How many GODS do you have?

[Absolute_Agent]

There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:

1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets.  Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.

Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile.  It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.

2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.

Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating.  It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.

Who wants to try these experiments?  Any volunteers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Sal1981]

This is what order arising out of chaos would look like:

1) Put a thousand monkeys in a room with an infinite supply of paint buckets.  Have them throw the buckets of paint at the walls, making sure to feed them and replace them with fresh monkeys when dead or exhausted.

Materialist argument: Eventually after some time, a painting of the Mona Lisa will definitely emerge, complete with enigmatic smile.  It could be thousands or millions of years, or trillions... But eventually it will happen.

2) Drop atomic bombs on an unlimited number of junk yards across the known universe.

Materialist argument: Eventually, a Rolls Royce will emerge, complete with keys and power seating.  It may be billions or even quadrillions of light years--but eventually, it will happen; guaranteed.

Who wants to try these experiments?  Any volunteers?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

What a hopelessly broken analogy.

[Baruch]

There is local order arising in chaos, happens all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

An example of ice making.  To achieve ice, you have to lower the temperature of the liquid water.  This can happen with net energy transfer in the overall system (electricity to cooler).  When insulated, no external power transfers, the temperature rises/lowers to average.  If the average was lower (ice already in drink), it is possible for more drink to freeze, if the overall average is less than the freezing point.

But the appearance of local order arising, only happens with sloppy accounting.  Only by borrowing entropy.  Either you get entropy from the larger environment, or you simply ignored the irregular distribution of entropy in your insulted thermos.  There is no free lunch, or free order.

Suppose you had a sealed container of water on the dark side of the Moon.  Won't it freeze?  Yes it will.  But that is because of radiative energy transfer from the water to outer space.  There isn't anyway to prevent the average temperature in the water container going to 3.5K aka very cold.

[josephpalazzo]

In reality we never died and we will never die.
Energy and consciousness that are the two sides of the same sheet are immortal.

As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Baruch]

Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...

ܦܪܐܙܼܐܦܐܐܡܝܬܐ
ܗܪܝܕܐܝܼܐ
ܣܘܼܬܪܐܢ
ܐܪܝܼܐ
ܐܘܐܠܘܿܟܝܬܥܫܘܐܪܘܿ
Ü'ܘܿܕܿܝܣܐܬܘܘܿ
Ü"ܐܡÜ'ܿܝܪܐܢ
ܦܪܐܙܼܐܦܐܪܐܡܝܬܐ
ܚܐܪܝܼܐܢ
ܚܐܪܐܡܐܢܘܿ܀

Of course it helps to put it into a strange language and a strange writing system ... more mysterious that way.  And yes, the Devil made me do it.

[Mike Cl]

Absolute_Agent ... as a demi-god I can compose or modify sacred scripture; per Jesus, man wasn't made for scripture, scripture was made for man ...

You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'

[Baruch]

You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'

Some people's scribbles are more equal than others.  I don't think Absolute_Agent will reply, if I admit Iblis is my wingman.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Impressive.  Much of that was over my head.  Do you run across this material in your job or is it a hobby?  I like your approach.

A little of both.

1) I don't know the answer.

Good.

2) I have a theory based on personal experiential evidence that cannot meet a scientific standard, in conjunction with additional scientific evidence which is not widely published, that I am unable to disclose.

The only reason why you would not be able to disclose "scientific evidence" is precisely because it isn't published anywhere. While technically that counts as "not widely published," your wording is deceptive. Furthermore, there may be a reason for that. Anyway, once published in a journal, there is literally no advantage to keeping such evidence under wraps.

As to your personal experimental evidence, I very much doubt that you have done experiments that have any significant power. If the effects of the immaterial are as subtle as you claim, the equipment costs alone would bankrupt your typical Joe Everybody.

3) I have beliefs that logically explain all the ultimate answers, although they cannot be proven, yet which have been consistently and abundantly confirmed in personal subjective experience.

Correction: You think that your beliefs logically explain all the ultimate answers. However, from what I have seen of your logical ability, with repeated appeals to known fallacies, I don't think that your logic would hold up under scrutiny. For instance, there is a very real possibility that what you are seeing your personal subjective experience is the result of cherry picking and confirmation bias.

4) I do not see the information you shared invalidating my theory that immaterial consciousness generates reality, or my belief that Allah created everything.  This does not mean I believe that Allah is consciousness itself, since Allah cannot be conceived.

Since you have been very cagey about how the immaterial supposedly generates reality, I'm not surprised. Fighting vapors is always difficult. You don't have anything specific enough to attack. If you're content to let your contention remain forever vague, then good for you. However, nobody will take your word for it or even credit you with the idea should they actually find the immaterial. The "theory" you have presented thus far doesn't really take any actual work. If I decided I believe you, develop and test a hypothesis of the immaterial, and publish my findings, and eventually it takes its place among the great ideas of science, I'm going to be the one having the Nobel prize coming to me. There'll be nothing for you.

5) It is possible that the manner in which Allah created, and Allah Himself, are completely different from what humans including myself have thus far conceived.

So? Humans are quite clever little monkeys. Cheeky, too.

6) My beliefs are not just made up.  They are based on evidence, the scriptures.  I consider them convincing evidence, even though you do not.

The scriptures are not evidence. The scriptures are the claims. There is nothing in them that could not have been written by the humans who wrote them. They also don't really distinguish themselves as different from every other mythology out there.

7) I find your statement that time exists in matter and not matter in time, intriguing and plausible.  I hypothesize that time itself is an illusion.  All moments past, present and future, exist simultaneously, in reality.

I said that time is part of the universe, not part of matter per se. That's a different statement. As to time being an illusion, it's complicated. Time itself is definitely real in that not everything happens all at once. It's a very real dimension on par with the other dimensions of space, and freely mixes with them. Time passing is in part an illusion, because eternalism (past, present, and future exist all at once) is the only way relativity makes sense. However, in most situations it can be treated exactly as it appears to us, where it passes inevitably into the past. We need to be cautious as we deal with the edges of that domain, like at the beginning of the universe.

[josephpalazzo]

You almost got that right.  '.....scripture was made "by" man........'

Blasphemy!

[Arik]

As I wrote before: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ok. then.

That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.

Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.

[josephpalazzo]

Ok. then.

That means that the 10 points related to atheists claims must be dismissed because they are void of any evidence.

Thank Joe, that was what I was waiting for.

You've got it wrong. If you claim something exists, the burden is on you to prove that existence. Example: there is a ghost in the basement of my house. Making that claim would require that I provide proof. But stating that there is no ghost does NOT require a proof. Example: my neighbor killed someone - proof is required; my neighbor didn't kill anyone - no proof required. There is no afterlife - no proof required; there is an afterlife - proof required. There is a God - proof required; there is no god - no proof required. There are fire-breathing dragons - proof required; there are no fire-breathing dragons - no proof required.

IF YOU CLAIM THAT "ANY THING EXISTS" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THIS THING DOES EXIST.

GET IT.

[Unbeliever]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJRy3Kl_z5E

[Baruch]

What is actual science history, not Sagan sound bite?  "Billions and billions" is what humanity has spent of time,
effort and treasure, to get a better model (which has indirect economic consequences).  Next entry shows that.

Sagan is philosopher and poet, not as scientist ... as proponent of "scientism" not science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECuarAmpK00

I make no hypotheses - Newton, regarding what gravity is.  Galileo, earlier dismissed "force at a distance"
regarding tides, as being occult nonsense.  Force can only happen on contact.  Descartes agrees with him.

1. Things fall down - common observation, clarified by Galileo (disproving Aristotle)
2. i can model that with an equation - provided by Galileo (first quantitative mechanics)
3. Surprisingly, I can use that same equation to describe the motion of the Moon
4. Therefore, the Moon is falling down to Earth, same as an apple off a tree
5. Generalize to "universal gravitation" ... everything attracts everything else, gravitationally
6. "fundamental mechanical laws" of motion, derived by generalizing Galileo (see #2)
7. Further analysis (calculus which Newton co-invented) shows that the overall pattern of planetary motion
that was hypothesized by Kepler, based on the careful measurements of Tycho ... can be derived  from
"universal gravitation" plus "fundamental mechanical laws".
8. Therefore law of falling of apple, of Moon ... is model for whole Solar system.

Everything since, regarding gravitation, makes no hypothesis as to what gravity is, just how to model it.
Einstein's first improvement on Newton, came about because Newtonian mechanics is not correct at
high speed (special theory of relativity).  Einstein's second improvement on Newton, came about
because Newtonian gravity is inconsistent special theory of relativity.  It can be restored to consistency
thru a new model (general theory of relativity).

9. Turns out that small deviations from Newtonian gravity can be modeled with general theory of relativity
10. Bonus ... new equation also models whole universe, not just Solar system

General Relativity ... has its own problems.  Dark Matter and Dark Energy hypotheses brought in in attempt
to correct.  Results inconclusive.

Meanwhile, microscopic matter is assumed to gravitate.  Too small to measure.  Higgs boson hypothesis
created in QFT, to attempt to model masses microscopic matter.  Results inconclusive.

So we will don't know what gravity or mass is.  But we can more or less model it mathematically at all scales.
Only took 400 years ;-)  It took over 13 billion (LHC) to find that Higgs boson.

I match your Sagan and raise you an Al-Khalili.  Sagan is good, if a bit bombastic and Al-Khalili is more recent.
The story is incomplete, and always will be.  And in call cases, science doesn't tell us what gravity or mass is
just provides us with a mostly useful mathematical model of it (as per Pythagoras).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_p2ELD7npw

Including up to date on gravity waves ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGucb958rI

We can measure space and time very accurately.  But I make no hypothesis as to what space or time is.

Black holes aren't new, dark stars were predicted by Laplace based on Newton in 1799 ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2009JAHH...12...90M

Of course Einstein's version is more accurate, because it takes account of general relativity.

[Baruch]

I worked with a geophysics exploration company, for a year.  Our clients were concerned with geology in Mongolia and off shore New Guinea.  They would develop detailed gravitational and magnetic maps at the Earth's surface.  Which tells us indirectly, what kind of rocks exist underground.  A useful petroleum exploration tool for general surveys.  Detailed surveys are done by seismic survey.  The classic example are salt domes on the Texas Gulf coast.  Salt domes are less dense than regular rocks.  So a salt dome underground makes a local low gravity feature.  Oil and gas are found at the margins of the salt dome (the dome is shaped like a mushroom, the cap of the mushroom captures oil and gas, that would otherwise leak out over time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSg9dhb3fM

I also worked briefly in oil exploration ... downhole geophysics.  You have a deep hole in the ground, and you drop a set of instruments down the hole to analyze the rock layers.  That is a direct observation (someone had to speculate a lot of money to drill that hole) compared to indirect geophysics.  Of course this just demonstrates Pythagoras, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein had ever more empirical methods.  All of them assumed rationality (things have to be mathematically consistent).  It doesn't answer "what things are" or "why things are".  Only philosophy and theology do that.

[Baruch]

Scientism as human arrogance ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY

The Nazis were rational and scientific (Zyklon B came from chemistry).

Math and science cannot save mankind from itself.  Voltaire and Rousseau are optimists.

We are today being turned into numbers ... not by tattoos as prisoners ...
but on the comprehensive electronic tracking and evaluation of human beings.
As micromanaged prisoners without walls.  Shenzhen China.

Science doesn't prove or disprove theism.  The assumption that it does, is scientism, a form of secularism, which is a philosophy.  Of course neither secularism nor religion will prevent humans from murdering each other.  That is modeled by psychology and sociology.  But I make no hypothesis as to why people are the way they are.  "Why" is a subjective question, not an objective one.  Science can only handle the objective (and quantitative).