God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Stranger]

Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.

I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.

I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.

Looks to me (as somebody who's studied quantum mechanics) like you're just talking bollocks and throwing some science words in pretty randomly. But do feel free to provide the step by step you offered.

[Maeght]

I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.

NS did say you hadn't used science rather than mentioned it.

[Dicky Underpants]

However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.

Why did you not mention that?

Of course Knowledge without empirical detection doesn't sit well with empiricists.

Marcionite, are you? I invite you to read the end of Luke's gospel, re the episode on the road to Emmaus.
My point is not that any of this is true, but from your point of view, you can't just cite one isolated text, ignoring all that has gone before which indicates a different interpretation. And then go on to somehow attempt correlate that particular version of theology with your take on quantum physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looks to me (as somebody who's studied quantum mechanics) like you're just talking bollocks and throwing some science words in pretty randomly. But do feel free to provide the step by step you offered.

You should know then in quantum physics as in other physics the observer affects quantum events. I thought that was common knowledge.

Since necessary entities are not contingent they are not subject to any observer effects.

I found this on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mentioned some scientific concepts randomly. It makes you look like an idiot that wants to make their religion look stupid.

If I did it is amazing that I mentioned concepts related to the observer effect in quantum physics.

If something is dependent on something else then it’s not a good candidate for necessary entity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

[Nearly Sane]

If I did it is amazing that I mentioned concepts related to the observer effect in quantum physics.

If something is dependent on something else then it’s not a good candidate for necessary entity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

All the attributes of the necessary entity, you've just made up. This is retro fitting and is neither science nor logic. Please stop embarrassing yourself, your religion.
 

[Stranger]

You should know then in quantum physics as in other physics the observer affects quantum events. I thought that was common knowledge.

Since necessary entities are not contingent they are not subject to any observer effects.

I found this on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

Links that end in brackets don't work on this forum unless you use the [url]...[/url] tags.

The very first line of your linked page says: "Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon." [my emphasis] Interpretations are not the theory and this is something different from the uncertainty principle and whatever you think "schrodinger effects" are. So you were just posting bullshit.

And you still haven't provided a logically consistent explanation of how anything can be a 'necessary entity', you just keep on making up different characteristics it must or can't have as you go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Links that end in brackets don't work on this forum unless you use the [url]...[/url] tags.

The very first line of your linked page says: "Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon." [my emphasis] Interpretations are not the theory and this is something different from the uncertainty principle and whatever you think "schrodinger effects" are. So you were just posting bullshit.

And you still haven't provided a logically consistent explanation of how anything can be a 'necessary entity', you just keep on making up different characteristics it must or can't have as you go.

I perfectly understand about ideas in quantum science being just punts as to what is really going on and I am just having a punt to suggest that all contingent things we know and will know of are observable and therefore could be changed by their observation. Something that wouldn't affect a non contingent entity.
Although most of what you offer is imo eclipsed by angry bluster and goal post shifting what comes through from you is everything has an external reason.

We can be certain of two things though, existence and non existence. We know that non existence has no effect on anything so if something exists it exists for itself. And there we have an explanation for why there is something that exists and can only fail to exist because of itself. I have conceded that existence is brute but yours and mine won't be in a few years time because we won't exist.
So then we end up with a final entity which nothing external can prevent.

If you want an infinite argument about what constitutes brute by all means continue to fuck about around with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All the attributes of the necessary entity, you've just made up. This is retro fitting and is neither science nor logic. Please stop embarrassing yourself, your religion.

Why should that bother you?

Contingency and necessity has been part of the intellectual stock of the church for centuries. There are scientists who believe that quantum events are affected by observation, indeed
Atheist pin up boy Lawrence Krauss wrote a paper on observation of the universe collapsing the wave function of the universe.

I freely admit that the notion of contingent things being observable and therefore changed by that observation might be bollocks but wanting it to be original bollocks exclusive to me is just fantasy on your part.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The phenomenon of nature, the universe, is, it can be contended, itself supernatural

Since it has been variously proposed that

1: The universe just is.
2. The universe was created.
3. The universe is infinite.
4. The universe popped out of nothing.

[Stranger]

...I am just having a punt to suggest that all contingent things we know and will know of are observable and therefore could be changed by their observation. Something that wouldn't affect a non contingent entity.

How do you know? As I keep pointing out, and you keep on ignoring, you have no sensible, consistent model of a 'necessary entity', so everything you claim about it appears to be you just making shit up.

Although most of what you offer is imo eclipsed by angry bluster and goal post shifting what comes through from you is everything has an external reason.

I called out your sciency word salad. Perhaps you shouldn't post terms you clearly don't understand? No idea where you got the idea that I'm angry. More amused TBH.

We can be certain of two things though, existence and non existence. We know that non existence has no effect on anything so if something exists it exists for itself. And there we have an explanation for why there is something that exists and can only fail to exist because of itself. I have conceded that existence is brute but yours and mine won't be in a few years time because we won't exist.
So then we end up with a final entity which nothing external can prevent.

If you want an infinite argument about what constitutes brute by all means continue to fuck about around with that.

No idea what this means. Have you finally given up on a necessary entity?

[Stranger]

The phenomenon of nature, the universe, is, it can be contended, itself supernatural

Since it has been variously proposed that

1: The universe just is.
2. The universe was created.
3. The universe is infinite.
4. The universe popped out of nothing.

   What!? How does any of that (ignoring the ambiguity of 4 for the moment) make something 'supernatural'?

[jeremyp]

No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man

So what basis do you have for calling him God? If you observed a man, call him what he was: a man.

[jeremyp]

However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.

So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know? As I keep pointing out, and you keep on ignoring, you have no sensible, consistent model of a 'necessary entity', so everything you claim about it appears to be you just making shit up.

I called out your sciency word salad. Perhaps you shouldn't post terms you clearly don't understand? No idea where you got the idea that I'm angry. More amused TBH.

No idea what this means.

I've always thought with you that the penny has to drop

Have you finally given up on a necessary entity?

Only if there's a better word for non contingent.
It's necessary for contingency and there's no external reason for it not to be whereas contingent things have externa reasons for not being.

Can the necessary entity cease to be? It would have to will it's own non existence for it's own internal reasons

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?

We exclude all empirical sightings of Jesus because Many blind people did not see him and someone could therefore have put on a Jesus voice.

On the other hand there is evidence and current belief that there was man called Jesus.

Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability. These were not Christians(how could they be) but some became Christians subsequently

[jeremyp]

We exclude all empirical sightings of Jesus because Many blind people did not see him and someone could therefore have put on a Jesus voice.

You said no-one could see God, not jut blind people.

On the other hand there is evidence and current belief that there was man called Jesus.

Actually, there were many people called Jesus (or rather, the Aramaic name that becomes "Jesus" in Latin - it was quite common). That said, I agree that there was a man who founded the religion of Christianity and the stories we have in the New Testament are about him rather than some fictional character (even though the stories themselves include major elements of fiction).

Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability.

What is that ability? How can we be sure it exists and that the people who detected God were not lying or mistaken?

If God cannot be detected empirically, you can't say it exists because you can't be sure the people who detected it are not lying or mistaken.

[Stranger]

I've always thought with you that the penny has to drop

You could try using English and logic while avoiding using terns you don't understand>>>

Only if there's a better word for non contingent.

Err... 'non-contingent', 'brute fact'. Or we could just admit we don't know.

It's necessary for contingency and there's no external reason for it not to be whereas contingent things have externa reasons for not being.

Can the necessary entity cease to be? It would have to will it's own non existence for it's own internal reasons

The problem is that you keep on just making up arbitrary shit about it, like this. You still haven't provided a sensible and coherent model of a 'necessary entity', so you have no basis on which to say that it has a will or that it couldn't otherwise cease to be. You also seem to have forgotten again that (space-)time is a part of the physical universe, so 'ceasing to be' would be something that could only happen within the physical universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said no-one could see God, not jut blind people.
Actually, there were many people called Jesus (or rather, the Aramaic name that becomes "Jesus" in Latin - it was quite common). That said, I agree that there was a man who founded the religion of Christianity and the stories we have in the New Testament are about him rather than some fictional character (even though the stories themselves include major elements of fiction).

What is that ability? How can we be sure it exists and that the people who detected God were not lying or mistaken?

If God cannot be detected empirically, you can't say it exists because you can't be sure the people who detected it are not lying or mistaken.

Spoken like a true empiricist.
A non empiricist though is not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist.
I will be undeservedly charitable to you, Anyone who says they have detected God non empirically could be lying, or mistaken or correct.
Conversely those who say they haven’t detected God might be lying or mistaken or incapable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could try using English and logic while avoiding using terns you don't understand>>>

Err... 'non-contingent', 'brute fact'. Or we could just admit we don't know.

The problem is that you keep on just making up arbitrary shit about it, like this. You still haven't provided a sensible and coherent model of a 'necessary entity', so you have no basis on which to say that it has a will or that it couldn't otherwise cease to be. You also seem to have forgotten again that (space-)time is a part of the physical universe, so 'ceasing to be' would be something that could only happen within the physical universe.

If the physical universe is in parts it is a composite and cannot be the ultimate reason for being.

[Stranger]

If the physical universe is in parts it is a composite and cannot be the ultimate reason for being.

Logic-free assertion. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: you need a proper logical description of a 'necessary entity', otherwise everything you say about it can be dismissed as meaningless shit you've just made up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Logic-free assertion. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: you need a proper logical description of a 'necessary entity', otherwise everything you say about it can be dismissed as meaningless shit you've just made up.

A composite is parts which are together so there has to be a reason why they are together and why they have to be together. There is also the question of why parts and not a single entity.

[Stranger]

A composite is parts which are together so there has to be a reason why they are together and why they have to be together. There is also the question of why parts and not a single entity.

More baseless wittering. The parts could 'just be'. Without a proper logical model of necessity, nothing you say about it can be justified.

[jeremyp]

Spoken like a true empiricist.
A non empiricist though is not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist.

I'm not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist. I'm bound to the idea that, unless things can be detected we can't know that they exist.

I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist, I'm claiming that your assertion that God does existed is unfounded and nobody has to believe you.

[Sriram]

I'm not bound to the idea that only things which can be empirically detected exist. I'm bound to the idea that, unless things can be detected we can't know that they exist.

I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist, I'm claiming that your assertion that God does existed is unfounded and nobody has to believe you.

Fair enough! But how to detect phenomena that is not directly detectable by our senses or our instruments?

Subjective experiences are one way. That is where spiritual experiences come in.