Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[aitm]

It always cracks me up ...

When yer half cracked to begin with it's pretty easy.

[Ananta Shesha]

When yer half cracked to begin with it's pretty easy.

Gotta crack sidewalk for the tree to grow...but to be fair, the cement didn't have much say in the matter ;)

[Mike Cl]

Backwards? I approach from before the beginning where the is nothing but an infinite absolute "God", then work forwards into an organized creation without special pleading.

Before the creation or happening of our universe, why would you suppose there was a god--much less an infinite one.  Where did this god come from?  Or where did this universe come from?  I don't see us as having the knowledge to even make a guess. 

And if you suppose god prior to our universe, where did this god come from?

[Hakurei Reimu]

You are aware it was an avowed theist who came up with a formula for the motion of planets. He believed it could be calculated because he believed the universe was designed by a creator...Yet in spite of his ass backwards thinking it lead him to the theory of gravitation and how to calculate it.

A theory that has the God term... strangely absent. Again, the Goddidit hypothesis fails to explain anything.

I disagree its failed. Even today scientists expect to be able to solve problems by applying math and formulas to the universe even though there is no reason to think the universe should be so accommodating. Can you explain why we can extract formulas from a universe created by mindless forces?

Because mindless ≠ random.

[Baruch]

Actually, Kepler never took vows, though he studied for it.  And he was never excommunicated from any church, although of course the Reformation and Counter-Reformation raged around him and forced him to move from time to time.

MikoÅ,aj Kopernik (a.k.a. Copernicus) was a Catholic canon... but he too was never tossed out of the church for his research -- in fact, the Vatican's reaction at the time was sort of "Huh.  That's an interesting way to look at it."  It didn't become a church problem until Galileo made the theory widely accessible and it became a point of contention in the fight over interpretation of the bible with Protestants.

Interestingly, Newton threw away a remarkable opportunity to extend his theory of gravitation even further -- by appealing to divine intervention rather than doing the calculations.  First, the speed of light was already known to be finite and a decent first estimate made -- so someone did the calculations to show that enough mass in one place could have a gravitational field with an escape velocity of c or higher.  Newton's response was essentially that something would prevent that much mass being in one place, without giving a mechanism or reason, it "just couldn't".  And second, it was already shown during his lifetime that gravitational interactions could build up and reduce the solar system to chaos -- and Newton's response was that periodically god would reach in and fix things so it wouldn't happen.

So, being religious caused Newton to miss perturbation theory even though he fully had the math to do it -- it was later picked up and expounded upon by Fourier, who had no such foolish notions about divine intervention -- and the theoretical underpinnings of black holes, which he could have predicted four centuries before they were actually discovered.

Black hole theory actually does start in the 1700s, not long after Newton.  And yes, Newton didn't understand chaotic instability, nobody did until the late 20th century.  But an amateur astronomer and a professional one, within a few years of each other, figured there could be "black stars" ...

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/E/Early+Black+Hole+Theories

What held up this insight, is that it was based on the Newtonian particle theory of light ... which was premature.  Wave theory of light made it harder to think this out, until the Einstein particle theory of light came along in 1905.  Einstein reinvented the photon ... though they aren't exactly the same idea.  Newton's photons had rest mass, and Einstein's didn't.  Particles that do have a small non-zero mass do exist, the neutrinos.  Nobody had thought of them before the 1930s.

[Baruch]

Backwards? I approach from before the beginning where the is nothing but an infinite absolute "God", then work forwards into an organized creation without special pleading.

The logic I refer to is simply sticking with the laws of equal/opposite reaction and conservation of energy.

Energy isn't conserved, mass-energy is ... most of the time.  The Big Bang and gravitational waves violate the conservation of mass-energy.  But if we forget about those two things, one can stick to mass-energy conservation in all other circumstances.  Also equal/opposite only applies to equilibrium ... clearly equilibrium is not only rare, but at best meta-stable ... try balancing a feather on your finger in a vertical way.  That wouldn't be logic in either case, that is a consistent model ... consistency is logical, but the model itself comes from outside logic, because it has to be contingent.  Logic only deals with the tautological and the self contradictory.

[Baruch]

What's in a name.....persona conjuring?

Because Isis knew the secret name of Ra ... she was able to control him, to force him to do what she wanted (give her joint rule over the universe).  All girlfriends and wives have this power too ;-)

Persona is Latin for "character" as in the character being played by an actor in the theater.  This is why in Trinitarianism ... it is crucially said to be, three persona in one actor, otherwise tri-theism results.  A secret name is like getting ahold of the script of another actor, and rewriting it.  One's name is one's power, one's story.  Control the name, you control the story.

[Ananta Shesha]

Before the creation or happening of our universe, why would you suppose there was a god--much less an infinite one.  Where did this god come from?  Or where did this universe come from?  I don't see us as having the knowledge to even make a guess. 

And if you suppose god prior to our universe, where did this god come from?

God as matter taking up all available space is trillions of times denser and hotter than a nuetron star. To atomic matter, absolute matter would be an all consuming fire of liquid quark soup. It is formless, absolute being. It's density makes it gravitationally irresistible, drawing all to it.

As to infinity, its much easier to quantize a predictive universal model out of an infinite field rather than blow one up out of a finite singularity or yank one out of a magic nothing hat.

The God that Is, is objectively eternal. "Time", as most people think of it begins and ends when spaces (universes) are opened up and closed Within the larger infinite body.

A lab example of this mechanism would be sonic cavitation of low pressure vapor bubbles in water using sound waves. With a little modulation, light appears from the bubble collapse and reaches temps of the suns surface.

The infinite unified state of God would still exist as such above and below an infinite universe metaversal stack.....and the stack is being added to as the original vibration travels through an infinite body, leaving cavitated quantum holons in its wake.


In this navigation the universes are the "nihilo" (voided space) created within the absolutely overwhelming substance of an infinite, eternal, substancial God. It's more basic than intelligent design, it's a reproductive, geometric design.

[sdelsolray]

Backwards? I approach from before the beginning where the is nothing but an infinite absolute "God"
...

Yeah, start with the conclusion are work forwards.  You're a funny, guy (or gal).

[sdelsolray]

God as matter taking up all available space is trillions of times denser and hotter than a nuetron star. To atomic matter, absolute matter would be an all consuming fire of liquid quark soup. It is formless, absolute being. It's density makes it gravitationally irresistible, drawing all to it.

As to infinity, its much easier to quantize a predictive universal model out of an infinite field rather than blow one up out of a finite singularity or yank one out of a magic nothing hat.

The God that Is, is objectively eternal. "Time", as most people think of it begins and ends when spaces (universes) are opened up and closed Within the larger infinite body.

A lab example of this mechanism would be sonic cavitation of low pressure vapor bubbles in water using sound waves. With a little modulation, light appears from the bubble collapse and reaches temps of the suns surface.

The infinite unified state of God would still exist as such above and below an infinite universe metaversal stack.....and the stack is being added to as the original vibration travels through an infinite body, leaving cavitated quantum holons in its wake.


In this navigation the universes are the "nihilo" (voided space) created within the absolutely overwhelming substance of an infinite, eternal, substancial God. It's more basic than intelligent design, it's a reproductive, geometric design.

Your word salad is quite original and impressive, as far as word salads go.  Indeed, its the best word salad of the week!

[Drew_2017]

Very curious...

I posted this case I made for naturalism just a few pages ago how is it no one has commented on it? Is it just more Drew bullshit? Is it more false equivocation or a straw man argument. Do all the same arguments that were made to my case for theism apply to this case also? Or is it exempt?

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

[Ananta Shesha]

Your word salad is quite original and impressive, as far as word salads go.  Indeed, its the best word salad of the week!

How kind, thank you!

[Ananta Shesha]

Very curious...

I posted this case I made for naturalism just a few pages ago how is it no one has commented on it? Is it just more Drew bullshit? Is it more false equivocation or a straw man argument. Do all the same arguments that were made to my case for theism apply to this case also? Or is it exempt?

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

6: The fact that nebular clouds sutarated with organic molecules are bathed in circumpolarised star light, life is enevitable.

Look up "Chiral molecules"

[Drew_2017]

A theory that has the God term... strangely absent. Again, the Goddidit hypothesis fails to explain anything.

Compared to the nature did by sheer happenstance minus any plan intent or engineering degree it explains a great deal.

Its an explanation why there is a universe. What's your counter explanation?
Its an explanation why the exacting conditions for stars and planets obtained. What's your counter explanation?
Its an explanation why there is not only life but sentient life. What's your counter explanation?
Its an explanation why there are laws of physics that are knowable and amenable to scientific research. What's your counter explanation?

Because mindless ≠ random.

Yet another belief statement spoken as incontrovertible fact. The possible reason mindless  ≠ random in our universe is because it wasn't mindlessly caused to exist.

 

[Ananta Shesha]

Energy isn't conserved, mass-energy is ... most of the time.  The Big Bang and gravitational waves violate the conservation of mass-energy.  But if we forget about those two things, one can stick to mass-energy conservation in all other circumstances.  Also equal/opposite only applies to equilibrium ... clearly equilibrium is not only rare, but at best meta-stable ... try balancing a feather on your finger in a vertical way.  That wouldn't be logic in either case, that is a consistent model ... consistency is logical, but the model itself comes from outside logic, because it has to be contingent.  Logic only deals with the tautological and the self contradictory.

Equal opposite reaction in a unified state which results in pairity. For an outward pull (to make space-time) there must be an inward pull, for every left hand spin there must be a right. For all of matter there is antimatter.

Symmetry breaking is not random but contengently specific.