How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[OneWay]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #20]

You believe that the only thing that exists is matter and energy and they obey the laws of nature that we experience.

Yes, because I've never seen anything that convinces me otherwise. It seems a reasonable default position to take.

And you believe that man will be able, one day, to describe everything in terms of matter and energy.

Not necessarily. I think that is more likely than finding that god beings exist and have played a role in nature, but humans may never find the answers to some problems before we go extinct eventually.

You can say that you believe that there is only one universe and that everything you see is real. But that is not at all what current cosmology is saying. That would be a belief system based on nothing. It would not be based on mathematics or any cosmological theory. You have no foundation for your belief. Your belief system is more akin to those that believed in Zeus, Bacca's, and Athena than it does to science.

I don't waste time myself thinking about whether there is one universe or many, or whether we know how it began, or any of that. I start 4.6 billion years ago when we know our solar system formed, and go from there. No knowledge is required concerning how the universe actually began, what dark matter and dark energy are, etc. to know that life began somehow on Earth a few billion years ago (mechanism TBD), and it diversified via evolution into what we see today, and Earth and all of its contents are real. Modern understanding of cosmology or origins has no influence on these things.

I am not the one that is making any of these claims. These are men and women that have the same humanistic beliefs that you have. It is not logical to have two sets of laws that govern what we observe. At one point the quantum weirdness does need to be explained because I believe that we only live in one universe.

A lot of the quantum weirdness is explained ... and it doesn't apply to trees falling, or the moon. What is needed are more advances to reconcile General Relativity and quantum mechanics, develop a theory of quantum gravity, and things like that. Physics is nowhere near "done" so that conclusions can be made about everything in cosmology. There are simply things we don't know yet.

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to OneWay in post #31]

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

I don't need to "prove" my opinions on things if they are stated as that. This leaves the following statements I made:

1) Our solar system formed about 4.6 billions years ago, as did the Earth.

2) Life appeared on Earth by some mechanism, and it diversified via evolution.

3) Modern cosmology and its theories of origin of the universe or other unsolved science problems has no impact on #1 or #2.

4) A lot of quantum mechanics "weirdness" has been explained, but it does not apply to trees.

For #1) The age of our solar system is derived from radiometric dating of meteorites and old zircon rocks (from Australia). Not just a few meteorites, but a large number. For example, see this article from a creationist website (one of a series):

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... ndrites-2/

For #2) Life obviously exists, and evolution has reached the status of formal scientific theory having been confirmed by about 150 years of observation.

For #3) Should be self explanatory ... the universe apparently formed many billions of years before our solar system formed, so that mechanism was complete and did not impact our star's formation or its planets.

For #4) Many quantum effects are explained mathematically and via experiment (eg. entanglement, tunneling, superposition, etc.), and trees are not quantum particles by definition.

Can you refute any of this?

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #31]

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

I don't need to "prove" my opinions on things if they are stated as that. This leaves the following statements I made:

1) Our solar system formed about 4.6 billions years ago, as did the Earth.

2) Life appeared on Earth by some mechanism, and it diversified via evolution.

3) Modern cosmology and its theories of origin of the universe or other unsolved science problems has no impact on #1 or #2.

4) A lot of quantum mechanics "weirdness" has been explained, but it does not apply to trees.

For #1) The age of our solar system is derived from radiometric dating of meteorites and old zircon rocks (from Australia). Not just a few meteorites, but a large number. For example, see this article from a creationist website (one of a series):

https://answersresearchjournal.org/radi ... ndrites-2/

For #2) Life obviously exists, and evolution has reached the status of formal scientific theory having been confirmed by about 150 years of observation.

For #3) Should be self explanatory ... the universe apparently formed many billions of years before our solar system formed, so that mechanism was complete and did not impact our star's formation or its planets.

For #4) Many quantum effects are explained mathematically and via experiment (eg. entanglement, tunneling, superposition, etc.), and trees are not quantum particles by definition.

Can you refute any of this?

You are asking me if I can refute any of your opinions?
Why yes I can.
Here ya go

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

I propose the best way to show you can refute a claim is to not rely on others for their input, but to actually refute a claim.

Just tossing that out there.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

I propose the best way to show you can refute a claim is to not rely on others for their input, but to actually refute a claim.

Just tossing that out there.

In a debate you have to prove your input.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

I propose the best way to show you can refute a claim is to not rely on others for their input, but to actually refute a claim.

Just tossing that out there.

In a debate you have to prove your input.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?

My comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

I propose the best way to show you can refute a claim is to not rely on others for their input, but to actually refute a claim.

Just tossing that out there.

In a debate you have to prove your input.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?

My comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.

You say a lot of things but that does not make it so

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to OneWay in post #33]

They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.

OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.

No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.

I propose the best way to show you can refute a claim is to not rely on others for their input, but to actually refute a claim.

Just tossing that out there.

In a debate you have to prove your input.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?

My comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.

You say a lot of things but that does not make it so

Then please explain to this dullard where my referenced comment was refuted.