Only Two Religions (page 3)

Oracroth

Yeah! And all that with a cherry on top for my post...

Just playin,

I'm not trying to start up the concept that god does/does not exist. I was more considering the concept of whether free throught existed or didn't exist. I come from a programming background, you know, C/C++ and such. Generally most programmers tend to feel that the universe has a deterministic flow. Since a style of logic dictates alot of our methods of breaking down concepts, much of our logic is based around different concepts we experience. A computer is very deterministic, electronic hardware is very deterministic, and if you look at a man, it's hard not to compare them to a super computer. Yet, the laws that govern the processing are unknown at this time. On the rise is the concept of quantum computers (http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html). Perhaps alot of the deterministic ideals become vapor when applied to quantum theory. This is my hope, because a deterministic reality would mean everything we are today could have been calculated before we existed and in a way becomes "fate" or "destiny". Two words that I shudder at!

Oracroth

Oh I forgot to add this,

In a computer, alot of the AI is governed by reaction. If given the same variables the reaction would always be the same. In order to have true free thinking, we have to be able to make a different choice when given the same variables to react against.

Phantom Stranger

There are only two religions, Barry? Do you consider Buddhism a philosophy? Or are you incredibly western-centric?

I don't think Buddhism meets either criteria.

Oracroth

I've studied kung-fu to an extent. I was still a JW at the time, and I guess striking and opponant without touching him is considered spiritistic.

Eugene Shubert

Eugene, read this quote: "To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

The point is quantum theory refutes determinism and vindicates the clear revelation of Scripture.

Einstein Scientific knowledge still hasn't set foot in your "obvious interpretation of Biblical revelation."

As I've said, all respected physicists today agree that Einstein was being extremely closed-minded in his refusal to accept quantum physics.

Also, Stephen Hawking argued that there is 'no place for a creator', that God does not exist.

Where's his proof? He doesn't have one! He is being religious. I agree that physics has 'no place for a creator' if we exclude God from science with a definition. But isn't that approach to inquiry childish and simplistic?

In his quantum cosmology "there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE

Well sure. All pantheists believe that.

. . . What place, then, for a creator?"

A purely probabilistic equation for things that happen is no explanation of why things happen. My point is that you already believe in miracles. Do the math. Realize that the existence of the universe isn't any more impossible in modern physics than for the Red Sea to split apart precisely when Moses lifts up his staff and stretches his hand over the water. We're just debating alternative axiom sets. The Bible says that there is order and meaning to the universe. Modern physics teaches that everything is just a purposeless coincidence.

Again, you're juxtaposing scientific language with belief, again, argument invalid. By saying that "All respected physicists today agree that Einstein was being extremely closed-minded and, if using his philosophical language, overwhelmingly agree that God plays dice with light and matter", you're misleading people into thinking essentially that, "all respected physicists...overwhelmingly agree that god plays dice with light and matter" or that god exists.

I'm not misleading anyone. I've made it explicitly clear what I believe in terms of the popular non-literal language in use by physicists. Don't be angry with me because I'm speaking with greater precision. I said, God not only plays dice with the universe, ?He cheats.

Eugene Shubert

Oracroth

You know, I was considering a theory the other day. As scientists we don't understand the working of energy past it's properties. Where atomic energy comes from and what keeps it from dying out is beyond the scope of our current knowledge. Could the holy spirit actually be what the science community considers "Atomic energy"? We split atoms and a giant rush of energy is released, what if the answer to this is as simple as, this is the energy of creation? Then again, I could be way off base, hence the reason I need to study atomic physics more.

Eugene Shubert

Eugene, are you trying to use "true science" to support the bible?

Absolutely not! I'm using the Bible to support "true science."

Is there any "true science" that you don't use?

Define "true science."

You know what I'm talking about, yes the "E" word, do you try to assimilate evolution and creation?

My professional training has been in mathematics and physics. I believe in special creation. BTW, I recall reading a book by Professor Stephen Hawking where he says that the big bang "smacks of divine intervention."

Also, I'm wondering how you use the scientific method to prove God exists?

I don't worry about proving that God exists. I ask you to explain quantum mechanics without God.

The point I'm making is that it's not right to use the term "true science" and equate beliefs with scientific theory.

I'm always saying that to relativists. I do make fun of physicists for being too religious.

Either something is scientifically true or it is a belief. For example, you will never be able to use science to prove that the bible is inspired of god.

That's nothing. Kurt Godel proved, mathematically, in his famous incompleteness theorem that there are an infinite number of statements about arithmetic that are true yet unprovable.

How would you state the hypothesis?

"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:9-10.

I'm not agreeing with Oracroth on his statement, but your statements are just as absurd.

Just as absurd as quantum theory? Richard P. Feynman (1965 Nobel Laureate in Physics for fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics) once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Eugene Shubert

greatteacher

Eugene, Quantum machanics can exist with or without god, but does not have any need for god, but i suppose if you want to add god to it you can because as you stated we don't know, but as soon as you add god to it you leave the realm of science and enter belief. The burden of proof is on the believers, simple biology places it on them. It doesn't matter how much you distort physics and scripture, you are continually entering the realm of belief. I have to go now, we'll talk tomorrow.

Phantom Stranger

I will follow you fellas a couple steps off-topic for a moment.

The following is a quote from Einstein and Religion, by Dr. Max Jammer, Emeritus professor of Physics at Bar-Ilan University at Isreal (1999 Princeton University Press).

Page 232:

Theistic explanations of the quantum-mechanical indeterminism... would have been unacceptable to Einstein, not only because of his rejection of hidden variables, but primarily because such an approach would have been for him what is called a doctrine of a "God of the gaps", that is, a hypothesis to account for scientifically unexplained phenomena in terms of theistic conceptions. As he stated in his 1940 address to the New York Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion, such doctrines could never be refuted by science, because they always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot; but to profess such a doctrine "would not only be unworthy, but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of neccesity lose its effect on mankind, with incalcuable harm to human progress."

Note that we are in an area of the board called "belief, doctrines, and practices" - not "physics and its implications". If somebody wants to take an area of scientific indetermination and say "this explains miracles", even though it wasn't enough to convince Einstein - hey, that's a belief. But perhaps you guys would like to start another thread about this - cause I can't figure out what the heck it has to do with Barry's original post.

Eugene Shubert

Phantom Stranger,

I believe that the connection to the original post is my reply to Barry on page 1 (19-Nov-03 13:20). There were so many responses siding with the first demon's message that I had to counter with the first angel's message:

"Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Revelation 14:6-7).

That led to a direct confrontation between the Bible's end-time affirmation of the Creator God and the opposing philosophy that prefers demonic deception.

Eugene Shubert

Only Two Religions

Share this