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.

[The Barbarian]

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

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
That the sycamore tree
continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.
---
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
The sycamore tree
continues to be,
observed by Yours faithfully, God.

[William]

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

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
That the sycamore tree
continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.
---
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
The sycamore tree
continues to be,
observed by Yours faithfully, God.

That is a good point. As long as there is one conscious observer, that which observes, exists.

[Diogenes]

So you are telling California Berkely that they do not know what they are talking about. Sure dude.

Huh? You're not even making sense. The same Berkeley site has a page on peripatric speciation. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/modes-of ... peciation/

So what experimental evidence do you have a rapid specialization? Theory is not experimental evidence.

Sigh.....you didn't even bother to look at the last link I posted, did you? Go look and take note of the specific example they give.

Naturally ESG responded with "Ok, you do not believe in objective reality. Let me know when you do." This is why it is pointless to engage these types. They 'quote mine,' and pick out the one sentence that, taken out of context, appears to say the opposite of the theme of the paragraph. This is also how they read the Bible, putting their own personal beliefs ahead of what the scripture actually says. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all quote Jesus as saying he'll come back a 2d time in 'all his glory' with the angels and will do so before "some standing here will taste death." 2000 years later and they still do not get it, that Jesus was wrong. They apply the same poor analysis to insist on misunderstanding science and the clear record of evolution.

[William]

So you are telling California Berkely that they do not know what they are talking about. Sure dude.

Huh? You're not even making sense. The same Berkeley site has a page on peripatric speciation. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/modes-of ... peciation/

So what experimental evidence do you have a rapid specialization? Theory is not experimental evidence.

Sigh.....you didn't even bother to look at the last link I posted, did you? Go look and take note of the specific example they give.

Naturally ESG responded with "Ok, you do not believe in objective reality. Let me know when you do." This is why it is pointless to engage these types. They 'quote mine,' and pick out the one sentence that, taken out of context, appears to say the opposite of the theme of the paragraph. This is also how they read the Bible, putting their own personal beliefs ahead of what the scripture actually says. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all quote Jesus as saying he'll come back a 2d time in 'all his glory' with the angels and will do so before "some standing here will taste death." 2000 years later and they still do not get it, that Jesus was wrong. They apply the same poor analysis to insist on misunderstanding science and the clear record of evolution.

I think this is a very good point of observation. "This is also how they read the Bible" and it can indeed quash any real headway into discussion/debate - even between Christians...

Examples of recent quote-mining tactics I have encountered.

[The Barbarian]

That is a good point. As long as there is one conscious observer, that which observes, exists.

Absent a God, it gets a little difficult. I mean, even if there's an observer who is not God, the observer doesn't exist unless he's being observed. Recursion issues here.

[William]

That is a good point. As long as there is one conscious observer, that which observes, exists.

Absent a God, it gets a little difficult. I mean, even if there's an observer who is not God, the observer doesn't exist unless he's being observed. Recursion issues here.

I think of it in terms of that which is able to acknowledge something exists, even if it is the only thing which exists, which is able to do so.

Which is to say, if one is observing that one exists, then the observing is being done.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #141]

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
That the sycamore tree
continues to be
When there's no one about in the quad.
---
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
The sycamore tree
continues to be,
observed by Yours faithfully, God.

So what is your point and what does it have to do with quantum mechanics? Nice poem.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #140]

So if achieving reproductive isolation is not speciation to you, what is?

Can a Great Dane mate with a Chihuahua? Or are they mechanically isolated?

From your article.

The partial reproductive isolation that evolved between lice on giant runts and feral pigeons likely represents the first, and arguably most critical, stage of speciation. If lice continue to increase in size over time, the difference in body size between populations on giant runts and feral pigeons may be large enough for complete prezygotic reproductive isolation, resulting in the formation of a new species.

You might want to try another example. Because your article says that they did not form a new species. But you can argue with your own article if you want to.

[Clownboat]

I get that part, but why do they have to be so ridiculously dishonest as well?

Maintaining the beleif is what is most important.
Statements like "a monkey cannot give birth to a human" are true. Why would they give up such arguments when they refute the evolution that exists in their mind? Again, the goal is not accuracy (no monkey gave birth to a human), but to maintain a belief. Therefore, the ends justify the means.

creationism is effectively dead.

This is not in dispute. As we see here, there is no defense for creationism, the best we see is complaints made against the best we got (ToE).

[Jose Fly]

Naturally ESG responded with "Ok, you do not believe in objective reality. Let me know when you do." This is why it is pointless to engage these types. They 'quote mine,' and pick out the one sentence that, taken out of context, appears to say the opposite of the theme of the paragraph. This is also how they read the Bible, putting their own personal beliefs ahead of what the scripture actually says. Mark, Matthew, and Luke all quote Jesus as saying he'll come back a 2d time in 'all his glory' with the angels and will do so before "some standing here will taste death." 2000 years later and they still do not get it, that Jesus was wrong. They apply the same poor analysis to insist on misunderstanding science and the clear record of evolution.

Reminds me of when I was young and how, when the preacher would tell the congregation to turn to one part of the Bible or another (and use that as the basis for his sermon), I would often read the surrounding passages. Whenever I'd find something weird, disturbing, or whatever, I'd elbow my mom and point to it with a "WTH is this" face. She'd snatch the Bible from me and say "You're not supposed to read that part" in a chastising way.

Didn't take long for me to realize something was wrong with that.