Question to atheists: if there is no creator/god---

by prologos 92 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  prologos

  Caedes, I am speaking from the point of view of the (US) patent process. You can not patent a scientific principle or an idea per se, perhaps not even an algorithms, but you can patent the apparatus, the method of use, that EMBODIES these ideas, which are derived, of course by use of the inventors intelligence, his mind in action. (notwithstanding the WHACKY ideas that have been patented.) so,

  From that perspective laws and understanding of function that we see as natural, and discover in analizing nature, , can be perceived as the embodiments of of such a possible prior process.
• 

  prologos

  VIVIANE: why calling a non believer in God and ATHEIST, because implies DIVINITY, your worship.

  I differentiate the 'Crea-TOR/-trice'* idea with is more technical and dealing with origins,-- from the "let's worship somehow, somewhere, someone" God concept. * how did the hammer-throwing nordic god got himself into the word creathor?

  I mention entanglement only as a faster-than-light occurrence, that is happening without actually transmitting information, and one of the features of LIFE is of course passing, storing of information.

  You are right I could be assuming that all atheist hold these convictions to see themselves as the pinnacle, but I have no such thought. Nevertheless the atheistic concept has the potential to hold the "we are as smart as it gets" idea.
• 

  Viviane

  VIVIANE: why calling a non believer in God and ATHEIST, because implies DIVINITY, your worship.

  No, it doesn't at all. That's just rather silly. It just means I have no reason to believe in any gods or a spirit world, no evidence.

  I mention entanglement only as a faster-than-light occurrence, that is happening without actually transmitting information, and one of the features of LIFE is of course passing, storing of information.

  

  You are right I could be assuming that all atheist hold these convictions to see themselves as the pinnacle, but I have no such thought.

  You ARE assuming. I just told you that I, for one, don't hold that conviction and it's never crossed my mind.

  Nevertheless the atheistic concept has the potential to hold the "we are as smart as it gets" idea.

  Every person has the potential to be a murderer. So what?

  And, even if someone did think that, again, so what?
• 

  prologos

  cofty , my observation about your openess to change positions was based on the "--slightest s crap of evidence--" remark in your post above. Knowing also that you like to deal primarily in your fields of interest, expertise, the life sciences.

  LIFE of course has a life of it's own and is a relative recent arrival, compared to the INERT components of the Universe.
• 

  Caedes

  This differs from the atheist who for some reason feels confident that God is unlikely. This confidence is sometimes based upon restricted word definitions, e.g., "God" meaning YHWH of the Bible, or even just a certain Christian sect's conception of this God. Thus, an ignostic rejects the very question of God's existence, for being uselessly imprecise.

  Apognophos,

  Personally I feel confident (though not 100%) that all gods are equally unlikely due to a complete lack of empirical evidence for their existence, that lack of certainty is due to the fact that we cannot empirically prove that god/s dont exist. My atheism is not based upon any restricted definition of god/s, I reject them all.

  Theists can never define what they mean by god (as evidenced in this very thread by prologos) but this is in no way a problem for me because it can all be lumped in with the supernatural. It doesn't matter what definition thiests use because fundamentally it always boils down to a force outside of nature, any of which can be rejected out of hand due to the fact that by definition they mean something for which there is no evidence.

  Claiming that they are being uselessly imprecise is incorrect because that lack of definition fall into two categories, the theist either claims that the force outside of nature acts on this world or doesnt. The former will fail any empirical testing and the latter is impotent.

  Prologos,

  Simply using more words is not defining your question.

  but what if life is entangled at the smallest level?

  I mention entanglement only as a faster-than-light occurrence, that is happening without actually transmitting information, and one of the features of LIFE is of course passing, storing of information.

  You seem confused here, what are you claiming regarding quantum entanglement?
• 

  prologos

  I, like everybody else, - according to the experts - do not understand QM, however in response to the earlier remark that even if higher intelligence 'alien' life exists in exo-planetary systems , lightyears, if not parsecs away, because of the limitaion of 'c' there would never be DIRECT contact. Entanglement experiments have shown though, that two entities can act as ONE, in instant unison no matter how far they are later separated. That does not allow a signal to be sent, but bridges the gap imposed by the 300 000km/sec 'speed limit' . so I make no claims, just pointing out 'connections'.

  If the potential to start up 'life' is build into the universe's setup, at the smallest level, it allow for natural life as we define it, to exist in these other begnine environments. Wether that life-form would have higher intelligence is not my question here, for would be not gods/ CREATORS, just fellow-beings.

  Not all brilliant researchers into the workings of Nature are atheists, or dimissive of creative arrangement behind it all.

  I just like to see expressed the mindset of those that believe and proclaim that the Apparent ingenuity that is EMBODIED in nature is inferior to their mental powers.

  Or could they admit that even with our best efforts we are just trying to catch up? all the time?
• 

  Apognophos

  I actually thought that entanglement did allow information to be sent, though it looks like it's still being disputed. The catch is that, even if QE allows instant transmission of information, you still have to first transport the medium that will be used to the points between which you wish to communicate. For instance, you have two boxes of entangled particles. Every particle in box A is entangled with one in box B. You first need to separate them by a galaxy's width before you can use them to communicate across said galaxy. So the process of physically transporting the boxes across the galaxy is still limited by c. If this is correct, the speed of light still remains the ultimate limit on speed of information transfer, at least initially.

  The particles serving as a medium might be exhausted over time by having their states collapsed in order to communicate information, but if someone continued to send new boxes from point A to point B in a continuous series of shipments (by FedEx, etc.), at a delivery rate that exceeded the exhaustion of particles at point B from sending messages there, then you would have established permanent instant communications between the two points. It would be a bit like sending a "letter-to-be", a blank piece of paper that will say anything you want it to, as soon as you write your message on the entangled piece of paper at point A. As long as the shipments keep coming, you have a system of instant communication betwen two points, only with an initial setup time that is limited by c.
• 

  Caedes

  Entanglement experiments have shown though, that two entities can act as ONE, in instant unison no matter how far they are later separated. That does not allow a signal to be sent, but bridges the gap imposed by the 300 000km/sec 'speed limit' . so I make no claims, just pointing out 'connections'.

  No, it doesn't, there are no useful quantum entanglements between our planet and anywhere else in the universe. The reason for this is that an entangled particle looks exactly the same as a non-entangled one. It is only by deliberately entangling particles that we can make them do something useful. If we had the technology to make a quantum communication device we could make a pair and physically take one of the pair to a distant planet and then communicate at FTL speed (theoretically). But you will still have to transport the device in the first place and speed of light will limit that. So you are wrong there is no 'connection' and there is no bridging the gap unless we make it happen.

  If the potential to start up 'life' is build into the universe's setup, at the smallest level, it allow for natural life as we define it, to exist in these other begnine environments. Wether that life-form would have higher intelligence is not my question here, for would be not gods/ CREATORS, just fellow-beings.

  As I have already explained there is no connection just the same physical laws throughout the universe.

  Not all brilliant researchers into the workings of Nature are atheists, or dimissive of creative arrangement behind it all.

  I dont believe anyone here has claimed otherwise, but we both know that the vast majority of scientists are not theists.

  I just like to see expressed the mindset of those that believe and proclaim that the Apparent ingenuity that is EMBODIED in nature is inferior to their mental powers.

  I would be interested to know where this has been claimed (other than by yourself of course), personally I see no evidence for there being any ingenuity embodied in nature that cannot be explained by entirely natural processes. Hence I can hardly claim superiority to something for which I see no evidence.

  Or could they admit that even with our best efforts we are just trying to catch up? all the time?

  Our current scientific progress currently allows us to simulate the brains of only very simple creatures, in the future we will be able to simulate more complex brains so yes we are catching up with some of the most complex natural structures in the world. We can simulate the conditions in the hearts of stars, our acheivements are astonishing but as I see it we are merely competing with ourselves. I fail to see this 'admission' is in anyway meaningful, since I remain an atheist and you a theist.
• 

  Viviane

  Entanglement experiments have shown though, that two entities can act as ONE, in instant unison no matter how far they are later separated.

  No, they did not. For instance, did they test quantum entaglement or locality at a distance of 1 parsec? 1 light year? 1 light second?

  That does not allow a signal to be sent, but bridges the gap imposed by the 300 000km/sec 'speed limit' . so I make no claims, just pointing out 'connections'.

  This behavior was observed almost 100 years ago. What is the connection you are pointing out? You use a lot of if and talk about God a lot, but fail to actually say what you are trying to imply.

  Not all brilliant researchers into the workings of Nature are atheists, or dimissive of creative arrangement behind it all.

  Now you're saying something. What is this creative arrangement? Who are you suggesting made it? What it the purpose? How can this arrangement and it's purpose be divined?
• 

  prologos

  Caedes; as you said " -- We can SIMULATE the condition in the hear of stars--" and even conditions closer and closer to the 'Big Bang' now,

  If it takes such great effort, ingenuity and energy to SIMULATE, often for a very short time only, how do you arrive at the leap of faith that the more durable Grand Original and its rules, that you MUST follow,-- was any different ?