Is God mute?

[OddTrader]

Here's a voice:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...rences-between-shia-and-sunni-muslims.294819/

"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

"He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

"He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

"Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."

 

[nitro]

Then what would it mean to you for something to be a Designer? I am taking it that we both know what's being meant by the word Designer here.

A conscious entity acting with purpose. In addition, although perhaps not necessary, this purposeful conscious entity appears to make use of consistency a primal axiom (this is a verbose way of saying math). Math is a name we give to a tool that we use to make inference.

Why would I be astonished? What does astonish me more, is how you talk of cells as if they are nothing of consequence. Something that is remarkable astonishing extraordinary and amazing like a bunch of cells, is handwaved away in place of an invisible assumed imaginary unnecessary non-entity with no trace of existence, but given equal credibility in explaining the universe.
In that way I do sometimes get amazed how those same bunch of cells can also be capable of such astonishing irrationality.

The reason for the irrationality is that no possible reasonable course of thought can lead you out of contradiction. Whereas you see "an invisible assumed imaginary unnecessary non-entity" as irrational, I see cyclic universes requiring infinite time or space as almost on equal footing with my intuition. The difference between us is that I realize that I stand on quicksand, whereas somehow you are perfectly comfortable with explanations that require physical infinities without a single instance of proof.

In that analogy you'd only need win powerball once. That in itself would provide vast if not endless opportunity to negate questions of chance, within countless varying galaxies.

Agreed that even in an extremely unlikely case you only need it to happen once, but this is mathematically immature, and in fact, physicists that want nothing to do with designers feel extremely uncomfortable with this say 1 in 10^10^10^Googolplex event. The ultimate black swan. It is the exact reasoning that people that play the Powerball use to play it. Someone wins it might be me. Someone wins when the numbers are enormous in comparison to the possible outcomes make it likely. In the universe case, the numbers needed to make it work are unknown because we have no other evidence. But the odds are truly colossal against, using meta-arguments. So the only way to play the game you want to play, that it sprung into existence with perfect mathematical laws is to play the game what is essentially an infinite number of times. Possible, but I think what physicists want is that the universe is inevitable. That is the whole idea behind unstable vacuums, etc. All of it assumes things already there, fields at least. "Nothing" when used by these guys is a play on words that the general public falls for.

However, this is what's not making sense to me. You say extreme mathematical design is seen in nature. You accommodate the idea of a Designer, but then contrary to the mathematical design you mention, refuse math as a Designer!

See above. A Designer is a conscious entity acting with purpose. If I said, Engineer, would that make it easier?

I'd go as far as to say any plausible Designer like math or gravity would be rejected as mere chance - though a Designer that is not necessary, shows no signs of existence in reality is not rejected. In other words, a Designer has to always be a mythical concept.

Of course it is mythical! But any current explanation is mythical, or let me be more accurate, cannot be scientific in a traditional sense of the word. Science as I stated proceeds from one assumption only. That anything I can do you can repeat. Since we have only one Universe (that we know of), all statements about it are mythical or at least not scientific because we can't repeat making universes, yet. We try to get around it by using very clever methods of indirect evidence to try to make it science, since we believe the law of the excluded middle.

BTW, [Super] String Theory is also not science by traditional terms. However, I believe in it because in the past, for some strange reason, beauty has been a guide in discovering truth. No one really understands why truth and beauty are related when it comes to discovering physical law. SST is beautiful. It isn't describing one universe, but a whole huge number of them. The critics say well this isn't science because we can't test it. So notice my hypocritical stance!

You make the argument "How can anyone make a statement about what is or isn't if the only evidence [the universe] is singular?". Then you go right ahead and make a statement about what is or isn't, when the evidence is only singular!! You say "Right, but the "something elses" are unimaginably more likely than this particular case". How can you say they are if the only evidence is singular!!?

Not quite. You are mistaking thinking and meta-thinking. If I make a statement about the Universe, I am at level one. If I am talking about the mathematics of the universe, I am using meta-thinking and at level two. Mathematicians are very used to doing this and it is allowed. That's Gödel's point. You often have to build a meta-system to talk about the lower level system.

But I'm sorry, you still miss the point. The essential constituents of things including the universe, make them what they are. Were they not of those essential constituents, they would be different things with their own different essential constituents, which again would make them what they are. The statistics are provided in the language of math. That is a reasonable statement. Tautological maybe, but rendering it nevertheless true.

Right here you are making arguments and meta-arguments. What you are suggesting might be true but while it may make sense, it has the feel of a miracle. "I am what I am" - biblical God. When it comes to the creation of the universe, pick your miracles is all I am saying.

I notice you've said the same to me before when faced with a proposition that is necessarily true.

Not quite. English doesn't really do a good job of distinguishing thinking and meta-thinking. It is fraught with possible logical contradictions. But I don't want to go there.

It means to take an inevitable course because that's all they can do within their inherent characteristics .

Physical laws are assumed to always occur within the known universe if certain conditions prevail. In that respect they certainly are axiomatic. In 1930, Weyl and Dirac showed Quantum Mechanics as axiomatic.
Whether axioms are meaningful to the discussion or not , they do apply to physical laws, the way physical laws occur throughout the known universe.


I think you must surely mean human reasoning and mathematical analysis, appears to be amenable to the laws of nature, not the other way about. For example, the laws of nature are not amenable to any human reasoning in connection with perpetual motion machines, and neither Newton or Einstien approximations of nature could stand on myth over math. For me,strange is accommodating without any rational explanation, a mythical Designer as explanation for reality, when its very nature necessitates no match.

It was von-Neumann that put QMs on a sound mathematical foundation. This is getting too time consuming.

Here is the takeaway. All beliefs about the creation of the universe are, currently, at best myth. As science progresses we will make refinements in our beliefs. Some will see magic in the universe, others will see only fact. And still others, try to reconcile both because their finite minds cannot comprehend all the facts, yet. When we get there, a million years from now, we will be better able to asses.

Pick your miracle:

• Science => physical infinities
• Designer=> mystical religious overtones

Were a state of nothing to have caused a universe, why is that not cause and effect?


Einstein - general relativity - infinite density.
Presumably you can envisage a Designer sitting in an infinite state of nothing prior to any universe, but can't envisage just the infinite state of nothing.
Or in all honesty, can't envisage either!?
Thing is there is 'extreme mathematical design in nature' suggesting that state of nothing, but no math suggesting that Designer.

Not nothing. If what I have suggested didn't already convince you why an extremely rational person like me (with a mystical twist) sees something other than pure chance at work, I don't know how else to explain it. I am well aware of the quicksand I stand on. But I feel like I am trying to explain the qualia of red to a person that was born blind.

 

[nitro]

One way out of infinity is a universe that springs into existence imperfect, then somehow evolves mathematical laws over finite but unimaginable number of eons. This is really fringe, but it has a more correct feel than either a designer or a perfectly sprung from nothing universe. It mixes one miracle with another, hoping to make half a miracle.

But it goes from 10^10^10^10^googelplex to 10^10^10^googelplex (I am just using a colossal number it is not know what the real odds are - we just know it is unimaginably huge). Still, it is hugely smaller odds against.

 

[jem]

ID as referenced by this article is a different subject.

This core of this subject is about the extreme fine tuning of the fundamental constants of our universe.
This is subject is not a religious subject... its scientific.

Q http://www.progressivetheology.org/principles/Science-Bible.html

Intelligent Design and the Question of God

Much attention is currently being paid to a concept that is called by its proponents the Intelligent Design (ID) Theory. The most basic summary of ID is that biological organisms are so complex that they cannot have developed by chance, so they must have had a designer. Although advocates of teaching ID in the public school avoid saying so, it is clear that for the vast majority of them, that designer is the God of Christianity.

How should a Christian who is committed to both good theology and good science assess ID? First, it must be said that all Christians, both advocates and opponents of ID, believe in an intelligent designer. The question is not whether God is ultimately responsible for the design of the universe but whether ID, as presented by its proponents, offers a necessary or even reasonable alternative to evolution. In my estimation it does not, for the following reasons:

1. ID is not a scientific theory
2. ID is not a scientific hypothesis
3. ID is a philosophically-based critique of evolution
4. ID imposes limits on God's intelligence and power

First, despite the fact that it is sometimes called Intelligent Design Theory, ID is not a scientific theory, for it has not been through the rigorous process of scientific testing that is required for a hypothesis to become a theory. In fact, since it does not offer testable hypotheses concerning its claims, it is not even a scientific hypothesis. Instead, it is a philosophically-based critique of evolution. Now, there is nothing wrong with critiquing existing scientific theories; advancements in science cannot be made without insightful critiques. However, many of ID's critiques of evolution are simply recycled creationist critiques from the 19th and 20th centuries that have failed to carry any weight with the scientific community in the past. Other critiques, such as pointing out the gaps in current knowledge that certainly exist, are inconsequential without a scientifically testable alternative, which ID does not provide.

Finally, although ID criticizes the classical theory of evolution for eliminating God from the equation, it is not true that the theory of evolution eliminates the possibility of God. Although many scientists do reject the idea of God outright, many others see no contradiction between evolution and the idea of God. The book Bios, Cosmos, Theos, edited by Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, consists of a series of interviews with sixty leading scientists, many of them Nobel laureates, about religion and science, and none the scientists represented in the book finds God incompatible with science. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, discusses the relationship between religion and science in Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution, and he too believes that God and science are compatible. In fact, it can be argued that ID itself imposes limits on God's intelligence and power that the classical theory of evolution (which has no reference to God, positive or negative) does not. ID insists that biological life is so complex that it could not have arisen by ordinary physical processes such as genetic mutation and natural selection. But in saying this, it implicitly limits both God's intelligence and power.

Is God not capable of producing a set of natural laws and an initial set of data that would lead to the formation of the universe and the earth as we know it?

Is God not capable of designing the atom in such a way that chemical reactions combine with radiation to form larger molecules such as proteins, the building blocks of life?

Is God not capable of creating a system of organic and inorganic compounds, physical conditions, and extraterrestrial encounters (e.g., meteor collisions with the earth) that could take advantage of natural selection to produce the family tree of all life on the planet?

A God who is incapable of these things might be intelligent, but such a God would be limited. This is not the God that most Christian theology proclaims.
UQ

 

[jem]

Infinite tries of colliding a rock would not necessarily turn it into giraffe nor do infinite tries necessarily turn the stating blocks of the big bang into a universe which supports life.

Its not clear that the 10 to the 500 possible solutions from string theory or or even infinite tries would be enough. Many scientists who favor the inflationary model of how the universe got started accept that the inflationary model still requires its own fine tuning.

2, I also note that Penrose cites an much much larger number....
10 to the 10 to the 123.

here is background to Penroses number...

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

Penrose continues,

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

and here is a interesting way to view it...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10 (to the 10) to the (123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:10 (to the 10) to the (60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 10 to the 10 to the (123). Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison! So if our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Observable universes like that are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one random member of an ensemble of worlds.

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so “impotent” that it is actually “misconceived” to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning#ixzz3njWukFlC



(note... I wrote the (to the) because it did not cut and past over well from the article but you are welcome to check it.)

 

[globuli]

Throughout time there have always been people who wanted to hear God speak. Audibly.

So he did. Two thousand years ago. Maybe you didn't hear about that.

Wrong. The one and only time God spoke to man was to Moses. Every other claim is an example of mental illness.

 

[stu]

Not quite. You are mistaking thinking and meta-thinking. If I make a statement about the Universe, I am at level one. If I am talking about the mathematics of the universe, I am using meta-thinking and at level two. Mathematicians are very used to doing this and it is allowed. That's Gödel's point. You often have to build a meta-system to talk about the lower level system.

Seriously? That's fancy. Hell of an excuse for the no big deal that you happened to contradict yourself. Let's not get carried away here!!

Mathematics of the Universe is math.
Meta-mathematics is studying math itself - using math.
Meta-thinking is metacognition which is thinking about thinking.

The nearest you'll get to building a meta-system to talk about the Universe is philosophy. And that's basically just thinking about questions never intended to be answered.

Not nothing. If what I have suggested didn't already convince you why an extremely rational person like me (with a mystical twist) sees something other than pure chance at work, I don't know how else to explain it.

You're an extremely rational person you say, so why dismiss what would necessarily be an inevitable natural event as pure chance?

One way out of infinity is a universe that springs into existence imperfect, then somehow evolves mathematical laws over finite but unimaginable number of eons. This is really fringe, but it has a more correct feel than either a designer or a perfectly sprung from nothing universe. It mixes one miracle with another, hoping to make half a miracle.

You suggested to someone else that a simple thought experiment is enough. There you have one by which you remove pure chance. All your 1 in 10^10^10^Googolplex events dispelled by it.

Although, where you've gotten the notion about a universe being perfectly sprung, is anyone's guess as you mentioned the key word: evolution.

The difference between us is that I realize that I stand on quicksand, whereas somehow you are perfectly comfortable with explanations that require physical infinities without a single instance of proof.

For an extremely rational person that's a massively unreasonable comment. I consider explanations to the extent that math , physics and universal laws provide them. Because that isn't complete (yet), I do not insert a fictional imaginary Designer in there to satisfy some need to have an explanation which is no explanation at all.

I am well aware of the quicksand I stand on. But I feel like I am trying to explain the qualia of red to a person that was born blind.

I'll put your unnecessary condescension down to insecurity felt from standing on that quicksand.
However, similarly to you, I like mythical and mystical, but in their place.
I just don't hold a miracle to be anything but an amazing and wonderful occurrence, don't assume false equivalences like lack of scientific evidence = the possibility ofa mythical higher consciousness, or carry the pretense that imaginary supernatural Designer is anything to do with explaining how the universe actually works in reality.

 

[jimmiebarton]

A conscious entity acting with purpose. In addition, although perhaps not necessary, this purposeful conscious entity appears to make use of consistency a primal axiom (this is a verbose way of saying math). Math is a name we give to a tool that we use to make inference.


The reason for the irrationality is that no possible reasonable course of thought can lead you out of contradiction. Whereas you see "an invisible assumed imaginary unnecessary non-entity" as irrational, I see cyclic universes requiring infinite time or space as almost on equal footing with my intuition. The difference between us is that I realize that I stand on quicksand, whereas somehow you are perfectly comfortable with explanations that require physical infinities without a single instance of proof.


Agreed that even in an extremely unlikely case you only need it to happen once, but this is mathematically immature, and in fact, physicists that want nothing to do with designers feel extremely uncomfortable with this say 1 in 10^10^10^Googolplex event. The ultimate black swan. It is the exact reasoning that people that play the Powerball use to play it. Someone wins it might be me. Someone wins when the numbers are enormous in comparison to the possible outcomes make it likely. In the universe case, the numbers needed to make it work are unknown because we have no other evidence. But the odds are truly colossal against, using meta-arguments. So the only way to play the game you want to play, that it sprung into existence with perfect mathematical laws is to play the game what is essentially an infinite number of times. Possible, but I think what physicists want is that the universe is inevitable. That is the whole idea behind unstable vacuums, etc. All of it assumes things already there, fields at least. "Nothing" when used by these guys is a play on words that the general public falls for.


See above. A Designer is a conscious entity acting with purpose. If I said, Engineer, would that make it easier?


Of course it is mythical! But any current explanation is mythical, or let me be more accurate, cannot be scientific in a traditional sense of the word. Science as I stated proceeds from one assumption only. That anything I can do you can repeat. Since we have only one Universe (that we know of), all statements about it are mythical or at least not scientific because we can't repeat making universes, yet. We try to get around it by using very clever methods of indirect evidence to try to make it science, since we believe the law of the excluded middle.

BTW, [Super] String Theory is also not science by traditional terms. However, I believe in it because in the past, for some strange reason, beauty has been a guide in discovering truth. No one really understands why truth and beauty are related when it comes to discovering physical law. SST is beautiful. It isn't describing one universe, but a whole huge number of them. The critics say well this isn't science because we can't test it. So notice my hypocritical stance!


Not quite. You are mistaking thinking and meta-thinking. If I make a statement about the Universe, I am at level one. If I am talking about the mathematics of the universe, I am using meta-thinking and at level two. Mathematicians are very used to doing this and it is allowed. That's Gödel's point. You often have to build a meta-system to talk about the lower level system.


Right here you are making arguments and meta-arguments. What you are suggesting might be true but while it may make sense, it has the feel of a miracle. "I am what I am" - biblical God. When it comes to the creation of the universe, pick your miracles is all I am saying.


Not quite. English doesn't really do a good job of distinguishing thinking and meta-thinking. It is fraught with possible logical contradictions. But I don't want to go there.


It was von-Neumann that put QMs on a sound mathematical foundation. This is getting too time consuming.

Here is the takeaway. All beliefs about the creation of the universe are, currently, at best myth. As science progresses we will make refinements in our beliefs. Some will see magic in the universe, others will see only fact. And still others, try to reconcile both because their finite minds cannot comprehend all the facts, yet. When we get there, a million years from now, we will be better able to asses.

Pick your miracle:

• Science => physical infinities
• Designer=> mystical religious overtones

Not nothing. If what I have suggested didn't already convince you why an extremely rational person like me (with a mystical twist) sees something other than pure chance at work, I don't know how else to explain it. I am well aware of the quicksand I stand on. But I feel like I am trying to explain the qualia of red to a person that was born blind.

you should hook up with Deepak Chopra lecture circuit, they'd love you


As you embrace the present
and become one with it, and merge with it,
you will experience a fire, a glow,
a sparkle of ecstasy throbbing in every sentient being.
As you begin to experience this exultation of spirit
in everything that is alive, as you become intimate with it,
joy will be born within you,
and you will drop the terrible burdens of defensiveness,
resentment, and hurtfulness...
then you will become lighthearted, carefree, joyous, and free.
-D. Chopra

 

[jimmiebarton]

has nitro just realized he's not always rational just occasionally conveniently ???

 

[nitro]