Quest for Truth

[Absolute_Agent]

God is a fiction. How could it be anti-science???

Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.  Some ideas are opposed to others.  My idea about God, Who I believe is real, is not in opposition to science.  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

Returning to the earlier discussion, you stated that the universe was eternal.  But how can you justify that?  Everything is transient.  You said matter and energy are conserved--but you can't prove that. It's an assumption.  Even if that's true, how did all this stuff come into being?  The chances of everything coming together accidentally is so small it's ludicrous. You could say it's as close to zero as any number could get.  If nothing was created, how did it get here?  Did it just "poof" itself into existence.  Science has no logical answer.  There is only one logical answer: God created it all.  God, the eternal.  God the Almighty.  God the omnipotent.  God the omniscient.  God the infinite.  God who is beyond human comprehension.  God who exists beyond all observable material reality.

Well the Greeks pretty much had invented science. But it was fatally interrupted when Archimedes was killed after the siege of Syracuse fell to the Romans. But it's true that it was rediscovered by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century. However Islam fell to religious fanatics who declared that only the Quran was the truth. Most of the scientists, scholars and philosophers were dispersed, and the scientific movement was altered until it was rediscovered again during the Italian Renaissance.

Right.  And those fantastics still control the Islamic community at large.  Which is why I would never want my religion to gain political dominance.  If it were possible to purge our community of fanaticism it would be different; but it's not possible and never will be.

I don't know where you got that. As soon as he took power in 1933, Hitler signed the Concordat with the Roman Catholic church, giving it exclusive right [/color]to operate as it saw fit. And in most speeches, he implored God, and in private, always referred himself as a God given gift to the German people.

I prefer not to quote Wikipedia but for time's sake:

"Hitler agreed to the Reich concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[25] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military serviceand allegiance to Hitler's movement. Hitler said he anticipated a coming collapse of Christianity in the wake of scientific advances, and that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term.[1] Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook.[26]"
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler)

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

I have heard of the Rig Veda, but have not read any of it for quite some time.  But I don't really see the connection.  What I was saying is that this hypothesis suggests that this universe was formed from the energy of another universe via a black hole.  I suppose one could call a black hole a cosmic egg, but I don't see a connection between a black hole and a god.  A black hole is real and god(s) are fiction with no evidence to support it.  While interesting, I don't think Hinduism has the answer.

The Brahmanda is an unending cycle of expansion and collapse.  The universe expands until it reaches a point where the energy of expansion is dissipated.  There is a brief pause then gravity starts the reverse process of contraction.  Contraction continues until things are all compressed into an infinitesimally small space (black hole).  Then there is an epic explosion (big bang) that restarts the expansion process.  The shape of the expanding/contracting universe is like an egg.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[josephpalazzo]

Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.

So is Mickey Mouse, Superman and a million other fictional characters. Humans have a fertile imagination, but it doesn't mean those creations are in the real world.

1.  All material phenomena have a material cause.

That is a very simplified proposition. In QFT, cause and effect gave way to energy exchanges. So it's almost impossible to determine which is the cause, which is the effect. For the equations it hardly matters which is which.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

Well there are fictional stuff from our imagination. Our brain activity is real, but its content is another thing.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

Again, you're leaving out the imaginary stuff the human mind can create.

Returning to the earlier discussion, you started that the universe was eternal.  But how can you justify that?  Everything is transient.  You said matter and energy are conserved--but you can't prove that. It's an assumption.

It's an assumption that turned out to be quite useful. Just about every technological advancement in the last 400 years is due to that assumption. Graded against any religion, it is unsurpassed.

Even if that's true, how did all this stuff come into being? 

This question becomes irrelevant since nothing can be created. The universe is eternal, therefore never created. You can only transfer from one type of matter/energy to another type. Read my book: everything is matter moving through space ([size=78%]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0[/size] )

[Mike Cl]

The Brahmanda is an unending cycle of expansion and collapse.  The universe expands until it reaches a point where the energy of expansion is dissipated.  There is a brief pause then gravity starts the reverse process of contraction.  Contraction continues until things are all compressed into an infinitesimally small space (black hole).  Then there is an epic explosion (big bang) that restarts the expansion process.  The shape of the expanding/contracting universe is like an egg.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Interesting.  That hypothesis--of expansion and contraction--could be, I suppose.  My knowledge of physics limits me--but, yeah, it is interesting;  as is the hypothesis of a black hole causing another universe.  But neither hypothesis has a need for a god. 

[Mike Cl]

  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

I think your unfounded assumptions are.............well, unfounded.
1.  That is a useful assumption in that it is a working hypothesis that has proven, to this point, to be accurate.  But if a phenomena is discovered that doesn't fit that hypothesis, then it can be changed.
2.  As far as is known, that is accurate.  But, if evidence can be produced, then that concept can be changed.
3.  That hypothesis was discarded eons ago.  If it were true, then we would not know of dog whistles or x-rays, for example.  I think everybody understands that our 6 senses are quite limited and narrow in scope. 

That something is an idea does not make it real or even close.  It is an idea that trolls live under Swedish bridges.  It is an idea that unicorns existed.  It is an idea that dragons lived---and on and on. 

[Absolute_Agent]

Atheist means without god. Not against god. You can't make the distinction, which is sad, but hey:your loss. You are wrong, there is no clearer way to say it.

If one is without belief in God, how can that one NOT be opposed the idea of God?  I haven't met one atheist who does not oppose the idea of God.  You wish that you could ignore it, but you can't.  Because the fact you can't ignore it betrays the subconscious knowledge that there is something that must be opposed in order to maintain your intellectual position, which implies that God exists.

I can still rest assured that the reason for my stance, as the default position, is justified. Rather than feeling compelled to prove a negative statement. Which I would have to do, if I were intellectually honestas I am now, but felt I had evidence to back up my belief in the non-existance of a deity.

Throughout recorded history, the existence of God has been the default position.  Civilization is founded upon this position.  That's why simply asserting that with some scientific mumbo jumbo atheism is the default position simply doesn't work.  You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[josephpalazzo]

You would have to first go back to the prehistoric times, have everyone become cavemen, then rebuild a new civilization from scratch founded on atheism.  Which you can never do. 

The problem you are alluding to, indirectly so to speak, is that the leadership in any society is always questionable - Why should it be you that runs things around? Why not me or her? It was always easier if you make everyone believe that your power comes from God or some divine source. So in effect when that happened, that society had less turmoil, the people more compliant, and the leadership more free to do whatever it wanted. So did religion contribute to civilization? No doubt, but not in the way you think. It does not in any way prove that religion is about truth, but more about deception.

[aileron]

Even if you think God is a fiction, you must acknowledge that it exists, at least as an idea.  Some ideas are opposed to others.  My idea about God, Who I believe is real, is not in opposition to science.  I am not opposed to science, except where it is in opposition to God, namely, these unfounded assumptions:

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

1. Science does not require this assumption, and the best working theories make the word "cause" highly problematic

2. Science does not require this assumption.
3. Science does not require this assumption.

So it would seem your problem with science boils down to your ignorance of what it is. Only you can fix that.

[Absolute_Agent]

So is Mickey Mouse, Superman and a million other fictional characters. Humans have a fertile imagination, but it doesn't mean those creations are in the real world.

It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination.  The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.

In QFT, cause and effect gave way to energy exchanges. So it's almost impossible to determine which is the cause, which is the effect. For the equations it hardly matters which is which.

Wouldn't this suggest there is an immaterial cause for all material phenomena--with all observable cause-effect relationships being nothing more than correlation?

Well there are fictional stuff from our imagination. Our brain activity is real, but its content is another thing.

Assumption.  If as QFT suggests, all is purely energy... Isn't it rational to consider that external material forms are no more "real" than internal mental forms?

It's an assumption that turned out to be quite useful. Just about every technological advancement in the last 400 years is due to that assumption. Graded against any religion, it is unsurpassed.

Interpretation / Value judgement.

This question becomes irrelevant since nothing can be created. The universe is eternal, therefore never created. You can only transfer from one type of matter/energy to another type. Read my book: everything is matter moving through space ([size=78%]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1546256199/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0[/size] )

-IF you consider the universe as nothing but energy.  But the universe isn't just a mass of energy.  It's trees, rocks, planets, animals, water, etc.  In other words, it's energy organized in a particular way.  Organization denotes consciousness, intelligence, purpose, design, agency.  Since humans didn't organize the universe, it could only have been God.

-IF you believe energy is neither created or destroyed.  An assumption.


Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

It does not in any way prove that religion is about truth, but more about deception.

It does not prove religion is about deception, unless you can prove there is no God, which you can't.  It only proves that theism is the bedrock of civilization, and therefore the default position.  It doesn't work for atheists to use science to pretend that atheism is the default, since science itself was developed by theist civilizations and theist individuals. In fact the first science, astrology/astronomy was inseperable from theistic religion.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Sal1981]

It is intellectually dishonest to equate the idea of God with pure imagination.  The existence of God has been documented since the dawn of civilization, in scriptures all over the world.

Soooo, The epic of Gilgamesh is real?

[Absolute_Agent]

Soooo, The epic of Gilgamesh is real?

Most likely, but that wasn't my argument: that the idea of God is documented throughout recorded history.  It is no Mickey Mouse or Superman, which NOBODY believes are real, and which do not have entire religions and civilizations founded upon their worship.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Sal1981]

Most likely, but that wasn't my argument.  My argument was that the idea of God is documented throughout recorded history.

old text ≠ true text

We have plenty of old fables, written literature, that is as true as todays Mickey Mouse or Superman. The age of a text proves nothing, but you already know that.

  It is no Mickey Mouse or Superman, which NOBODY believes are real, and which do not have entire religions and civilizations founded upon their worship.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Funny you should write that. Here, before Sigmundur Brestisson came along, we believed in the old Norse gods, right up until around the year 1,000. The same was the case for Zeus, Wotan, Isis, etc., there's even text for those gods. What happened to them, hmmm?

[Baruch]

Interesting.  That hypothesis--of expansion and contraction--could be, I suppose.  My knowledge of physics limits me--but, yeah, it is interesting;  as is the hypothesis of a black hole causing another universe.  But neither hypothesis has a need for a god.

No need for life or consciousness either.  Just atoms doing their materialist thing.

[Baruch]

1.  All material phenomena are caused by other material phenomena.

2. There is no reality except material reality.

3.  Nothing which cannot be perceived by the human intellect and physical senses exists.

Reductionism (pushed by physicists) does require all three.  All of physical science is based on physics.

In the 20th century even, the ideas of vitalism and pan-psychism were overcome.  A stone and a human are the same thing ... atomic nuclei (quark-gluon plasma) with electrons.  And by derivation it is impossible for matter to be conscious ... otherwise stones are conscious (because of the first point, matter is matter.

But materialism fails to explain all of reality, if reductionism isn't true.  In actual practice, biologists and psychologists simply ignore the ravings of the physical sciences, in regards to reductionism.  They use as much of it is as useful within their own fields, but no more.