Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Liar Boy,

Floo doesn't need defending.

1. You continue to misunderstand the nature of science.

2. "Science" (ie, theoretical physics) already has competing hypotheses about this (quantum borrowing for example) that do not require explanations for the "nothing".

3. You have no means to establish that "eternity", "infinity" etc are real phenomena rather than just useful theoretical devices.

4. You're attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity fallacy - "I can't see how science could explain X, therefore (insert name of god of choice here) did it". A "don't know" tells you nothing at all about the case for whatever superstition you happen to favour to fill the explanatory gap.

5. The problem isn't whether or not science could ever explain everything, but rather that even if it could there'd be no way to be sure that it had explained everything - a philosophical rather than a scientific problem.       

1: You misunderstand science

2: A scientists ''nothing'' is in fact a something.

3: Science would have to find evidence in and from nothing, zilch, Nada. And for a scientist nothing is actually something.

4: We can see full well what science would have to achieve and how it would have to alter methodologically to find evidence of nothing or stand outside of an infinity and if the ''we'' includes ''you'' I don't think you'd like it one little bit.

5: In this instance there is no scope for  ''don't know'' because of point 4.

6: Have a nice day.

[floo]

1: You misunderstand science

2: A scientists ''nothing'' is in fact a something.

3: Science would have to find evidence in and from nothing, zilch, Nada. And for a scientist nothing is actually something.

4: We can see full well what science would have to achieve and how it would have to alter methodologically to find evidence of nothing or stand outside of an infinity and if the ''we'' includes ''you'' I don't think you'd like it one little bit.

5: In this instance there is no scope for  ''don't know'' because of point 4.

6: Have a nice day.

One day you might just have to take all that all back if human ingenuity manages to do what you reckon is impossible, assuming it happens during your lifetime.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One day you might just have to take all that all back if human ingenuity manages to do what you reckon is impossible, assuming it happens during your lifetime.

So you have faith and that one day people are going to be able to get evidence from nothing and/or people are going  to be able to view the infinite universe from outside time and space.

I thought these were attributes you guys were absolutely dead against.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Liar Boy,

So you have faith and that one day people are going to be able to get evidence from nothing and/or people are going  to be able to view the infinite universe from outside time and space.

I thought these were attributes you guys were absolutely dead against.

She said "might", not "will". Why have you just misrepresented Floo like this?

[floo]

So you have faith and that one day people are going to be able to get evidence from nothing and/or people are going  to be able to view the infinite universe from outside time and space.

I thought these were attributes you guys were absolutely dead against.

I said it might happen, I didn't say it definitely would.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I said it might happen, I didn't say it definitely would.

I don't suppose we'd get away with a "Vlad's lies" section on this mb and it would pretty soon become overfull in any case, but he really seems not to able to help himself doesn't he.

Incidentally - I can guarantee that he wont have the basic decency to apologise to you and retract his lie. Hey, maybe I'm a prophet after all! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said it might happen, I didn't say it definitely would.

Well unless science changes it's methodology.....it and humans can't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Well unless science changes it's methodology.....it and humans can't.

And apology and retraction comes there none.

Told you so 

[floo]

Floo,

And apology and retraction comes there none.

Told you so 

I didn't expect one!

[ippy]

You keep saying that but you can't know it for a fact. As human knowledge increases we could make discoveries, which aren't possible at this moment in time.

These things will be forever be closed to superstitious unsupported beliefs I'm afraid unless superstitional beliefs change their fundamental lack of methodology.

[floo]

These things will be forever be closed to superstitious unsupported beliefs I'm afraid unless superstitional beliefs change their fundamental lack of methodology.

Nice one!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice one!

He is merely restating the science vs religion thing and the equation with science and antitheism.

Theists can and do enjoy science to the full without giving it divine powers such as omniscience or omnipotence.

[BeRational]

He is merely restating the science vs religion thing and the equation with science and antitheism.

Theists can and do enjoy science to the full without giving it divine powers such as omniscience or omnipotence.

Not sure what you mean by enjoy, but clearly some theists pick and choose which scientific findings they like, and they select these on the basis of some unjustified faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what you mean by enjoy, but clearly some theists pick and choose which scientific findings they like, and they select these on the basis of some unjustified faith.

Evidence?

[BeRational]

Evidence?

Some theists think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

We know that it is much older, so those theists cannot be enjoying science, can it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some theists think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

We know that it is much older, so those theists cannot be enjoying science, can it?

Some not all.

Some atheist scientists think that the multiverse as proposed by other atheist scientist is pseudoscience. Which atheists are enjoying the science?

[BeRational]

Some not all.

Some atheist scientists think that the multiverse as proposed by other atheist scientist is pseudoscience. Which atheists are enjoying the science?

I never said all, I gave an example for my statement.

Do you agree that people that believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, cannot be fully accepting science?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said all, I gave an example for my statement.

Do you agree that people that believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, cannot be fully accepting science?

Of course.

[ippy]

Evidence?

You haven't got any Vlad.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Quite a strange argument, really. 

1.  The universe is a closed system.
2.  Nothing is controlling it from the inside.
3.  But I think something is controlling it, because I can control stuff, like my thoughts.
4.  Therefore, something is controlling the universe. 
5.  This is God.

I do not claim that human will controls the universe, just that we can exert conscious control within an otherwise physically deterministic universe.

So what is the alternative ?
The universe is a closed system - no contol, just reaction..... end of story.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not claim that human will controls the universe,

He didn't say that you did that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Crashes and...

…just that we can exert conscious control within an otherwise physically deterministic universe.

Depends what you mean by “conscious control” but if you still mean your incoherent version of “not deterministic and not random” you’re a hundred and some years behind the evidence. I doubt you’ll bother, but to understand where you go wrong you might want to try on iplayer the very good recent BBC4 series "The Brain with David Eagelman".

Here’s a link to episode 1: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06y8hyr/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-1-what-is-reality

And here’s the blurb for it:

"Series in which Dr David Eagleman takes viewers on an extraordinary journey that explores how the brain, locked in silence and darkness without direct access to the world, conjures up the rich and beautiful world we all take for granted.

This episode begins with the astonishing fact that this technicolour multi-sensory experience we are having is a convincing illusion conjured up for us by our brains.

In the outside world there is no colour, no sound, no smell. These are all constructions of the brain. Instead, there is electromagnetic radiation, air compression waves and aromatic molecules, all of which are interpreted by the brain as colour, sound and smell.

We meet a man who is blind despite the fact that he has eyes that can see. His story reveals that it's the brain that sees, not the eyes. A woman with schizophrenia, whose psychotic episodes were her reality, emphasises the fact that whatever our brains tell us is out there, we believe it.

Visual illusions are reminders that what's important to the brain is not being faithful to 'reality', but enabling us to perceive just enough so that we can navigate successfully through it. The brain leaves a lot out of its beautiful rendition of the physical world, a fact that Dr Eagleman reveals using experiments and street demonstrations.

Each one of our brains is different, and so is the reality it produces. What is reality? It's whatever your brain tells you it is."

All five episodes are available – it’s well worth watching.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Crashes and...

Depends what you mean by “conscious control” but if you still mean your incoherent version of “not deterministic and not random” you’re a hundred and some years behind the evidence. I doubt you’ll bother, but to understand where you go wrong you might want to try on iplayer the very good recent BBC4 series "The Brain with David Eagelman".

Here’s a link to episode 1: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06y8hyr/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-1-what-is-reality

And here’s the blurb for it:

"Series in which Dr David Eagleman takes viewers on an extraordinary journey that explores how the brain, locked in silence and darkness without direct access to the world, conjures up the rich and beautiful world we all take for granted.

This episode begins with the astonishing fact that this technicolour multi-sensory experience we are having is a convincing illusion conjured up for us by our brains.

In the outside world there is no colour, no sound, no smell. These are all constructions of the brain. Instead, there is electromagnetic radiation, air compression waves and aromatic molecules, all of which are interpreted by the brain as colour, sound and smell.

We meet a man who is blind despite the fact that he has eyes that can see. His story reveals that it's the brain that sees, not the eyes. A woman with schizophrenia, whose psychotic episodes were her reality, emphasises the fact that whatever our brains tell us is out there, we believe it.

Visual illusions are reminders that what's important to the brain is not being faithful to 'reality', but enabling us to perceive just enough so that we can navigate successfully through it. The brain leaves a lot out of its beautiful rendition of the physical world, a fact that Dr Eagleman reveals using experiments and street demonstrations.

Each one of our brains is different, and so is the reality it produces. What is reality? It's whatever your brain tells you it is."

All five episodes are available – it’s well worth watching.

It will be interesting to watch for areas which act as confirmation bias for the ''psychological incompetence'' theory of those so inclined.

[BeRational]

Blue

The David Eagleman Brian series was very interesting, and brings home that the universe we see is created in our brain.
We do not see what is there, we see what we think we see.
We cannot see motion in detail, the brain edits what we see to build a smooth picture.
Also the part where he explained that sight is complex and requires processing time, we actually live in the past.

[torridon]

I do not claim that human will controls the universe, just that we can exert conscious control within an otherwise physically deterministic universe...

That 'conscious control' lies within the broader context of a (largely) deterministic universe.  Will is part of the phenomena of it, not something separate to it.  If you form a desire, or an intention to act, that is a consequence of the machinations of the universe playing out through human cognition and emotion. If you ever formed an intention or desire that had absolutely no connection whatsoever to events of the past, then that would be a random phenomenon, by definition. Everything that happens, does so either because it is a consequence of previous events, or it is not a consequence of previous events, in which case it is random.