If I have the Respect of every Creature, I have the respect of Evolution?

[Neogaia777]

Amazing - let's not take Einstein at his word, but presume that he was mistaken about his own stated beliefs...

If we are to accept such revisionism, why stop there?

On the same grounds, we can also claim that Jesus probably didn't know that he actually didn't truly believe in the "True Father God"...

Einstein's beliefs were based purely on what he observed in science and the scientific world and on scientific evidence alone, and stemmed also from believing in a deterministic universe, etc...

And Jesus had this revelation already, by the time he comes on the scene publically, it's in his words, like in the gospel of John when both spoke about and institued the trinity, etc... The Father God He spoke about was this Father God we are speaking about, Spinoza's God, etc, and He knew God in and of the OT was the Holy Spirit, etc, it's in his words/word, etc...

Jesus knew both the Spirit of God, or God the Spirit, and the Father God, it's in his word/words, if your looking for it, etc, how he distinguishes between the two, etc, knew the "Father God" was on a very much more "higher level" or plane, etc, had a 100% accurate idea of this in his mind, etc, even heard from Him or that one directly, etc, or claimed to, etc... and He knew of his own also be born of God the Spirit also, of his own immaculate conception by that (Holy) Spirit, etc, and the prophecies over him and concerning Him, that he himself was God also, but God the man or in the form of man, etc, this created a fundamental trinitarian doctrine and/or belief system, etc, because he knew of both God the Spirit here with us, and the Father God above or beyond or higher than that one, and he himself, etc, and the Father God being much higher than all or both of them, etc...

Anyway,

Anyway, it's in his word/words if your looking for it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Einstein's beliefs were based purely on what he observed in science and the scientific world and on scientific evidence alone, and stemmed also from believing in a deterministic universe, etc...

And Jesus had this revelation already, by the time he comes on the scene publically, it's in his words, like in the gospel of John when both spoke about and institued the trinity, etc... The Father God He spoke about was this Father God we are speaking about, Spinoza's God, etc, and He knew God in and of the OT was the Holy Spirit, etc, it's in his words/word, etc...

Jesus knew both the Spirit of God, or God the Spirit, and the Father God, it's in his word/words, if your looking for it, etc, how he distinguishes between the two, etc, knew the "Father God" was on a very much more "higher level" or plane, etc, had a 100% accurate idea of this in his mind, etc, even heard from Him or that one directly, etc, or claimed to, etc... and He knew of his own also be born of God the Spirit also, of his own immaculate conception by that (Holy) Spirit, etc, and the prophecies over him and concerning Him, that he himself was God also, but God the man or in the form of man, etc, this created a fundamental trinitarian doctrine and/or belief system, etc, because he knew of both God the Spirit here with us, and the Father God above or beyond or higher than that one, and he himself, etc, and the Father God being much higher than all or both of them, etc...

Anyway,

Anyway, it's in his word/words if your looking for it, etc...

God Bless!

I just want to say, or add, that Jesus was real historical person that really did exist in the day and time that history says he did, etc, and that almost everyone everywhere fully agrees in their being a "historical Jesus", nearly everyone does, or basically everyone does, etc, cause that much can basically be proven, etc...

But, he was also a man who performed very many supernatural acts and works, etc, miracles, etc, and these are also not a lie and is "no lie", etc... But, he did not do them, or he was not able to do them, by some kind of "undiscovered or hidden or untapped ability that was just in man only apart from God", etc, but it was by, and they were all actually only done by, the Spirit (form) of God, that was within him or was with him, etc, only by only the "Holy Spirit of God, that was also God in and of the OT, etc, that was within him (Jesus) or was with him (Jesus), etc, was Jesus, able to do any of these things at all, ever, etc...

He (Jesus) did not do them by anything he himself had in himself only or by any kind of thing he possessed more than others, etc, some kind of extra special "knowledge" or knowing, etc, anyway, they were done not by anything he had in and of himself only, or anything he had in and of himself any more so than others, etc, that he had and did, and did do, or was able to do any of those things, etc, but only by the Holy Spirit of God "proving that God and that God's existence", etc (and power and/or abilities, etc)...

So, if you believe in the historical Jesus, and you believe He really did perform the miraculous and/or perform miracles, then that pretty much proves that God in the form of the Spirit and God in the form of Man were both very, very real entities or very real beings, etc, because of the works and because of the miracles, etc, and that's how Jesus was able to do and/or perform the miracles, etc, was only by.the Spirit of God or God the Spirit only, etc... not by his own ability, but by the ability of the Holy Spirit, etc, or the God who was God in the form of the Spirit, that was also God in and of the OT... Then there is God the Father, or "Spinoza's God", etc, but besides "that one", there are the other two, or other two "forms" of Him (God), etc, that "are the two we primarily see in the Bible, primarily", etc...

Anyway, Jesus knew all of this, and has full knowing or concept and/or idea or a fundamental theology surrounding this or these mentally in his mind, etc, claimed he heard from (and fully knew) both of them, etc...

And, like he said, if you do not believe him or his words, then believe in the Spirit of God based on account of the miracles themselves only alone, if you do not believe, or cannot believe, and/or follow what he is saying or is trying to say and/or in his words or in his teachings, etc, if you can't or won't do that, then believe (or have some kind of faith) on account of the miracles themselves, etc... (and the historical Jesus that did them, etc)...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

OK, Wikipedia on Spinoza's God, He says things like (from the first paragraph)

"In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was Natura naturansnot Natura naturata, that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

And that's just the "first paragraph", etc, and it does in fact seem to exactly like the true Father God that I am trying to describe, etc...

Spinoza describes "it" as being one with the universe and nature, maybe even being that universe itself, but also has "infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world (or this world or just nature alone and/or just this universe alone and what we know, etc). and a dynamic nature (thing or "being" possibly) (but that is one with everything else) in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing." (possibly intimately "involved", etc).

And again, and in case you missed it, he says, as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".[1] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world, etc, etc, etc...

He also says, "Spinoza argues that there is only one Substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. Substance causes an infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract concept or essence) and modes (things following from attributes and modes). He calls this Substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"), but readers often disregard his neutral monism. During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God - for which he was accused of atheism. Spinoza asserted that the whole of the natural universe is made of one Substance – God or Nature (which he viewed as synonymous)– and its modifications (modes).

And there is more...

But, just notice the terms he uses to describe it/Him/it, "absolutely infinite, self-caused" (self-created), and "eternal", etc, an "everything else I quoted/bolded", etc...

And you don't think a "God" like that would be "intelligent", etc...? Spinoza describes Him/it as being "infinite" in almost everything else, why not "intelligence" then...? And he describes his God as being "thoroughly deterministic", etc, which would most certainly mean, and I think actually does have to mean "100% very, very much extremely intelligent" as well, etc...

But, to make it short, I have absolutely no problems with viewing Spinoza's God and being synonymous with what I would call "the true Father God", etc, but as I also said, I believe God to be a "trinity", etc...

I'm called and often labeled a "heretic" because I believe in this, and because I think God in and of the OT was the "Holy Spirit", etc, or the second form of God, etc, God the Spirit, or in Spirit form, then Jesus Christ, the man, being the third form of God, or the God-man, or the man that is (also) God, and the God that is also man, or God in man's form, or in the form of a man, etc...

Source: Spinozism - Wikipedia

God Bless!

So in an effort to show that Einstein held such views, you talk about the views of another person?

Do you likewise use the views of Darwin regarding evolution to talk about what scientists of today must believe about evolution?

You specifically claimed that Einstein viewed God as an intelligence. You have not provided ANY evidence to back up this claim.

 

[Kylie]

That's not what I said, and now who's being "dishonest", etc...?

I said "there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe", and, in a "deterministic universe" or in a or any "deterministic view of the universe", that is 100% "fact", not fiction, etc, or a lie or false, ever, etc, and is in no way shape or form an "argument from incredulity" in any way whatsoever, etc...

IOW's, You are just 100% flat out "lying" now, etc...

I quote your exact words, and you accuse me of lying?

You made a claim. You provided no support for that claim. You just said, "It just has to be this way." That's pretty much what argument from incredulity is, claiming that something just HAS to be the case because you can't conceive of it being any other way.

Oh, you want me to 100% without a doubt for 100% sure "prove it", well...

I can only tell you that "that" is what an increasing number of people in those fields (experts) are coming to conclude and/or believe, just based on what they know and they see and observe, most especially now, etc...

So? Argument from popularity is worthless. Everyone in the world can believe something, but that won't make it true.

Tried to do that, not going to try again, sorry...

Spinoza and Einstein seemed to think so though...?

God Bless!

Einstein also refused to accept that the universe could be inherently random. "God does not play dice with the universe." He was wrong about that.

Showing that a person thought a particular thing is worthless when it comes to showing what is true and what is not true. It is EVIDENCE that counts, and without it, all you have is opinion and assertion. And they don't make something true.

 

[Neogaia777]

So in an effort to show that Einstein held such views, you talk about the views of another person?

Do you likewise use the views of Darwin regarding evolution to talk about what scientists of today must believe about evolution?

You specifically claimed that Einstein viewed God as an intelligence. You have not provided ANY evidence to back up this claim.

He said he believed in Spinoza's God, and Spinoza says that he is infinite, self-caused/created, etc, etc, etc, definitely implies great intelligence, etc, and this is what Einstein said he believed, so, deal with it, K...

And I believe in evolution and that it does not in any way contradict the Bible or creation account etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I quote your exact words, and you accuse me of lying?

You made a claim. You provided no support for that claim. You just said, "It just has to be this way." That's pretty much what argument from incredulity is, claiming that something just HAS to be the case because you can't conceive of it being any other way.

Your doing it again, LYING yet again, and yes you were LYING and are LYING even right now, your saying that I said or am saying that a thing or anything I say "has to be that way because I either don't or can't see it any other way", etc...? Your LYING cause that is not what I said in any way at all, I merely made a statement (A FACT) about believing in a deterministic universe, a FACT that in "any kind or view or belief in determinism and a deterministic universe that there has to be an original cause if you have that view or belief", etc, and that is a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc, and is most definitely not an "argument from incredulity", and in FACT, it is not an "argument at all", but is a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc... Your flat out LYING because you said that I said, that I am saying that "a thing has to be true" because "I can't or don't see it any other way", etc and that is a very great, "great distortion of the truth and the facts about what I actually said", etc...

IOW's a "BIG FAT LIE", etc...

Now stop lying or trying to put words in my mouth that I 100% did not say or am saying, OK, I merely stated a "FACT" about believing in a deterministic universe, but your twisting it around into something very, very much more very different from what I actually said that was a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc, and are ""LYING", very very much so...

So please stop "LYING" now, OK...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

So? Argument from popularity is worthless. Everyone in the world can believe something, but that won't make it true.

And everyone in the world can "not believe something" or "not believe in something", but that does make "that" true or not true either, etc...

Einstein also refused to accept that the universe could be inherently random. "God does not play dice with the universe." He was wrong about that.

No he wasn't, and I hope you can "prove" he was wrong about that, etc...?

Not the God not playing dice part, but that the universe is 100% completely random, etc...

In a deterministic view of the universe nothing is ever truly random, everything is always all caused by previous causes or states, etc, going all the way back to the original cause, that are all predictable with or by math, etc...

How is that "random", etc...?

Showing that a person thought a particular thing is worthless when it comes to showing what is true and what is not true. It is EVIDENCE that counts, and without it, all you have is opinion and assertion. And they don't make something true.

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God due to "evidence", not faith...

And many other are coming to believe the same, due to "evidence" and not faith or popular opinion...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

He said he believed in Spinoza's God, and Spinoza says that he is infinite, self-caused/created, etc, etc, etc, definitely implies great intelligence, etc, and this is what Einstein said he believed, so, deal with it, K...

And I believe in evolution and that it does not in any way contradict the Bible or creation account etc...

God Bless!

And I accept evolution, that doesn't mean I think of evolution in the same way Darwin thought of it.

You have not shown that Einstein thought of God as an intelligence simply because Spinoza did. That is an assumption you have made.

 

[Kylie]

Your doing it again, LYING yet again, and yes you were LYING and are LYING even right now, your saying that I said or am saying that a thing or anything I say "has to be that way because I either don't or can't see it any other way", etc...? Your LYING cause that is not what I said in any way at all, I merely made a statement (A FACT) about believing in a deterministic universe, a FACT that in "any kind or view or belief in determinism and a deterministic universe that there has to be an original cause if you have that view or belief", etc, and that is a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc, and is most definitely not an "argument from incredulity", and in FACT, it is not an "argument at all", but is a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc... Your flat out LYING because you said that I said, that I am saying that "a thing has to be true" because "I can't or don't see it any other way", etc and that is a very great, "great distortion of the truth and the facts about what I actually said", etc...

IOW's a "BIG FAT LIE", etc...

Now stop lying or trying to put words in my mouth that I 100% did not say or am saying, OK, I merely stated a "FACT" about believing in a deterministic universe, but your twisting it around into something very, very much more very different from what I actually said that was a STATEMENT OF FACT, etc, and are ""LYING", very very much so...

So please stop "LYING" now, OK...?

God Bless!

Okay, so you are not saying that the universe is deterministic, you are simply saying that a deterministic universe (whether or not ours is such a universe) must have a first cause. But that leads us to the first cause argument, which has been rebuked many times. Namely - if the deterministic universe requires a cause, then what caused the cause? And if things can exist without a cause, why can we not say that the universe caused itself?

All you've done is push the problem back a few steps.

And you haven't shown that this argument even applies to our universe.

 

[Kylie]

And everyone in the world can "not believe something" or "not believe in something", but that does make "that" true or not true either, etc...

Okay, so since we are agreed on this, how about we start presenting evidence instead of simply making assertions?

No he wasn't, and I hope you can "prove" he was wrong about that, etc...?

Physics and Beyond: “God does not play dice”, What did Einstein mean?

"...Einstein’s disagreement with the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance..."

Now, either you can say Einstein's idea is wrong, or you can say that quantum mechanics is wrong.

Not the God not playing dice part, but that the universe is 100% completely random, etc...

Now who's lying? I never said that the universe was 100% random, did I?

In a deterministic view of the universe nothing is ever truly random, everything is always all caused by previous causes or states, etc, going all the way back to the original cause, that are all predictable with or by math, etc...

How is that "random", etc...?

Are you disagreeing with quantum mechanics?

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God due to "evidence", not faith...

And many other are coming to believe the same, due to "evidence" and not faith or popular opinion...

a completely deterministic universe would seem (to my understanding at least) to be at odds with quantum mechanics. Do you have evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? If so, please share. Do you have evidence that my understanding is wrong? If so, please share (and make sure it's from someone who is actually trained in quantum mechanics).

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay, so you are not saying that the universe is deterministic, you are simply saying that a deterministic universe (whether or not ours is such a universe) must have a first cause. But that leads us to the first cause argument, which has been rebuked many times. Namely - if the deterministic universe requires a cause, then what caused the cause? And if things can exist without a cause, why can we not say that the universe caused itself?

All you've done is push the problem back a few steps.

And you haven't shown that this argument even applies to our universe.

We can't know what might have caused the original cause (yet), we can only know that this world/reality universe, "in a deterministic view of it", must have had a first cause, etc. Many think that that original cause, might been self-caused or self- actualized, or caused and/or created and/or determined itself, etc. but I don't think we will be able to know any of that for sure ever, till we can get or go beyond "this" here, etc. but as far as "this" goes, the evidence is pointing toward determinism which must have an original cause, etc. Spinoza says that original cause of this was "self-caused", or actualized or caused itself, etc, but I don't think there is any actual real way to know that for sure until we actually get there or can get and/or go beyond "this" here, etc, but determinism says "this" has to have a cause, etc...

And I would ask you to name one thing that came about and/or exists without a cause or something that caused it as well...?

And thank you for finally making it clear that what I said was not a lie but an actual fact, and that I was not lying or trying to be decptive or whatever, etc, and for finally "getting that", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay, so since we are agreed on this, how about we start presenting evidence instead of simply making assertions?



Physics and Beyond: “God does not play dice”, What did Einstein mean?

"...Einstein’s disagreement with the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance..."

Now, either you can say Einstein's idea is wrong, or you can say that quantum mechanics is wrong.



Now who's lying? I never said that the universe was 100% random, did I?



Are you disagreeing with quantum mechanics?



a completely deterministic universe would seem (to my understanding at least) to be at odds with quantum mechanics. Do you have evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? If so, please share. Do you have evidence that my understanding is wrong? If so, please share (and make sure it's from someone who is actually trained in quantum mechanics).

Anything that appears to be not ordered to us, or as being too complicated/complex for us right now, or random, etc, does not mean that "that" is actually the case, or is 100% so always, etc. And, due to all the other "order" we see in it (this universe, etc), "elsewhere", etc, I don't think any of it truly is, etc, or will prove out to be, etc... We are still using math to predict it and/or try and figure it out, etc, and I think when we finally do figure out a math that works for it, we will find out that it was never truly random either, just like with "everything else" we have found and found out so far or thus far, etc, that "true randomness is almost never the case", etc...

The fact that something is complicated and complex to us does not automtically mean it is all "random", etc, and I think when we finally do find or figure out a math that works for it, we will find that out as well (that it is or was never truly random either, etc) (the quantum world, etc) (and will find out that "it" was/is all determined and/or operates according to determinism as well, etc)...

Do I have the 100% solid "proof" that that is the case in the quantum world/realm right now? No, I do not, but that is what many think we will find out when we finally figure out a math that works for it, just like it has been, and/or did, and/or we did, with "everything else thus far", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay, so since we are agreed on this, how about we start presenting evidence instead of simply making assertions?



Physics and Beyond: “God does not play dice”, What did Einstein mean?

"...Einstein’s disagreement with the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance..."

Now, either you can say Einstein's idea is wrong, or you can say that quantum mechanics is wrong.



Now who's lying? I never said that the universe was 100% random, did I?



Are you disagreeing with quantum mechanics?



a completely deterministic universe would seem (to my understanding at least) to be at odds with quantum mechanics. Do you have evidence that quantum mechanics is wrong? If so, please share. Do you have evidence that my understanding is wrong? If so, please share (and make sure it's from someone who is actually trained in quantum mechanics).

Since we do not hardly understand the quantum world hardly at all right now or yet, nor have even come up with a math that even works for it yet, etc, I would say a lot of ideas and/or theories are "wrong" right now in quantum mechanics and/or physics right now, etc, and that both I and Einstein (and others) will be proved out to be very much 100% right in the end, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

We can't know what might have caused the original cause (yet), we can only know that this world/reality universe, "in a deterministic view of it", must have had a first cause, etc. Many think that that original cause, might been self-caused or self- actualized, or caused and/or created and/or determined itself, etc. but I don't think we will be able to know any of that for sure ever, till we can get or go beyond "this" here, etc. but as far as "this" goes, the evidence is pointing toward determinism which must have an original cause, etc. Spinoza says that original cause of this was "self-caused", or actualized or caused itself, etc, but I don't think there is any actual real way to know that for sure until we actually get there or can get and/or go beyond "this" here, etc, but determinism says "this" has to have a cause, etc...

So how do you know that this "self-causing" attribute doesn't just apply to the universe itself, and thus it doesn't need a God to start it off?

And I would ask you to name one thing that came about and/or exists without a cause or something that caused it as well...?

When an atom in a radioactive element decays, there is no cause. That particular atom's decay is completely unpredictable and no cause that makes that particular atom decay rather than the one next to it.

And thank you for finally making it clear that what I said was not a lie but an actual fact, and that I was not lying or trying to be decptive or whatever, etc, and for finally "getting that", etc...

Of course, the instant you make the claim that our universe is deterministic, my original criticism stands.

Do you think our universe is deterministic?

 

[Kylie]

Anything that appears to be not ordered to us, or as being too complicated/complex for us right now, or random, etc, does not mean that "that" is actually the case, or is 100% so always, etc. And, due to all the other "order" we see in it (this universe, etc), "elsewhere", etc, I don't think any of it truly is, etc, or will prove out to be, etc... We are still using math to predict it and/or try and figure it out, etc, and I think when we finally do figure out a math that works for it, we will find out that it was never truly random either, just like with "everything else" we have found and found out so far or thus far, etc, that "true randomness is almost never the case", etc...

The fact that something is complicated and complex to us does not automtically mean it is all "random", etc, and I think when we finally do find or figure out a math that works for it, we will find that out as well (that it is or was never truly random either, etc) (the quantum world, etc) (and will find out that "it" was/is all determined and/or operates according to determinism as well, etc)...

Do I have the 100% solid "proof" that that is the case in the quantum world/realm right now? No, I do not, but that is what many think we will find out when we finally figure out a math that works for it, just like it has been, and/or did, and/or we did, with "everything else thus far", etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

So all you have is an assumption, one which I suspect you have made simply because it is compatible with what you choose to believe.

 

[Kylie]

Since we do not hardly understand the quantum world hardly at all right now or yet, nor have even come up with a math that even works for it yet, etc, I would say a lot of ideas and/or theories are "wrong" right now in quantum mechanics and/or physics right now, etc, and that both I and Einstein (and others) will be proved out to be very much 100% right in the end, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Now this is just not true.

Quantum mechanics is quite well described using mathematics. There are plenty of equations people use in the study of QM. We may not understand why it works the way it does, but we certainly know it well enough to predict what the outcome of a particular QM situation will be.

"Developed at the start of the twentieth century, it has been used to calculate with incredible precision how light and matter behave – how electrical currents pass through silicon transistors in computer circuits, say, or the shapes of molecules and how they absorb light. Much of today’s information technology relies on quantum theory, as do some aspects of chemical processing, molecular biology, the discovery of new materials, and much more." SOURCE

The page also describes how Einstein was wrong when he said God does not play dice with the universe.

 

[Neogaia777]

So how do you know that this "self-causing" attribute doesn't just apply to the universe itself, and thus it doesn't need a God to start it off?

I don't think, or rather don't know, if "God" (God the Father) is separate from the universe or not, but He/it does not have to be, He/it might even be it (the universe) and also go beyond it, to things we do not yet know yet, etc...

Somehow the universe began, and I think it has a consciousness, or had to be due to something having or possessing consciousness or intelligence that was involved, etc, and that "something" does not have to a "separate thing" from the universe, or creation itself or whatever, etc...

They could be "one" IOW's etc... Or there might be one separate form it, there is really no way to know that much right now...

But I do think intelligence and consciousness caused it though...

Not alone in that either, etc...

When an atom in a radioactive element decays, there is no cause. That particular atom's decay is completely unpredictable and no cause that makes that particular atom decay rather than the one next to it.

I did some googling, and while while it may appear random and spontaneous, I just think it's something we don't know about fully yet, etc, it is said that we can determine it's or their "probability of decay" though...

Could be something we figure out when we know more about the quantum world maybe, who knows...?

And since it is about individual atoms, that we know are made up of a lot of quantum particles, strings, etc, I think we may know a lot more about it when we find out more or discover more about the quantum world, etc...

IOW's I don't think the behavior of some individual atoms appearing to random to us right now, is enough to discount or disprove the theory of determinism right now, etc...

Of course, the instant you make the claim that our universe is deterministic, my original criticism stands.

Which was what again...?

You think it's not...?

Why do you think that it's not...?

Almost everything we have come to know and/or have discovered thus far and can observe, etc, point to that, etc...

Do you think our universe is deterministic?

Yes, I do, and so do many others, etc, it very much seems to be from all we know and have discovered and can observe thus far...

I think that everything is, etc, going all the way back to the source or original cause, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

I don't think, or rather don't know, if "God" (God the Father) is separate from the universe or not, but He/it does not have to be, He/it might even be it (the universe) and also go beyond it, to things we do not yet know yet, etc...

Somehow the universe began, and I think it has a consciousness, or had to be due to something having or possessing consciousness or intelligence that was involved, etc, and that "something" does not have to a "separate thing" from the universe, or creation itself or whatever, etc...

They could be "one" IOW's etc... Or there might be one separate form it, there is really no way to know that much right now...

But I do think intelligence and consciousness caused it though...

Not alone in that either, etc...

And we're back to assumptions and argument from popularity now...

I did some googling, and while while it may appear random and spontaneous, I just think it's something we don't know about fully yet, etc, it is said that we can determine it's or their "probability of decay" though...

More assumptions...

Could be something we figure out when we know more about the quantum world maybe, who knows...?

Perhaps, but it's still yet another assumption on your part.

And since it is about individual atoms, that we know are made up of a lot of quantum particles, strings, etc, I think we may know a lot more about it when we find out more or discover more about the quantum world, etc...

Of course we'll find out more, but that doesn't mean that it's determinisitic.

Which was what again...?

You think it's not...?

Why do you think that it's not...?

Almost everything we have come to know and/or have discovered thus far and can observe, etc, point to that, etc...

That your argument is an argument from incredulity.

Yes, I do, and so do many others, etc, it very much seems to be from all we know and have discovered and can observe thus far...

I think that everything is, etc, going all the way back to the source or original cause, etc...

God Bless!

Then you are making an argument from incredulity when you claimed that there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe.

So we are back to my old questions.

• Please show that the universe is deterministic.
• Please show that a deterministic universe can only be explained by God.

Because all you've presented so far is argument from popularity, argument from incredulity, and assumptions. And that's despite the fact that you agreed in post 227 that the number of people believing in something does not reflect the validity of what it is that they believe.

 

[Kylie]

@Neogaia777 a question for you. Do you believe in free will, or are you just along for the ride with no control over your actions?

 

[Neogaia777]

And we're back to assumptions and argument from popularity now...

Whatever...

More assumptions...

"Assumptions" that many others have made based on some very solid "evidence", etc...

Perhaps, but it's still yet another assumption on your part.

Whatever, supposed "assumptions" that many others have made based on some very solid "evidence", etc, and did not just "pull out of the air", etc...

Of course we'll find out more, but that doesn't mean that it's determinisitic.

I think that is what we will find, fairly certain that's what we will find (that's it's all deterministic, etc) (and I'm not the only one, etc) And there is a lot, A LOT, of evidence for that right now, etc... (google it like I told you, etc)...

Also, I don't think the individual behavior of some individual atoms appearing to be random to us right now, is quite enough to discount or disprove the theory of determinism right now, etc...

We simply don't know enough about what makes up those individual atoms right now, etc, nor even have a math for it or them right now, etc (what makes up those atoms, etc)...

That your argument is an argument from incredulity.

That's what you keep saying anyway...

Then you are making an argument from incredulity when you claimed that there has to be an original cause in a deterministic universe.

No I am not, and do I have to say it again, it is a FACT, "FACT", that in "any deterministic view of any of "this" or the universe, etc, it is a FACT that in that kind of view, it has to have an original cause, etc...

It's not and "argument from incredulity" or even "any kind of argument whatsoever", it is just simply a FACT, etc...

I thought we had cleared that up by now...?

So we are back to my old questions.

• Please show that the universe is deterministic.
• Please show that a deterministic universe can only be explained by God.

You mean prove to you for 100% certainty for you that it is 100% deterministic in and for yourself and in your own mind...?

I'm not out to do that, etc, just for you to be open to it, and do some of the "research" for it yourself (google, etc) and "make up your own dang mind", and "decide for yourself", etc...

And if you come to believe in a deterministic view of the universe, and perhaps "everything", etc, then it has to have and original cause "in that view of it", etc...

Because all you've presented so far is argument from popularity, argument from incredulity, and assumptions. And that's despite the fact that you agreed in post 227 that the number of people believing in something does not reflect the validity of what it is that they believe.

Look, I've done my best to state my case, lots of people, lots of "experts" in these fields, etc, believe that this universe is deterministic based on some very real solid proofs and very real solid evidence, etc, and due to what they have learned, can know, and/or have come to know and/or can observe in the universe, and in that view has to have an origin or original cause, since it's all based on "cause and effect", etc...

Now, either do the research for yourself or don't do it, and make up your own mind from that or don't, either way, I don't know if I am going to be responding very much more in this thread to you from here on out or not, cause I'm just having to repeat myself over and over again, and your starting to too, so...

Anyway,

God Bless!