The Laws of Physics support Intelligent Design

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared


Ok but the laws of physics are abstract language

I would say they're objective rather than abstract, they have definitive consistency. Sure some aspects in quantum physics get abstract, but even that stuff appears objectively abstract

behavior is not numbers or words, writing numbers doent affect behavior of elements and chemistry as our constitution does

Correct, but they do show us that the cosmos acts according to logical perpetuity.

There are no amendment in physics

Because they were made perfect to begin with, no need to change them.

comparing apples with rocks and claiming the rock is edible 🤔 I guess the answer here is plant your fruit crop and not pray for minerals to be food because physics just don't work like that lol

civil laws uphold government bodies

physical laws uphold biological and cosmological bodies

It is called 'law' for a reason, it is because it is a rule defining correct procedure. In terms of physics, it is for molecules, waves, etc, and for civics it is for people

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

By nature, laws of Physics are stated facts which have been deduced and derived based on empirical observations. Simply put, the world around us works in a certain way, and physical laws are a way of classifying that “working.”

Physical laws are just conclusions drawn based on years (or however long it takes) of scientific observations and experiments which are repeated over and over under different conditions to reach inferences which can be accepted worldwide. These are continuously validated by the scientific community over time.


Observation, empirical evidence, conclusions. No magic wand required.

I have no idea what your point is here, are you saying our empirical assertions about physics are more fundamental than the actual physics themselves? That's nonsense.

And no, it's not a magic wand, it's intelligent design bro lol. physics do not perpetuate unintelligently, that is for sure!

Another ignorant post.

Empirical Evidence - when you've got some for your supernatural creature, be sure to let us know.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method, leading to the proving or disproving of a hypothesis and our better understanding of the world as a result.

The scientific method - something you know nothing about because the rules don't apply to you.

I always need my inhaler after responding to your nonsense. At least I don't need a magic wand.

You really can't go one post without being a total wretch lol. I still have no idea what your point is, yes physics are based on empirical studies, unlike evolution for example which has never been observed and relies on your faith.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared


Ok but the laws of physics are abstract language

I would say they're objective rather than abstract, they have definitive consistency. Sure some aspects in quantum physics get abstract, but even that stuff appears objectively abstract

behavior is not numbers or words, writing numbers doent affect behavior of elements and chemistry as our constitution does

Correct, but they do show us that the cosmos acts according to logical perpetuity.

There are no amendment in physics

Because they were made perfect to begin with, no need to change them.

comparing apples with rocks and claiming the rock is edible 🤔 I guess the answer here is plant your fruit crop and not pray for minerals to be food because physics just don't work like that lol

civil laws uphold government bodies

physical laws uphold biological and cosmological bodies

It is called 'law' for a reason, it is because it is a rule defining correct procedure. In terms of physics, it is for molecules, waves, etc, and for civics it is for people

Rules are written, function is not

function is illiterate and asleep, pure reflex with or without guidence

Rules are debated, frequently betrayed and demanding guidance to succeed

You can't betray physcs, you can betray human design which is the most intelligent structure we know

Pick another example of intelligence because humans are terribly self defeating and by extension so is your model

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you guys just put the word "quantum" in front of everything??

Just kidding lol......ant man.

Interesting read, I'm glad I don't need all that to believe in God though.

I think people are something like qubits or electronic signals within the neural network of God's mind which is the universe.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Hundreds of individual little nuerons that don't believe in a brain

That analogy is very amusing

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared

Rules are written, function is not

Physics Aretha written descriptors of physical function

function is illiterate and asleep, pure reflex with or without guidence

The function, the physical laws themselves, go according to recordable mathematic predictability

Rules are debated, frequently betrayed and demanding guidance to succeed

Barring miracles, the physical laws are unchanged. This is why miracles are a sign of the Creator, it is a temporary by-pass of what are otherwise immutable laws.

Pick another example of intelligence because humans are terribly self defeating and by extension so is your model

Human models do not compare to the Creator that made them. That is why physical laws have remain unchanged, there is no need to change something that is already working. You could argue though that the 2nd covenant is an improvement on the prior system. Life 2.0 if you will

originally posted by: GoShredAK
a reply to: neoholographic

Do you guys just put the word "quantum" in front of everything??

Just kidding lol......ant man.

Interesting read, I'm glad I don't need all that to believe in God though.

I think people are something like qubits or electronic signals within the neural network of God's mind which is the universe.

Consciousness by its very definition could be considered a "quantum", it is a discrete indivisible unit.

a reply to: neoholographic

those single celled organisms,,
and the fish that grew lungs, ...or HEARTS

just all of a sudden appeared one day and started working...

how many dead animals showed up while their HEARTS evolved?
how did they EVOLVE if they were dead?
and kept dying as their hearts finally evolved
if they died , WHY did their hearts continue to evolve?

or did one mutant grow a heart and veins already working properly
because GOD created it and gave it LIFE?

a reply to: sarcasticcritic

Vast over simplification of the process... dead animals dont show up while evolving hearts... thats such a odd and purposely ignorant statement.

It is like the theory on the evolution of the eye... that a mutation just gives some small grouping of cells light sensitivity. These organisms are simple enough that they don't require complex biological functions but basic ones. they dont need a nervous system but something that just responds to chemicals. So you have a grouping of mutated cells that produce some specific chemical signal when there is more, or less light. The organism cannot 'See' but it can sense. This turns out of be an advantage, (depending on where the organism is) it can now try to escape the light or go to the light depending on what its doing impulsively. The advantage is slight, its fellow creatures without the mutation move kind of by random walk, with no impulse to go to or away from the light. SO this creature breeds/splits or whatever it does and its offspring have a chance to carry the same advantage. With further mutation the cells become selectively bread for because they give an advantage, to the point you no longer have a handful, but a few thousand maybe more in a patch.

This allows it to outcompete and survive compared to its 'blind' brethren.

So what about the eye? well possible that again another mutation causes a physical deformity which causes the formation of the cells to form a bit of a curve or dish shape... this gives very basic directionality, should you be able to sense which cells see more or less light.



its all in small steps, probably smaller than i describe here. The way people seem to think that animals just BOOP suddenly formed with fully functioning organs is just... sigh.

Again, if someone designed the bodies of most animals... explain what the heck they were doing with the recurrent laryngeal nerve, The whole idea that some great all knowing creator, put THAT in creatures is an absolute joke.

Would you hire an electrician who was going to take a set of wires from the breaker... route it right to the top of your house away from the breaker as possible... only to bring it back and put in a plug socket 6 inches away from the breaker... No... you'd rightfully think the person was incompetent...

originally posted by: neoholographic

So there's a clear purpose for the design of the universe. It's to process, store, transfer and manipulate quantum information which allows us to build quantum and classical computers because we have the breath of life from God which gives us understanding of these things.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Coherent vs decoherent information physics has nothing to do with whether a higher power exists or not and eigenvectors/markovian/hermetian matrices (quantum mech maths) are the roots of chaos mathematics.

Superposition is about something being all possible states simultaneously and calculated by eigenvalues.

The existence of physical laws only proves the existence of physical laws; trying to claim it proves or disproves a higher power is corrupting science to support an agenda.

We have developed some understanding of these things and can build computers due to 1000s of years of maths and physics, there's no logic in claiming this is evidence or proof of god/intelligent design and it violates the basic principles of maths/physical proof laws of logic.

A simple but effective way to disprove intelligent design is to look at pandas - they've evolved to be completely and utterly useless, completely dependent on humans for food and reproduction and serve no purpose whatsoever - if someone designed them they were clearly an idiot.

a reply to: bastion

Ey!
Pandas are super cute

a reply to: Peeple

Agreed!

There's an excelent conspiracy theory called 'The Pandas of Doom' that posits that pandas are so cute that they're actually the most powerfull/intelligent/evolutionary advanced life on earth as their cuteness means humans tend to their every needs even as far as producing panda porn to get them in the mood in zoos.

If they weren't so cute they'd have gone extinct aeons ago.

Every western government or monarchy in Europe that adopted Chinese Pandas in the 70s collapsed soon after - from Nixon to Heath, Tanaka to Prince Bernard.

Very Important Pandas documentary - Link

a reply to: bastion

OMG thank you.
That is awesome!

a reply to: neoholographic

So when you look at the universe, you see order. It amazes me how non-believers will try to argue that there's no order in the Cosmos. You see planets, solar systems, galaxies and more. You see fined tuned constants of nature like the Cosmological Constant and the dimensionless fine structure constant. How can you look at a sunset, clouds, trees, oceans or a mountain side and not see the order produced by laws?

That's a huge strawman argument btw

Where did you see this order you describing? In the earliest stages of our solar system for example the situation was chaotic and earth was inhabitable.

In this case I suppose your definition of order means order produced by a supreme being. I think you have confused bits and pieces of philosophy with physics.

a reply to: neoholographic



Every single thread: "I'm right because God is absolute and I just want to tell people where they're wrong. Don't actually want criticism or feedback on anything, and will never acknowledge it when it happens. Instead, I'll avoid it all and reinforce my absolute truth with a pompous arrogance that deliberately antagonizes people with valid academic criticism."

All it gives to society is raised blood pressure in the name of god.

Tiring shtick...

Challenge:

I want you to take this consecration of neverlanded fallacy to Stack Exchange.

Here

It's an awesome place to test your ideas against academia. People that study it, teach it, and work in the field will respond. They'll break it down with equations and all. As I once found out, it's also a great place to learn your theories are pseudointellectual prattling.

Unless you don't really want to submit your idea to the fire that matters.

I'd be interested what someone at MIT or The JPL has to say. Even Quora will get academics. Worth it for the feedback.

a reply to: Degradation33

What???

I've debated on Stack Exchange, Quora and Physics Forum and they can't refute what I'm saying in many cases because even though some of them are atheist and agnostic, they're scientist who say "I don't know." They have to admit that they don't know or that nature has no answer vs. atheist on boards like ATS who act like science has all of the answers and acts like science supports atheism.

I have had many good debates on thos forums but again, when you try to reduce things to materialism, you get stuck in atheism of the gaps. For instance, I have been asking biologist and geneticist for years how did nature encode sequence with information and they're still stuck in a primordial mess.

I ask them to explain how information about the Amino Acid Valine got encoded onto 4 codon sequences.



They can't get past Valine. Again, it all comes back to information. Science tells us the universe isn't locally real. This destroys materialism because things that happen locally are cause by non-local information encoded in quantum error correcting codes.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
link

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.
www.quantamagazine.org...



You have these fully formed galaxies forming 600 million years after the big bang when scientist thought galaxy formation took billions of years.

As early as 600 million years after the Big Bang, these very young galaxies flaunted complex structures and clusters of star formation, a new study reports.
www.space.com...

“I expected many different smaller objects.” A simulation shows the formation and evolution of a Milky Way–like galaxy over about 10 billion years. Many smaller dwarf galaxies accrete onto the main galaxy, often becoming a part of it.
link

But James Webb found galaxies larger than the Milky Way.

James Webb Space Telescope Finds Galaxies That Shouldn't Exist At All!

The James Webb Space Telescope has discovered giant far-off galaxies that shouldn't exist at all. These galaxies are as big as the Milky Way galaxy and are home to mature red stars, deep field images clicked by JWST have showed.

Based on the analysis of light emitted by these galaxies, astronomers have decided that what they're viewing is from the infancy stages of the universe - only 500,000 to 700,000 years after the Big Bang.

But these galaxies found in the image are surprisingly big and the stars found in these galaxies are too old. These observations don't match our understanding of the early universe, also contradicting what the Hubble Space Telescope has found so far.

www.indiatimes.com...

Again, it all comes back to information. I submit galaxies form based on precise information within the laws of physics instituted by Intelligence rather than the blind shuffling of the deck hoping you get into one of it's lowest entropy states like I mentioned in the OP.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Degradation33

What???

I've debated on Stack Exchange, Quora and Physics Forum and they can't refute what I'm saying in many cases because even though some of them are atheist and agnostic, they're scientist who say "I don't know." They have to admit that they don't know or that nature has no answer vs. atheist on boards like ATS who act like science has all of the answers and acts like science supports atheism.

I have had many good debates on thos forums but again, when you try to reduce things to materialism, you get stuck in atheism of the gaps. For instance, I have been asking biologist and geneticist for years how did nature encode sequence with information and they're still stuck in a primordial mess.

I ask them to explain how information about the Amino Acid Valine got encoded onto 4 codon sequences.

They can't get past Valine. Again, it all comes back to information. Science tells us the universe isn't locally real. This destroys materialism because things that happen locally are cause by non-local information encoded in quantum error correcting codes.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
link

How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code

The same codes needed to thwart errors in quantum computers may also give the fabric of space-time its intrinsic robustness.
www.quantamagazine.org...

You have these fully formed galaxies forming 600 million years after the big bang when scientist thought galaxy formation took billions of years.

As early as 600 million years after the Big Bang, these very young galaxies flaunted complex structures and clusters of star formation, a new study reports.
www.space.com...

“I expected many different smaller objects.” A simulation shows the formation and evolution of a Milky Way–like galaxy over about 10 billion years. Many smaller dwarf galaxies accrete onto the main galaxy, often becoming a part of it.
link

But James Webb found galaxies larger than the Milky Way.

James Webb Space Telescope Finds Galaxies That Shouldn't Exist At All!

The James Webb Space Telescope has discovered giant far-off galaxies that shouldn't exist at all. These galaxies are as big as the Milky Way galaxy and are home to mature red stars, deep field images clicked by JWST have showed.

Based on the analysis of light emitted by these galaxies, astronomers have decided that what they're viewing is from the infancy stages of the universe - only 500,000 to 700,000 years after the Big Bang.

But these galaxies found in the image are surprisingly big and the stars found in these galaxies are too old. These observations don't match our understanding of the early universe, also contradicting what the Hubble Space Telescope has found so far.

www.indiatimes.com...

Again, it all comes back to information. I submit galaxies form based on precise information within the laws of physics instituted by Intelligence rather than the blind shuffling of the deck hoping you get into one of it's lowest entropy states like I mentioned in the OP.

None of whet you're saying shows in the slightest the existence of a supernatural entity and creator of the cosmos. The irony is you use some bits and pieces of scientific information to further your argument when at the same time you argue science doesn't have all the answers (which is true) but religion has no answers to any questions posed other than belief and faith.

Then you try to present the findings of the James Webb Telescope as proof of the supernatural. This isn't the first time something similar is happening and it has a name given, the religion of the gaps, is the attempt by religious people to fill the gaps or the lack of understanding in some areas of science by proposing intelligent design without understanding these gaps are eventually filled and answers are given in the future, by that time the religionists have moved to the next gap and so on.

This is a repeated pattern btw. Nothing new.

a reply to: neoholographic

That was more a hit and run.

Your answer contradicts my statement and I have to ignore the retort completely to maintain a perpetually affirmative position.

So acknowledging your comment, or even questioning it, makes me acknowledge where I'm wrong. To provent that I can't answer directly to things that might prove me wrong the remainder of the thread.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Nothing you said refutes anything I've presented. It's just feigned outrage for even suggesting something other than the materialist position. No substance to refute the evidence presented.

This does support Intelligent Design. We create laws to bring order to society and the laws of physics bring order to the universe. Intelligence institutes laws in order to bring order to chaos. This happened in Genesis 1:

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

You have things like the Cosmological Constant fine tuned to 120 decimal places and the fine structure constant which is a dimensionless constant that holds the universe together.

Life as we know it would not exist without this highly unusual number

The fine-structure constant is a seemingly random number with no units or dimensions, which has cropped up in so many places in physics, and seems to control one of the most fundamental interactions in the universe.

Its name is the fine-structure constant, and it's a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force. The current estimate of the fine-structure constant is 0.007 297 352 5693, with an uncertainty of 11 on the last two digits. The number is easier to remember by its inverse, approximately 1/137.

If it had any other value, life as we know it would be impossible. And yet we have no idea where it comes from.

There are no dimensions or unit system that the value of the number depends on. The other constants in physics aren't like this. The actual value of the speed of light, for example, doesn't really matter, because that number depends on other numbers. Your choice of units (meters per second, miles per hour or leagues per fortnight?) and the definitions of those units (exactly how long is a "meter" going to be?) matter; if you change any of those, the value of the constant changes along with it.

But that's not true for the fine-structure constant. You can have whatever unit system you want and whatever method of organizing the universe as you wish, and that number will be precisely the same.

Today, we have no explanation for the origins of this constant. Indeed, we have no theoretical explanation for its existence at all. We simply measure it in experiments and then plug the measured value into our equations to make other predictions.

fine structure

How does nature produce a constant without any measurable quantity?

The Bible tells us the invisible holds things together.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

WHEW!

The word framed in Greek is katartizō which means:

to render, i.e. to fit, sound, complete

to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair

to complete

to fit out, equip, put in order, arrange, adjust

to fit or frame for one's self, prepare

ethically: to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be

www.blueletterbible.org...

So the Word of God(Jesus) framed the universe so that things that are visible were made by things which do not appear!

God framed or put in place laws because that's what intelligence does. Materialist and atheist claim that these precise laws happened without intelligence.

What do we call the men who drafted the Constitution? THE FRAMERS!!! They framed laws!!

The Framers of the Constitution

The Founding Fathers of the United States were political leaders who participated in the American Revolution. They signed the Declaration of Independence, took part in the Revolutionary War, and established the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution were delegates to the Constitutional Convention and helped draft the Constitution of the United States. The main Founding Fathers were: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.
www.exploros.com...

The Founders framed the Constitution with laws that govern the United States and the Word of God(Jesus) framed the laws of physics to govern the universe!

Let me say that again.

The Founders framed the Constitution with laws that govern the United States and the Word of God(Jesus) framed the laws of physics to govern the universe!

a reply to: neoholographic

the cosmological constant, is a great example of how wrong your approach is:
it is not a fixed natural occurence, it is basically a mathmatical trash bin, because depending on what theory of the expansion you try it has a different value.

The same with the fine strucuture, from your link:

Arnold Sommerfeld. He found that to develop the physics to explain the splitting of spectral lines, he had to introduce a new constant into his equations — a fine-structure constant.

A mathmatical tool, the reality in the universe how it is working is for 100% sure not like the equation we currently use to describe what we observe even if it works, but as mathmatical approxomiation.

J.C. was born and died. He so for sure was not around when anything formed. Aside from that (and I am going to repeat that if necessary) those laws are our model of how things appear to work, they are a man made tool to describe what is happening in the universe, close enough to make predictions that work out, but not what is.

a reply to: neoholographic

I didn’t know about the fine structure constant. I watched a couple of videos about it and this is a very interesting subject. I also think it’s obvious the universe is designed. Whenever people tell you not to believe what you see, it just looks that way, I can’t believe anything they say.

a reply to: ErosA433

was saying how many died while trying to evolve a heart and circulation system
if they required it to live in the first place?

were they just born one day with a fully functioning heart?

if they were already alive, why need a heart?

how could you evolve a heart if you required one to live

does this clarify what i am trying to ask?