A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: Barcs

The 'why' is obvious...in fact, it's the whole point of this exchange. Some folks aren't interested in the pure mechanics of universal births, Big Bang and big crunch, etc. Some folks see such studies as an opportunity to reinforce the philosophy of "we are special, we have a destiny that precludes entropy and protects us from the horrifying reality of death, obscurity and futility". You could say theology is an insurance policy against the sickening joke of possessing just enough wit to appreciate our insignificance but not enough to adjust our place in the cosmic frame. The only adjustment that can be made, is to our perspective. The question here is, what does it mean to be useful as the foremost species on planet earth? This is a much more pertinent question to the matter, a question of 'why' more than 'how'. The mechanics of the universe are not quite so relevant. A fascinating study certainly, but far removed from ethics and self realization. You may as well compare the mechanics of planetary formation to health care policies. Scapegoats are a rather clumsy solution - is scapegoat the right term? Unfairly correllating phenomena with an unrelated object or person? Thats what I was going for.

Even if god exists, science would be learning about god's creation. This argument makes no sense.

If God made the material world, it would appear to you as He wants it to appear. You understand nothing without knowing how God's commands manifest themselves into the material reality. The rest is only window dressing, and understanding that is only a facade.

Also, the quantum eraser experiment that built on the double slit experiment shows that the duality is not based upon interference.

a reply to: Barcs

As we all are.

a reply to: Noinden

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?"

Probably not. But the reverse is not true.

originally posted by: craterman
If God made the material world, it would appear to you as He wants it to appear. You understand nothing without knowing how God's commands manifest themselves into the material reality. The rest is only window dressing, and understanding that is only a facade.

I still don't see your point. So you think god purposely set up the universe to appear natural to trick us, yet expects us to just realize it's all a facade? How exactly are we supposed to determine something like that with no way to know the truth? Why wouldn't god want us to know he's there, if he actually cares and has a plan? The only facade is free will, if god is indeed all knowing.

Also, the quantum eraser experiment that built on the double slit experiment shows that the duality is not based upon interference.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explained that it is the act of measurement that affects it, not human consciousness. It was taken out of context by the new age movement. I will find the video for you of him explaining it.

a reply to: craterman

Not really. There is testable evidence for sciences ideas. Oh and before you try it, I am NOT a atheist.

originally posted by: craterman
Even if god exists, science would be learning about god's creation. This argument makes no sense.

If God made the material world, it would appear to you as He wants it to appear. You understand nothing without knowing how God's commands manifest themselves into the material reality. The rest is only window dressing, and understanding that is only a facade.

Also, the quantum eraser experiment that built on the double slit experiment shows that the duality is not based upon interference.

a reply to: Barcs

God has absolute control over our perception, in addition to owning our fates and physics in general. If that isn't a scary - no, completely terrifying concept, I don't know what is.

but you have failed to address the initial question. If the universe and all of its marvels require a cause, then what caused the marvel you call god?

The eternal is a given, or we wouldn't be here. God is the eternal. There is no cause and no beginning. Time is a materialistic concept. It is, most simply put, change relative to change. In the spirit world, there may be a sequence, but there is no time.

There is, for what is right in front of you, on a chemistry level. But when you get to the molecular and atomic and quantum level it is just faith. If God wanted man to co-create by discovery, to unveil / create the mechanics of physics, it would be that way. Man may satisfy his own curiosity in science.

a reply to: Noinden

Look up the quantum eraser, they split the 'particles' to entangle them to show the truth. My point is, obviously if there is a God, He wishes to remain hidden. Why? IMO, it is to show us what separation from Him is like, at least for a short time, so that we do not repeat the terrible choices of the fallen angels who decided to risk permanent separation. Free will (required for true companionship) allows for that possibility. Most don't see this world as a facade. But if it is a created world it must have a purpose, and God remains hidden. I cannot believe that super computers, jet airplanes and space stations are simply products of a cosmic accident. Neither is life. The actions of the subatomic are astonishing in itself, and for an accident to perpetuate to the point of the living cell and mankind is just absurd. Ever witness an accident? They are destructive.

a reply to: Barcs

a reply to: craterman

Oo a top poster. I've not seen one of them for years

I understand Chemistry and Biochemistry very well thanks. Thats my day job. Anytime someone puts the word "quantum" into an argument, you cross from science, to pseudoscience, and probably from pseudoscience to woo woo.

I will turn this on you. Why is it just one God? As a polytheist, I can quiet as easily say many deities were involved. OR perhaps none (as Indo-European myth would imply). Thus. Evidence for how science says things are, is more abundant.

When it is a matter of faith, don't try to draw science in. OR if it is a mater of science, don't try to draw faith in.

QED

I will turn this on you. Why is it just one God? As a polytheist, I can quiet as easily say many deities were involved.

There are gods and God. You are quite correct, the Bible even says so. And Chemistry works, but mans understanding as to what happens the smaller we go just dissipates into thin air. And you say pseudoscience, and I agree with that too, because man's understanding just falls completely apart. Why would science let that happen? Shouldn't the scientific method prevent that?
Here's another completely unrelated thing that gives insight into this reality. Why in the world does every drug testing take the placebo effect into account? Is that chemistry? pseudoscience? Look into multiple personality disorders and use your chemistry to explain how one personality can be deathly allergic to something and another not. Or how one can be diabetic and one not. The mind is a bigger part of this world than any science can explain. Even chemistry. This world is not just a materialistic existence.

a reply to: Noinden

a reply to: craterman

SO you can prove that your little deity is superior to my many? Or is this just your own gnostic ego?

a reply to: craterman

Oh and while we are at it.

Science does not let anything happen neighbour. Its a philosophy. Nothing more. Stop trying anthropomorphize things.

Science is not my religion. Religion is not my day job.

originally posted by: craterman
I will turn this on you. Why is it just one God? As a polytheist, I can quiet as easily say many deities were involved.

There are gods and God. You are quite correct, the Bible even says so. And Chemistry works, but mans understanding as to what happens the smaller we go just dissipates into thin air. And you say pseudoscience, and I agree with that too, because man's understanding just falls completely apart. Why would science let that happen? Shouldn't the scientific method prevent that?
Here's another completely unrelated thing that gives insight into this reality. Why in the world does every drug testing take the placebo effect into account? Is that chemistry? pseudoscience? Look into multiple personality disorders and use your chemistry to explain how one personality can be deathly allergic to something and another not. Or how one can be diabetic and one not. The mind is a bigger part of this world than any science can explain. Even chemistry. This world is not just a materialistic existence.

a reply to: Noinden

for your enjoyment:

upload.wikimedia.org...

An illustration of the "observable universe" as we travel from our galaxy.

Yes I can. Going to take a bit though. Be patient.

a reply to: Noinden

Proportions are bit off.

a reply to: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: craterman

Oh and while we are at it.

Science does not let anything happen neighbour. Its a philosophy. Nothing more. Stop trying anthropomorphize things.

Science is not my religion. Religion is not my day job.

Science is a method, not a philosophy. But it is a useful lens for observing philosophy.

a reply to: craterman

And Chemistry works, but mans understanding as to what happens the smaller we go just dissipates into thin air.

That simply isn't true. The entirety of science is building blocks. We build on what we know while researching and discovering what we don't know. It has nothing to do with large going to small. It's all about evidence. And there's plenty of evidence for the quantum world. The super conductor is a prime example.

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There is nothing else to it.

Superconductivity is perhaps the most spectacular macroscopic quantum phenomenon. A “persistent current” in a ring of superconducting wire will continue to flow forever – a laboratory realization of perpetual motion. A voltage across a junction between two superconductors produces an oscillating current with a frequency that is determined exactly by the voltage and the fundamental constant of quantum mechanics, Planck’s constant. Superconductivity is the quintessential example of an “emergent phenomenon” in physics, in which the collective behavior cannot be understood in terms of the properties of any finite collection of microscopic constituents (i.e. electrons). Notable physicists including Einstein, Heisenberg, and Feynman tried and failed for half a century to achieve the basic understanding of superconductivity that was only achieved in the mid 1950’s and early 1960’s. However, many fundamental issues remain to be resolved, including those related to the more recent discovery of unconventional “high temperature superconductivity” in a variety of synthetic metals and the construction of coherent superconducting “Q-bits” which act as laboratory realizations of Schrodinger’s cat.

sitp.stanford.edu...

a reply to: TzarChasm

No science is a philosophy, made up of several methods to test things.