Atheists have zero gods.Woe, woe, forevermore, be to the time-turning atheist, who hath one god and one religion for summer, and another god and another religion for winter
Atheists have zero gods.
I'm perusing through some of Samuel Rutherford's works and came across this!
"Woe, woe, forevermore, be to the time-turning atheist, who hath one god and one religion for summer, and another god and another religion for winter,
I see that statements about atheists haven't improved in 400 years.From, To the Parishioners of Anwoth, from Aberdeen, 13 July 1637
Nope.Whatever one gives their full attention to becomes their god.
This statement makes no sense, even if you clean it up to "there are gods that are *not* gods". It is a self-refuting statement or you are using two different definitions of gods.There are gods that are no gods.
Good work diminishing the meaning of "god".Whatever one gives their full attention to becomes their god. A wife or husband can be a god, an idol. Music is a lot of people's god. I know Rock n roll was my god in my teens. Drugs too, especially weed: and alcohol. Money is a big one: money is many people's god. Cars, sex, sports, Science... - any of these things, some not good nor evil in themselves can be a persons god.
This is merely your personal theology, shared in large part with about 30% of all humans, but not with the other 70% of us.Yahweh the Creator is God, and in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead is manifest bodily. It is He whom we must turn to and acknowledge as God, but even more so than mere acknowledgement, fall on our knees or on our faces in humility, as His Holy Spirit convicts of sin, and open our hearts that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.
I know not of this void of which you speak.OK well the pre existing void that is claimed to be nothing yet is something.
But it changes what reality means for us. At one point we thought for example we thought that human behaviour was determined by external conditioning. This influenced all our models of human behaviour. Then we discovered that the root of behaviour came from within. So this completely changed reality in how we seen human behaviour.Doesn't change reality at all. Just changes our models of reality.
I'm thinking of theories like BB, Inflation, String theory, evolutionary behaviour theories where they have added onto to to solve anomelies only to create even more anomelies and never really fitting the data.General Relativity is very complicated. In most circumstances scientists still use Newton's models, but when calculations need to include fast speeds, or gravity then they go to Einstein's models. For example GPS would be highly inaccurate under Newton's models.
But thats just appealing to a different kind of God of the gaps in saying time and space and energy was always there. It also breaches the material paradigm that everything that exists has a beginning and a cause within the causal closure of the physical. But at some point there had to be something beyond the causal closure of the physical to begin the physical components that cause the material world.Was there ever a time when we didn't have time and space and energy? No one knows.
What all religions are saying is the same thing that a god or entitity of force was beyond the material but created the material world. That they disagree on exactly which God is not the point. Its that they all have this innate belief that there is something beyond the material. We are born with this innate belief. It just gets hijacked by various cultures.Religious folk will say, Yes there was, and before all that was God, my God, the god of my religion with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.
But the material scientific paradigm's own logic, own methodology says that energy cannot create itself and has to come from somewhere. So it may not point to a specific god or gods at all (at least evidence wise) but it does point to something beyond time, speace, matter and energy.You will say, YES there was, and before that there were eternal minds, with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.
Scientists will say, there is no evidence of having no time, no space, no energy so it is unknown. What precedes is unknown. Is there a god poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim. Is there evidence of minds poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim.
Well obviously the same question about what thoughts or infomration are made of. They are not made of physical stuff yet they are real and exist in the universe and can change things or birth new ideas that change our reality. So what mechanism would you call that in which non physical thoughts can have an influence on the physical world.Sure
Nope, that isn't reasonable at all.
What is it made of?
What mechanism does it have to poof things into existence?
Or to move things?
or to change reality?
How can information and knowledge pre-exist existence? All it could possibly have is knowledge of nothing.
A multiverse just puts the inevitable problem of what caused the first state of conditions to create the multiverse. If spacetime is eternal wouldn't that breach our conceptions of time and entropy.Perhaps spacetime is eternal, perhaps there is a multiverse. answer = Unknown.
I am not sure, they say that the Universe is Math. A circle has some real representation in nature. Certain equations make reality and patterns exist in nature like with the Madlebrot equation which defies human conceptions.A thought is the inner workings of the brain. Conceptualising ideas, concepts don't physically exist, they are just tools and models used by conscious beings to think about things. Like a circle, it is just a concept. A circle doesn't exist.
Behind all physical things are information, maths or concepts. WE create those concepts and models but they are discovered concepts that already existed fundementally. All physical behaviour that brings about changes in the world originates from the mind. Without them we would not have the same world and would be just meat puppets subject to electrical impulses and for forces of nature.I feel you are falling for the same trap that many religion folk fall for. Getting confused between the idea of conceptual things vs physical things.
You missed the point. The idea in the first place comes from the mind. There would be no light bulb but for the mind. We could have been zombies that just driven to survive through their physical reactions and instincts.Nope. No one thinks something into reality.
If someone has an idea for a lightbulb, they have to physically get some metal and create a wire, get some acid and metal and create a battery, physically put it all together to create that lightbulb. There is nothing special about this. The mind isn't poofing a lightbulb into existence.
I don;t mean like that. But rather the observer may be through observations be collapsing the wave function. This may happen in an instant. The interface we see may be that collapse in real time always occuring as many oberverse are observing the same thing.No, that's not even close to what QM says.
They are saying that observation collapses the wave function. It's not creating the fields, it's not creating the particles, it's not creating or deciding upon the velocity or the position. You can't sit somewhere in USA with your eyes closed and think really hard and next minute a lightbulb turns on in China.
Ifg Mind is behind all human conceptions of objective reality then why not the same logic apply for how objective reality came to be in the first place or at least that Mind is fundemental to objective reality. All we know is a direct experience of reality. Any conception about suff really existing outside our Mind cannot be directly verified. We could be a brain in a vat of in a simulation for all we know.That doesn't make any sense at all.
Why we cannot verify what conscious actually is, what its nature is or even measure it and never will and yet scientist hold onto an impossible to verify idea like its fact. Especially in the like that at least some of the ideas of consciousness beyond brain have good arguements and some evidence.If you can't verify your idea, then throw it onto the trash heap of nonsense ideas. There are a very lot of those.
Thankfully we toss them aside and move on.
The very idea of Mind and consciousness being fundemental comes from science itself. It comes from rational thinking about alternative ideas and what the data is saying. There are many good scientific ideas and arguements for MInd, Information and consciousness being fundemental. Here are just a fewIf you can't explain something then just put "Unknown" as a placeholder. No need to come up with an unverifiable idea of a god or mind abstract from physical reality. That's just being lazy, and presupposing something that you have no intent to find any evidence for.
So obviouslt if the universe and everything is created by knowledge and information itself from a mind then we should expect to find that knowledge and information embedded in nature. We see this in ideas in how the universe fits so well with math (the Math Universe), or in how nature exibits certain patters for example that align with the Madelbrot set.Sorry what?
You are saying knowledge comes from nature and the universe.
But then, didn't you say the mind had this knowledge from before the universe existed?
I'm thinking of theories like BB, Inflation, String theory, evolutionary behaviour theories where they have added onto to to solve anomelies only to create even more anomelies and never really fitting the data.
Newton's laws of mechanics and motion are completely contained within Enstein's theories of relativity. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation that works perfectly fine in regimes we now call "non-relativistic" or "Newtonian".But there are anomelies between Newtons and Eiensteins theoies such as the uniting problem between classical physics and QP which no one can overcome and which seems to lead to these complicated unscientific ideas like String theory. Whereas other ideas seem better suited and more simple but are rejected because they don't fit the material paradigm.
It does create anomelies such as it violates the first law of thermodynamicsthe, Horizon, redshift anomelies, the lack of Lithium and Helium created by a super hot explosion in the early universe, the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction. The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.The Big Bang theory is a very well evidenced description of the expansion of the Universe from a previously hot-dense state to the present. It doesn't solve anomalies, nor does it create any, though it does put limits on what can be prior to the start of the current expansion of the Universe.
But don't they need to be united and that is the BIG problem are partly why alternative ideas like MInd and Consciousness being fundemental to solviog this riddle.Newton's laws of mechanics and motion are completely contained within Enstein's theories of relativity. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation that works perfectly fine in regimes we now call "non-relativistic" or "Newtonian".
Quantum mechanics is a separate theory, not related to either.
let's look at them one by one...It [BBT] does create anomelies such as
The Big Bang satisfies the laws of thermodynamics in an expanding space time. No violations.it violates the first law of thermodynamics
Is not an anomaly at all. Finite age + finite speed of light = finite horizon.the, Horizon,
Don't know what you think these are. I'm not aware of any.redshift anomelies,
These are both predicted by BB nucleosynthesis and observed in stars, galaxies, and nebulae. (Also BB is not an explosion in the Universe, it is the *expansion OF the Universe*.)the lack of Lithium and Helium created by a super hot explosion in the early universe,
the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction.
The speed limit *inside* space time is the speed of light, but there is no limit on the growth rate in distance between points of spacetime from expansion.The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Not really. These are minor issues related to the galaxy and structure formation models.As telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
And that's how we know the early expansion was very rapid.The CMB is smooth on such large scales that , in a Big Bang there would be too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light.
Dark matter was not proposed to solve any problem with the Big Bang. Inflation actually arose from fundamental particle physics.To solve some of their anomelies other ideas like Dark matter and Inflation theory have been proposed but the list of anomelies is just as great as the BB teory.
I'm sorry the Universe isn't as simple as you'd like. (But the Universe isn't sorry.)IT gets more complicated and not comprehensive and simple as theories should be.
But don't they need to be united and that is the BIG problem are partly why alternative ideas like MInd and Consciousness being fundemental to solviog this riddle.
The subject and observer, the scientist themselves has to be incorporated into the equation. Any theory of Everything that excludes subject conscious experience will fall short.
That many?This is merely your personal theology, shared in large part with about 30% of all humans,
If it's beyond human capability, no human can see it. How could humans possibly determine the truth about anything unseeable?Since the unseen spiritual realm is out of the question; when evidence is given for something beyond human capability, and defies the general pattern of nature,
To give an example of what I meant by beyond human capability (as we know it); if someone or a group of people came along who were able to move objects with their mind, the atheist would have to acknowledge psychokinesis as a verifiable force due to witnessing it. They can assume the individual(s) has some unique mental abilities, but would not consider them having tapped into some unseen spiritual force, which could be deception based. Particularly if they presented some sort of ideology.If it's beyond human capability, no human can see it. How could humans possibly determine the truth about anything unseeable?
I don't think he was an atheist. All the disciples appeared to have a problem believing Christ was resurrected, including Peter who prior acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, Son of the living God. They all received their proof at some point after the resurrection. Thomas required more proof than some of the others.But wasn't Thomas an Atheist, he questioned (not that I know the bible well). I did a quick search but Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version) seems to suggest that individuals who, despite not having been exposed to the specific teachings of Christianity, live according to moral principles and conscience may be judged favorably by God. It implies that God's judgment takes into account more than mere adherence to religious beliefs or practices. Which would make sense from a humane perspective as there might be instances where people with a mental handicap, unable to understand the word of Christ would not end up in hell right?
Not that I myself believe in a heaven or hell and if it does exist and I was somehow give a choice then I woud rather live in my favorite video game Skyrim.
Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.I don't think he was an atheist. All the disciples appeared to have a problem believing Christ was resurrected, including Peter who prior acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, Son of the living God. They all received their proof at some point after the resurrection. Thomas required more proof than some of the others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?