Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Sep 05, 2021 12:26 am
[
Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #79TRANSPONDER wrote:Because it is the difference between Schridinger's cat and pulling a rabbit out of a hat. the nothing that is also something is like the cat that is or is not (Indeterminacy is scientifically supported) whereas a complex entity that came from nothing is playing a trick on the audience.
You don't have to look in the box to see if the cat is dead. If it is, it will start to stink.
Good one. But you don't get indeterminacy. The cat isn't dead (or alive) until you look to see (1).
TRANSPONDER wrote:As to the law of conservation of energy, that's fine on the physical world we live on and work with, but it's a different matter at sub atomic and quantum level, and even more so when talking of (not dismissing out of hand) evidence of a nothing that has innate energy.
Are you saying that the law of energy conservation isn't a law? If there's energy,
there isn't nothing.[/quote]
It is, of course, Just as the law of gravity is a law and Thermo 2/Entropy is a law - in the part or levels of the universe where they are relevant. But at quantum level and an open system like an infinite Cosmos, they are not. It's like saying that because the process of evolution doesn't obtain on a planet without life, it isn't a real process.
TRANSPONDER wrote:Again, this is all very speculative, but it does make 'something from nothing' a hypothesis with far less to explain away than a god without any origin.
"Something from nothing" means that Nothing has to create Something. How is that
less magical than a cosmic mind?[/quote]
Because there is far less that has to appear. The problem (for you) is that a complex thinking being has a lot of causality to explain. A nothing does not I understand perfectly your problem with a nothing that can form or innately ha the potential to produce energy. But the point is that it has almost made the infinite recession problem go away. A thinking being with no origin has a big causality -problem.
TRANSPONDER wrote:And it isn't even important as you'd still have to show which god it was before you could validate any particular religion - which is what the debate is Really about.
When did I say that I was trying to validate a particular religion?
[/quote]
You didn't. Neither did you mention Indeterminacy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics or evolution on a lifeless planet. I did, because I was explaining something. What I was explaining is that this 'infinite recession' apologetic is actually academic.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:52 pm
brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:35 am
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 11:49 pm
If you hold with the law of conservation, which states in part that energy can't be created, then you definitely can't get something from nothing.
And yet some undefined God-magic is supposed to achieve just that.
Not if some "undefined God-magic", as you put it, has always been underlying the existence of energy.
Interesting you almost suggest that is the underlying potential of energy in nothing. The difference being that the 'potential' has less to do to produce energy than to produce a complex thinking being.
P.s I hope the q/A are clear. What was quotes didn't look quite clear in my preview but I don't want to fiddle about with it.
(1) as I get it, Schrodinger's cat isn't a mind experiment nor an analogy -used -as -evidence (which I consider a fallacy or misuse of analogy, anyway). It is a metaphor of what indeterminacy does. You may have heard of the 'double -slit' experiment, and perhaps of the way Theist use it to try to argue that 'observer affecting result' means that scientists ar making up all the results of science themselves. As I understand it (if I do) it is not a question of the observer making up the result, but two (or indeed more) results being potentially in existence, until the observe observes one of them, making it Their reality. The others being those alternate universes we hear so much about.