odds are exactly the same for every possible outcome. The odds of getting a given outcome are only remote if you were trying to get that outcome from the start.

You think that the odds are impossibly high for the universe to have happened this way because this particular set of values and constants led to us. Anything different would have led to something else but the odds of getting any other universe are as remote as our own. There is absolutely nothing special about this universe except that it led to us, but that’s only special to us. To the universe it means nothing.

Are you certain about this?  Because last time I checked, we have yet to find life elsewhere in the universe.

Sure, “chance”, it’s all nice in theory, but it still evades the FACTS.

There doesn’t need to be life somewhere else in the universe to validate my point. My whole point is that a universe with no life and some other set of constants is just as unlikely as the particular universe and set of constant that we have. You only think this universe is special because it has life and life is special to you. A universe that lead to no life, or no stars or no atoms at all would be just as special as our own in terms of the remote odds of each of those universes existing.

Here is another way to look at it. Lets say you had a plot of land with a wide variety of random conditions throughout the plot. Some areas are very dry and others are very moist. Some are acidic and some are basic. Some get lots of sun and some are always in shade. Some areas have abundant nutrients and others have none. These areas overlap in random ways so that there are multiple patches each with a different combination of conditions. Now spread grass seed evenly over the entire lot and watch what happens. You will get many areas of no growth where the perfect combination of conditions does not exist but in one or two areas you will have just the right amount of moisture, sunlight, pH, and nutrients so that your seeds flourish. Now if you were a sentient blade of grass you would look at that spot and say this must have been intelligently designed this way otherwise what are the odds that all the conditions I need for life just happened to exist here. But looking at this from the initial set of conditions it was entirely random. The grass just grew where the random conditions where right for them to grow.

The same is true for us. There may have been an infinite number of universes over the infinite expanse of time. This universe wasn’t ideally designed for life. Life arose because the conditions were right.

Random chance is the only thing that makes sense. What facts does it evade? How does a belief in a being no one has every seen make more sense?

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 08:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13

But that is no evidence of conscious engineering

If you want to talk about “conscious” engineering we can go there. 

The author to the book “In search of the holy language” makes this strong point.  In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics” and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results.  In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.

But now a bigger question arises…………..  If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?

That would make that observer our conscious Creator?

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 09:00 PM by Jacko1 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 03:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 08:54 PM

But that is no evidence of conscious engineering

If you want to talk about “conscious” engineering we can go there. 

The author to the book “In search of the holy language” makes this strong point.  In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics” and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results.  In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.

But now a bigger question arises…………..  If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?

That would make that observer our conscious Creator?

Or as I said before, it is You who is creating your universe. Your conclusion that therefore an outside observer is necessary is flawed logic.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  285
Joined  2011-09-13
advocatus - 18 October 2013 09:05 AM

Yes, this is probably the most common argument that theists have.  The only answer I can think of is to turn the tables on him and say, “Well, if everything had to be created, what created your creator?” At which point he will respond by saying his creator always existed.  You can respond, “well if your creator always existed, how do you know the universe itself didn’t always exist, in one form or another?”

But it’s probably not really worth getting into.  Ultimately you’ll just have to accept one another and agree to disagree.

I agree with your answer 100%.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 08:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Write4U - 22 October 2013 03:39 AM
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 08:54 PM

But that is no evidence of conscious engineering

If you want to talk about “conscious” engineering we can go there. 

The author to the book “In search of the holy language” makes this strong point.  In so many words, she articulates about the science of “Quantum Mechanics” and the double slit experiment which has been scientifically tested time and time again to get the same results.  In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed. Particles are waves, and they become solid matter which consists all around us and creates the environment.

But now a bigger question arises…………..  If we are observing things and thus creating our environment here on earth, then who is observing us from afar (universe)?

That would make that observer our conscious Creator?

Or as I said before, it is You who is creating your universe. Your conclusion that therefore an outside observer is necessary is flawed logic.

Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics then, because it dictates otherwise!

It is not merely me, just making an assessment on the obvious data.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1298
Joined  2009-10-21
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 08:26 AM

In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.

All you’ve done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Lausten - 22 October 2013 08:58 AM
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 08:26 AM

In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.

All you’ve done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.


Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that “misunderstanding” is?

I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM.  So please do share?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 October 2013 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1298
Joined  2009-10-21
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 01:34 PM
Lausten - 22 October 2013 08:58 AM
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 08:26 AM

In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.

All you’ve done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.


Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that “misunderstanding” is?

I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM.  So please do share?

Don’t just tell me what to post. This is a forum, not your personal space for demanding explanations. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in listening to the opinions of others, that you will take just about anything and relate it back to the Bible. It would be a dis-service to you for me to attempt to explain QM, something I am not an expert in, and something you don’t show a desire to understand.

Tell me more about how you arrived at these conclusions of yours. Show me that you are making inquiries, not just making claims about how an experiment involving light waves/particles leads to a conclusion that there is a god-consciousness. Then I might consider doing something other than pointing out where you are wrong (in my opinion of course, because in the end, that’s all we got).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Lausten - 22 October 2013 02:14 PM
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 01:34 PM
Lausten - 22 October 2013 08:58 AM
Jacko1 - 22 October 2013 08:26 AM

In this experiment it revolves around an “observer” that changes the path of the particles when they are being observed.

All you’ve done here is shown a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect. PBS has done some good work on explaining quantum physics, you should check them out.


Don’t just tell me I have a complete misunderstanding of the observer affect; tell me exactly what that “misunderstanding” is?

I’ve watched PBS and have read many articles on the findings of QM.  So please do share?

Don’t just tell me what to post. This is a forum, not your personal space for demanding explanations. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in listening to the opinions of others, that you will take just about anything and relate it back to the Bible. It would be a dis-service to you for me to attempt to explain QM, something I am not an expert in, and something you don’t show a desire to understand.

Tell me more about how you arrived at these conclusions of yours. Show me that you are making inquiries, not just making claims about how an experiment involving light waves/particles leads to a conclusion that there is a god-consciousness. Then I might consider doing something other than pointing out where you are wrong (in my opinion of course, because in the end, that’s all we got).

Why do I get the sense of hostility from you?  I posted something and you called it out saying it was incorrect, so I then ask you to clarify what is wrong.  You claim I am incorrect and then say you are NOT an expert, and refuse to cite sources other than PBS. 

shaking-head-sad-smiley-emoticon.gif

In any event I will submit this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_BzTMeV4HI

[ Edited: 23 October 2013 08:21 AM by Jacko1 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1298
Joined  2009-10-21

Jacko;
Macgyver suggested all believers have doubt, you told him he “missed the whole point”.
You told Lois there is a vast collection of archeological evidence. I pointed out very huge flaw in one from the list you linked, and you didn’t respond.
You said there “FACTS” that support the design argument, but several people told you they have considered those facts and found them wrong and gave explanations. You pretty much ignored those and shifted the conversation to “conscious engineering”, getting us to where we are now.

I consider statements like “Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics” hostile. But when I respond to your obstinacy and demands with a demand to not be demanding, you cry foul. I don’t play those games. I like to help people, but you have shown a consistent pattern of not wanting to be helped. You have shown no humility or interest in learning. I might watch your youtube link later, or I might not. Given everything you have linked so far, the odds that this one is valuable are low.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Lausten - 23 October 2013 08:51 AM

Jacko;
Macgyver suggested all believers have doubt, you told him he “missed the whole point”.
You told Lois there is a vast collection of archeological evidence. I pointed out very huge flaw in one from the list you linked, and you didn’t respond.
You said there “FACTS” that support the design argument, but several people told you they have considered those facts and found them wrong and gave explanations. You pretty much ignored those and shifted the conversation to “conscious engineering”, getting us to where we are now.

I consider statements like “Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics” hostile. But when I respond to your obstinacy and demands with a demand to not be demanding, you cry foul. I don’t play those games. I like to help people, but you have shown a consistent pattern of not wanting to be helped. You have shown no humility or interest in learning. I might watch your youtube link later, or I might not. Given everything you have linked so far, the odds that this one is valuable are low.

Your distraction technique is not working…  I’m still waiting for an answer, which will probably never come.  :(

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1298
Joined  2009-10-21
Jacko1 - 23 October 2013 02:31 PM

Your distraction technique is not working…  I’m still waiting for an answer, which will probably never come.  :(

I answered why you are “sensing hostility”. I’m not going to attempt to say anything about quantum physics because I suspect it would be a waste of time. Wait all you want.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6046
Joined  2009-02-26
Jacko1 - 23 October 2013 02:31 PM
Lausten - 23 October 2013 08:51 AM

Jacko;
Macgyver suggested all believers have doubt, you told him he “missed the whole point”.
You told Lois there is a vast collection of archeological evidence. I pointed out very huge flaw in one from the list you linked, and you didn’t respond.
You said there “FACTS” that support the design argument, but several people told you they have considered those facts and found them wrong and gave explanations. You pretty much ignored those and shifted the conversation to “conscious engineering”, getting us to where we are now.

I consider statements like “Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics” hostile. But when I respond to your obstinacy and demands with a demand to not be demanding, you cry foul. I don’t play those games. I like to help people, but you have shown a consistent pattern of not wanting to be helped. You have shown no humility or interest in learning. I might watch your youtube link later, or I might not. Given everything you have linked so far, the odds that this one is valuable are low.

Your distraction technique is not working…  I’m still waiting for an answer, which will probably never come.  :(

“Friend believes in a higher power that created all this”

Well your friend is wrong!!  Ask your friend how this greater power works and what he uses as evidence for this assertion. And have him/her provide reliable links to support his proposition. 

You chide Lausten for using a PBS as (usually reliable) source, but then you post links to (notoriously unreliable) YouTube as your source to support an argument which has nothing to do with a higher power, but with “probability waves” and the “uncertainty effect”, meaning that it is impossible to measure both speed and position of a particle at the same time.

wiki,

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like “particle” and “wave” to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave–particle duality serves as one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that one can view phenomena in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.[1]:242, 375–376

and

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

Quantum is a function of non-massive objects and propagates in a wavelike manner (a probability wave). When we observe (take a still picture) of a single instant in time, the probability wave function (of a particle in quantum transit) collapses and the particle materializes as a particle at a certain coordinate in space time.
Does your friend claim that an outside observer is collapsing the entire wave function of all elementary particles in the universe and thereby is creating our reality or is this just an expression of spacetime potential?

[ Edited: 23 October 2013 05:48 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Lausten - 23 October 2013 08:51 AM

Jacko;
Macgyver suggested all believers have doubt, you told him he “missed the whole point”.
You told Lois there is a vast collection of archeological evidence. I pointed out very huge flaw in one from the list you linked, and you didn’t respond.
You said there “FACTS” that support the design argument, but several people told you they have considered those facts and found them wrong and gave explanations. You pretty much ignored those and shifted the conversation to “conscious engineering”, getting us to where we are now.

I consider statements like “Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics” hostile. But when I respond to your obstinacy and demands with a demand to not be demanding, you cry foul. I don’t play those games. I like to help people, but you have shown a consistent pattern of not wanting to be helped. You have shown no humility or interest in learning. I might watch your youtube link later, or I might not. Given everything you have linked so far, the odds that this one is valuable are low.

This is the only question that I could see that I did not answer.  I must have missed it.  But I will now answer it.


So you think you’ve found a flaw in the Bible?  You say that “the Bible says the languages were created at the Tower of Babel, after the flood, so how can we have historical records of Sumeria before the flood?”

The answer is…...........  Sumerian happened AFTER the flood because the Sumerian tablets in the Epic of Gilgamesh say that it is a story that is “retold”.  It is an oral retelling of the story of the flood. 

“I [Gilgamesh] began to fear death, and so roam the wilderness.” (Tablet 10)
“I [Gilgamesh] have come on account of my ancestor Ut-anapishtim [who was on Noah’s ark], who joined the Assembly of the Gods, and was given eternal life. About Death and Life I must ask him.” (Tablet 9)

Unfortunately many people do not know what is written on the tablets and automatically assume that it is the original story of the flood.  They rather believe these tablets before the Bible.  But really it is just another “proof” (telling the same story) that an actual “flood” happened.

[ Edited: 23 October 2013 07:37 PM by Jacko1 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 October 2013 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Write4U - 23 October 2013 05:43 PM
Jacko1 - 23 October 2013 02:31 PM
Lausten - 23 October 2013 08:51 AM

Jacko;
Macgyver suggested all believers have doubt, you told him he “missed the whole point”.
You told Lois there is a vast collection of archeological evidence. I pointed out very huge flaw in one from the list you linked, and you didn’t respond.
You said there “FACTS” that support the design argument, but several people told you they have considered those facts and found them wrong and gave explanations. You pretty much ignored those and shifted the conversation to “conscious engineering”, getting us to where we are now.

I consider statements like “Tell that to the science of Quantum Mechanics” hostile. But when I respond to your obstinacy and demands with a demand to not be demanding, you cry foul. I don’t play those games. I like to help people, but you have shown a consistent pattern of not wanting to be helped. You have shown no humility or interest in learning. I might watch your youtube link later, or I might not. Given everything you have linked so far, the odds that this one is valuable are low.

Your distraction technique is not working…  I’m still waiting for an answer, which will probably never come.  :(

“Friend believes in a higher power that created all this”

Well your friend is wrong!!  Ask your friend how this greater power works and what he uses as evidence for this assertion. And have him/her provide reliable links to support his proposition. 

You chide Lausten for using a PBS as (usually reliable) source, but then you post links to (notoriously unreliable) YouTube as your source to support an argument which has nothing to do with a higher power, but with “probability waves” and the “uncertainty effect”, meaning that it is impossible to measure both speed and position of a particle at the same time.

wiki,

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like “particle” and “wave” to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Standard interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer. This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave–particle duality serves as one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that one can view phenomena in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously.[1]:242, 375–376

and

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

Quantum is a function of non-massive objects and propagates in a wavelike manner (a probability wave). When we observe (take a still picture) of a single instant in time, the probability wave function (of a particle in quantum transit) collapses and the particle materializes as a particle at a certain coordinate in space time.
Does your friend claim that an outside observer is collapsing the entire wave function of all elementary particles in the universe and thereby is creating our reality or is this just an expression of spacetime potential?

The “higher power” assessment is just a logical reflection.  No there is no proof of this (because we have no way of testing it), but common sense (dependant on the double slit experiment) dictates that when an observer is watching, these particles are “consciously aware”, and change their path.  In this same sense, the micro in this case can also apply to the macro of the universe.  As the saying goes, “as above, so below.”

Additionally if particles are conscious then we live in a conscious universe. 

What is consciousness and WHO created it?

[ Edited: 23 October 2013 07:44 PM by Jacko1 ]
Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3