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.
How is there reality without God?
Moderator: Moderators
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #31Can you prove any of this you have stated?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:31 pm [Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #20]
Yes, because I've never seen anything that convinces me otherwise. It seems a reasonable default position to take.You believe that the only thing that exists is matter and energy and they obey the laws of nature that we experience.
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.And you believe that man will be able, one day, to describe everything in terms of matter and energy.
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.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.
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.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.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #32[Replying to OneWay in post #31]
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?
I don't need to "prove" my opinions on things if they are stated as that. This leaves the following statements I made:Can you prove any of this you have stated?
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?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #33You are asking me if I can refute any of your opinions?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:09 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #31]
I don't need to "prove" my opinions on things if they are stated as that. This leaves the following statements I made:Can you prove any of this you have stated?
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?
Why yes I can.
Here ya go
They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #34[Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #35No, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #36I 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.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmNo, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
Just tossing that out there.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #37In a debate you have to prove your input.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:19 pmI 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.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmNo, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
Just tossing that out there.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #38My comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pmIn a debate you have to prove your input.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:19 pmI 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.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmNo, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
Just tossing that out there.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #39You say a lot of things but that does not make it soJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:07 pmMy comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pmIn a debate you have to prove your input.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:19 pmI 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.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmNo, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
Just tossing that out there.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #40Then please explain to this dullard where my referenced comment was refuted.OneWay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:10 amYou say a lot of things but that does not make it soJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:07 pmMy comment stands, shall I say, unrefuted.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:25 pmIn a debate you have to prove your input.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:19 pmI 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.OneWay wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:22 pmNo, it is you can't prove I can't refute any of it.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:20 pm [Replying to OneWay in post #33]
OK ... so you can't refute any of it. Got it.They are not facts they are just unproven opinions.
Just tossing that out there.
Isn't that the purpose for the debate?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin