Chance accident or Creator. I have proven it. Now refute it.

Here is an interesting quote that says what I have said in this thread, only with amazing clarity. The Bible is seen here as observer conditional from the potentiality of layered meaning. This is a great article. Link

"In its most profound reading, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics as championed
by Werner Heisenberg (1989b, 35) is a shift from the atomistic materialism of Democritus, and the
mechanistic world view of the Cartesians, to Heraclitan metaphysics: to a view that the unifying
principle behind all material things is the element fire (now: energy particles) and change. So,
Heraclitus is quoted by Eusebius as saying: potamoisi toisin autoisin embainousin, hetera kai hetera
hydata epirrei (Praeparatio Evangelica 15.20.2), which is paraphrased by our English proverb “one
never steps into the same river twice”.

The revolutionary truth that modern physics discovered was that quanta, the energy packets of
hich matter is made, do not have objective existence, but exist as potentialities until they are
observed. A photon, for instance, exists potentially as a wave and a particle. Similarly, an electron
with an observed position has no precise momentum and no precise position if the momentum is
observed. The building blocks of physical reality are observer-conditional.

By attempting a century late to bring this insight into the field of biblical studies, I am only
following the cue of Heisenberg himself who, in discussing the Copenhagen physics, said that “the
spirit of a time is probably a fact as objective as any fact in natural science” and therefore that “the
two processes, that of science and that of art, are not very different” (Heisenberg 1989b, 66). If all
reality, scientific and literary, is observer-conditional, then we have reason to bring back into the
realm of “scientific” knowledge entities long excluded from a materialistic view of the world:
qualities, minds, persons, themes and meaning. Conversely, non-empirical entities such as “JEDP”,
“Q”, etc., which are granted uncertain existence, only to the degree that they are conceived as great
ancient material objects of ink smeared over papyrus, and which possibly did “exist” as such, are
unburdened of the need to be shown to exist materially in order to be seen as valid."

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Actually, I wasn't making an argument to you or anyone else, it was part of a larger conversation I was having with the OP, I don't care what you believe, you are entitled to believe what you. Having said that every conversation believers have amongst themselves is not meant to prove anything to non-believers. We are told to have an answer for our beliefs not to hunt down and convert others.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Respected...but his ideas aren't definitive or proven to a doubt. Hell, his idea relies on an already debunked idea about microtubules...and the idea that microtubules somehow allow for free will is long and experimentally debunked.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

There is no such thing as a non-theory-laden observation.

Straw man. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm saying that there is such a thing as a logically proper conversation. And you're just tossing out theories that you clearly don't understand. Hell, you labelled a data transfer theorem that is something that is purely a mathematical computation of transfer rates of data as something that somehow has to do with...well...you just tossed it in there vaguely.

All knowledge is circular since the language of mathematics which we use to describe data was created out of the observation of that data.

...no. It isn't. Not all premises are identical to their conclusions. You're basically saying that logic is impossible. Mathematics (in the colloquial sense) is an expression of how base-10 numerical systems express the universe. It's a language...and language is descriptive. It has internal logical consistency.

The argument against circular logic brings us back in a circle to the theory.

...no, the argument against circular logic demonstrates that the argument itself is inconsistent. A logical statement cannot have a premise that rests upon its conclusion. It's axiomatic. If a premise rests upon the conclusion...where did the premise come from?

Design is evident.

No, it really isn't. How do you explain the fact that biological life is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution as opposed to analogous to any other designed object that we can find? Hell, how is it that we can distinguish human designed objects from nature if design is evidence in nature?

This is the theory that is inescapable.

No, it's quite escapable. You have yet to demonstrate your idea nor have you been able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the ideas that you are using to support it. You've also admitted that it is logically inconsistent.

The Bible makes the claims to describe this reality. It succeeds.

No, it merely posits the claim...it doesn't succeed as it provides nothing in terms of supporting evidence. It merely states "The universe is designed and it demonstrates that it is designed"...which is itself a circular argument. I can provide the same argument in reverse "The universe is undesigned and it demonstrates that it is undesigned"...and that statement on its own is equally unsupported. However, I can provide mountains of scientific data to show that naturally processes give rise to complexity.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Alright, you posted a 6 minute long video without textual explanation or context...I'll give it 2 minutes and see if the rest is worth responding to.


Okay...the meat of the video begins at the 0:55 mark...and it states as fact (without a single citation to back it up) that the first five books of the Bible are 3500 years old...even though that all the evidence points towards the documentary hypothesis which shows that the Hebrew Bible was edited and redacted and added to repeatedly...and there's no evidence to show that the dates of 1500 BCE is legit for the authorship of any Biblical text.

And apparently these books contains some sort of prophecies (let me guess, nobody realize the prophecy until after the event occurred) that would prove the existence of that deity once the events occurred....

First statement is that the character "God" said that it would make a nation out of a people who weren't "a people"...except that this statement is undoubtedly written after the foundation of Israel as a nation (which then split into two nations).

...and then it goes on to say that this deity said it would deliver them out of Egypt...well, there's absolutely no archeological evidence of the Hebrew people being in Egypt...or that the book of Exodus was written prior to this supposed event.

Hell, Deuteronomy was supposedly written by Moses...yet it speaks of his death...

Apparently they'd also be a might nation...yeah, not so mighty. There's really no evidence to suggest that archaic Israel was anything other than a minor kingdom.

...and this is when I finish. The rest is just like that. It didn't even make it to two minutes. The video demonstrates its own ignorance by presupposing that the Bible was written prior to or during the events occurring...some events which have no basis in history. I'm sorry, but this is a failure.

Granted, it's ppsimmons, I wasn't expecting much.

The conceit embodied in the OP's assertion is staggering. Sir, you've only proven how delusional religionists have become when confronted with ideas that conflict with their preferred fairytale. To prove a thing one must first possess a rudimentary understanding of it. You don't.

Originally posted by Smack
The conceit embodied in the OP's assertion is staggering. Sir, you've only proven how delusional religionists have become when confronted with ideas that conflict with their preferred fairytale. To prove a thing one must first possess a rudimentary understanding of it. You don't.

Ditto! All the OP did was post some pseudo-science, a bit of real science (aka the big bang happened), and then took the HUUUUUUUGE leap of faith claiming "god did it" without providing any objective evidence to support that claim. The hilarious thing is, if science suddenly figures out how life started in the first place, and it doesn't match the OP's claims in this thread, he will still claim it matches by twisting stuff to make it "fit" again

What's also kinda funny is the claim that the bible is infallible and always correct...when it DEMONSTRABLY isn't

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
First question.

Where do the governing laws of motion originate? For motion to take place, there must be a fixed object to set the other in motion.

They originate from the underlying structure of reality.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Second question.

Assuming you get through this first question with any success, answer this: How can we explain information with purpose encoded into all life and how can this information match the governing laws from question one (apart from a knowledge of them)?

Modern synthesis explains it.

Your hypothesis has been refuted, have a nice day.

Modern evolutionary synthesis is more of a treaty than a theory, allowing researches to work under a common set of presuppositions, rendering every assumption that follows dependent on the presuppositions (1980-Mayr and Provine). As an example, this assumes that successive generations retain their gene frequencies with no proof. It's a house of cards. This theory was developed in 1942 by Julian Huxley. Most of what we know today nullifies these findings. Still, it's the best you've got. No doubt about that. The presupposition that design is not present skews the results. Design must have the possibility in the equation. Working for the standpoint that it cannot only shows bias as a variable in the results.

As for reality, no theory can explain the mathematics that are involved with producing the relationship of the observer to the underlying wave function of probability. This is obvious design and engineering where one supports the other in function. The only way to describe it is a projection one to the other. Saying that "The rules originate from the underlying reality" is denying that the observer creates any part of the wave function. We know now, from quantum physics, that the observer is critical to this process. No observer and the underlying structure is not collapsed. This assumes a first observer.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
First question.

Where do the governing laws of motion originate? For motion to take place, there must be a fixed object to set the other in motion.

They originate from the underlying structure of reality.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Second question.

Assuming you get through this first question with any success, answer this: How can we explain information with purpose encoded into all life and how can this information match the governing laws from question one (apart from a knowledge of them)?

Modern synthesis explains it.

Your hypothesis has been refuted, have a nice day.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Again with the misunderstanding of quantum physics. And again with the not understanding evolution and being ignorant of it. We have evidence that shows traits being retained through generations.

Learn some actual science, please.

Absolutely. Traits are part of the adaptive nature of the programming. Stretching this to become the development of a biomechanics robot, with complex function and purpose is absurd. Again, your presuppositions are a house of cards. Design is obvious. This is the first presupposition and the foundation of all that follows.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Again with the misunderstanding of quantum physics. And again with the not understanding evolution and being ignorant of it. We have evidence that shows traits being retained through generations.

Learn some actual science, please.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Design is obvious.

Actually the opposite is obvious (no design). Only an uneducated biased person would claim anything else, and even then it's just a silly claim with nothing backing it up, so not really even worth discussing.

Observe:

It's obvious that we were designed by robots which were designed by intelligent dinosaurs which evolved thru natural means.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Hey look, you just admitted that you're starting with your conclusion!

You conclusion and your first premise are the exact same statement, so what the hell are you doing bothering with things like logic? You're being purely illogical.

And design is not obvious.

Do they have a Bible making this claim? The key difference is the text, history and prophecy.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Design is obvious.

Actually the opposite is obvious (no design). Only an uneducated biased person would claim anything else, and even then it's just a silly claim with nothing backing it up, so not really even worth discussing.

Observe:

It's obvious that we were designed by robots which were designed by intelligent dinosaurs which evolved thru natural means.

edit on 4-5-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

My conclusion starts with the evidence. We have historical clues all over. The Bible is the enigma that cannot be overlooked. No such evidence for a non design paradigm.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Hey look, you just admitted that you're starting with your conclusion!

You conclusion and your first premise are the exact same statement, so what the hell are you doing bothering with things like logic? You're being purely illogical.

And design is not obvious.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Yeah, it just hasn't been found yet because it's so ancient.

The bible is clearly not fact or proof of anything but what people believed back then based on their limited knowledge.

There's a single example that shows what a bunch of nonsense it is from a scientific standpoint: It claims the sun was created after the earth! We know that's not what happened...

I posted a link in the other thread that showed dozens of cases where the bible is demonstrably wrong...yet it's being completely ignored by creationists. Why? Because they state the conclusion first, and then go look for evidence. And if they find evidence that goes against their belief, they simply ignore it.

Here's the link again. It's a FACT that the bible is full of contradictions and demonstrably wrong claims

Originally posted by MrXYZ
And if they find evidence that goes against their belief, they simply ignore it.

Thus ignoring everything

Genesis 1 (Light) John 1 (Word/Wave) Light is a duality of particle and wave. All particles have an associated wave. In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (Matter).

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.