100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: For Athiests, a question... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The question is: "What determines the structure of the Quantum Foam? " You people and your past and future references...   I'm reading Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" now and he mentions the quantum foam in several places! But can you shave with it...? Only if you have quantum nubs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What determined the structure of the Quantum Foam? Well, whatever determine it must have been pretty clever to have designed it to unfold in such a way as to become a universe full of conscious beings. So you are saying from the Quantum foam onward, its all natural flow of process. But Quantum Foam is the super intelligence, or the agency by which all is planned? Well, I'm forced to "stop" at the quantum foam because that's the limit of our capabilities to know. I'm not necessarily saying that the quantum foam itself is this "super intelligence", perhaps the quantum foam is merely the "Display matrix" on the computer screen of this "super intelligence". All I know is that all the information required to construct this universe and make it unfold the way it does is already contained within the quantum field. That's obvious from what we already know about it. How is that different then any other apologist explanation? Because it's science. We've seen it in the labs. We've observed and recorded it's behavior right up to actually showing why we can only ever know certain things about it. So it's not just an apologist's argument. It's an observable measurable fact. You can go into a lab and do experiments on it (assuming you have enough funding! ) That's telling em!!  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I will visit your new term even though it is a totally different meaning. "inherent pre-condition." inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture> "pre-condition: necessary or required condition; prerequisite OK, so let me ask you this -- is your question, then, how did it get IN there? Because I think that's entirely unknowable (at least, at this time). For me, it's simpler to just attribute it to a condition of being -- because I CAN'T know more than that. My issue with the "programmer" is that I just don't see anything to indicate that this exists. I certainly see no need for it to exist. And if you want to raise the question of how the inherent pre-condition got there in the first place, then I will have to admit that I don't know. My hunch is that it developed over millions of years as an adaptation (or maybe a series of adaptations) as part of a constant process of refinement. When you start talking about "spirit" and "intelligent universe," this borders on religion for me. And I like to say that religion is just superstition with better packaging. Okay if we are talking about "survival instinct" as being an "inherent pre-condition" and not pre-programming, then you are just saying that this is the nature and character of the creature required for survival. But this does not explain the process of HOW or WHY this nature or character or condition arises. And I don't think we can ever truly know that. Not without some major scientific advances, anyway. I suspect it's nothing more than the result of some very ancient "natural selection" event, but that's just a suspicion. I am not 'okay' with that answer. I am a curious sort. Truly it is curiosity that drives me, not a need to believe in something that might not exist. It is truth I seek not fantasy. But I am not willing to rule out an intelligent universe so easily when I do see a lot of evidence for it. Have you ever heard religious types making the claim that God placed the earth at just the right distance from the sun, with just the right atmosphere and just the right temperature range, etc., for humans to thrive? I'm always puzzled by this, because it occurs to me that, had the earth been a little closer to the sun, or farther away, or hotter, or wetter, or with a different atmospheric composition, then maybe no life would have developed at all (in which case there would be no one to ponder the significance of it all) -- or maybe it would just have been some OTHER form of life, adaptable and adapted to THOSE conditions. It just strikes me as a completely backwards argument....this idea that the earth was "made" for humans -- when all the evolutionary evidence indicates that humans evolved gradually, over millions of years, to become better acclimated to their respective environments, not the other way around. In a way, the "spirit/intelligent universe" argument strikes me as something along those same lines -- you're postulating a cause, which cannot be verified or even detected, to explain real-world events. But this is problematic for those of us who like to rely on a more rational and scientific basis -- one reason I find it difficult to believe that the sun is actually Apollo driving his chariot across the sky every day....  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 10/30/09 09:54 PM
|
|
When you start talking about "spirit" and "intelligent universe," this borders on religion for me. And I like to say that religion is just superstition with better packaging. I think you are being a bit paranoid. Your lack of ability to consider an intelligent universe is influenced by your phobia of religiosity. Its an over-compensation, and it limits your ability to explore possibilities. There is nothing to fear. You are safe with your beliefs.  Whatever makes you comfortable. Good night, its really been nice chatting with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Fri 10/30/09 10:03 PM
|
|
Okay, I will visit your new term even though it is a totally different meaning. "inherent pre-condition." inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture> "pre-condition: necessary or required condition; prerequisite OK, so let me ask you this -- is your question, then, how did it get IN there? Because I think that's entirely unknowable (at least, at this time). For me, it's simpler to just attribute it to a condition of being -- because I CAN'T know more than that. My issue with the "programmer" is that I just don't see anything to indicate that this exists. I certainly see no need for it to exist. And if you want to raise the question of how the inherent pre-condition got there in the first place, then I will have to admit that I don't know. My hunch is that it developed over millions of years as an adaptation (or maybe a series of adaptations) as part of a constant process of refinement. When you start talking about "spirit" and "intelligent universe," this borders on religion for me. And I like to say that religion is just superstition with better packaging. Okay if we are talking about "survival instinct" as being an "inherent pre-condition" and not pre-programming, then you are just saying that this is the nature and character of the creature required for survival. But this does not explain the process of HOW or WHY this nature or character or condition arises. And I don't think we can ever truly know that. Not without some major scientific advances, anyway. I suspect it's nothing more than the result of some very ancient "natural selection" event, but that's just a suspicion. I am not 'okay' with that answer. I am a curious sort. Truly it is curiosity that drives me, not a need to believe in something that might not exist. It is truth I seek not fantasy. But I am not willing to rule out an intelligent universe so easily when I do see a lot of evidence for it. Have you ever heard religious types making the claim that God placed the earth at just the right distance from the sun, with just the right atmosphere and just the right temperature range, etc., for humans to thrive? I'm always puzzled by this, because it occurs to me that, had the earth been a little closer to the sun, or farther away, or hotter, or wetter, or with a different atmospheric composition, then maybe no life would have developed at all (in which case there would be no one to ponder the significance of it all) -- or maybe it would just have been some OTHER form of life, adaptable and adapted to THOSE conditions. It just strikes me as a completely backwards argument....this idea that the earth was "made" for humans -- when all the evolutionary evidence indicates that humans evolved gradually, over millions of years, to become better acclimated to their respective environments, not the other way around. In a way, the "spirit/intelligent universe" argument strikes me as something along those same lines -- you're postulating a cause, which cannot be verified or even detected, to explain real-world events. But this is problematic for those of us who like to rely on a more rational and scientific basis -- one reason I find it difficult to believe that the sun is actually Apollo driving his chariot across the sky every day.... Lex, I agree that what is being referred to as intent or design or programming is in essense only the evolution of survival of the fittest. It was brought up that male lions will fight to have females to breed with, well this solves two survival issues, it makes the strongest able to breed and makes more females for fertilization. Not something that is programmed in the literal sense but something passed down over millions of years as the successful traits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A question just came to me from a post on another thread. For atheists who are hard core and non-spriitual: If you believe that when you are dead, you are dead forever, never to live again... then why care about the survival of your species? Why care about having any decedents? Why worry about the future of the human race or the future of the world when you die and you are gone... none of that matters to you. And why would an animal work so hard to pass on his genes? What does he care? Does he even think about dieing or the survival of his species. (I doubt it.) If he doesn't, then how did he obtain that kind of programing? Genetic memory? If genetic memory is involved, then what does that say in regards to the idea of reincarnation? Will his memory live in his decedents? Does he remember the lives of his ancestors? JB, it seems like your question is really directed at "people who do not believe in any personal existence after the end of their current incarnation". This has nothing, inherently, to do with atheism at all, of any kind. There are many atheists who believe in reincarnation, especially amongst the Buddhists; and there are some theists who do NOT believe in an afterlife. Having said that, I am an atheist and I while I have no knowledge of whether we do or do not have an afterlife or a next life, I live my life as if this is the only one. why care about the survival of your species? Personally, I only care about the survival of the species as an extension of myself; my own ego, perhaps. I identify with humans, and though I will die I would like to see humans in general go on living. Why care about having any decedents? I have chosen not to have any so far, and I may continue this choice to death. I have friends who see themselves in their children, in a way that givens them a feeling of 'extended life'. "They" won't entirely die when their body dies, as parts of them live on in their children. Why worry about the future of the human race or the future of the world when you die and you are gone... none of that matters to you. Why do you say that none of this matters to me? You have made some very good arguments, JB, in other threads, for why some materialists are some of the most altruistic and ethical people there are. Some materialists care deeply about the consequences of their actions despite the fact that they don't believe they will have 'personal consequences' in the next life. I do care about what I leave behind; my statements above partly explain why. And why would an animal work so hard to pass on his genes? What does he care? Does he even think about dieing or the survival of his species. (I doubt it.) I don't think that non-human animals (or most humans, for that matter) "think" much about "passing on their genes"; there is little to no personal involvement for this abstract concern. Humans and non-human animals alike are born with drives which encourage, if not determine, actions which lead to passing on genes. Like gettin busy. If he doesn't, then how did he obtain that kind of programing? Genetic memory? You could call DNA 'genetic memory' if you like, but this would not necessarily be the same as other uses of the phrase 'genetic memory'. If genetic memory is involved, then what does that say in regards to the idea of reincarnation? Will his memory live in his decedents? According to currently dominant theories of genetics, I would say "nothing at all" and "no" to answer those questions. But personally, I'm not convinced. There is much we do not know. Does he remember the lives of his ancestors? Have you heard about the flatworms that gained the 'memory' of another flatworm by eating that flatworm? (Or is this one of those ******** 'experimental results' thats debunked on scopes but keeps getting repeated by people like me????) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you heard about the flatworms that gained the 'memory' of another flatworm by eating that flatworm? (Or is this one of those ******** 'experimental results' thats debunked on scopes but keeps getting repeated by people like me????) No, never heard of that. I've see sci-fi shows where people who received an organ donor transplant could see flashes of memory from the donor. I wonder how true that could be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you heard about the flatworms that gained the 'memory' of another flatworm by eating that flatworm? (Or is this one of those ******** 'experimental results' thats debunked on scopes but keeps getting repeated by people like me????) No, never heard of that. I've see sci-fi shows where people who received an organ donor transplant could see flashes of memory from the donor. I wonder how true that could be. I have met prostitutes who claimed they could describe the hair colour of the children of the johns on whom the hookers had gone down. On a somewhat related note: Sometimes these prostitutes would turn up at the johns's address (also, at the Joneses address, if the john's name was John Jones) and demand money from them just for the sake of demanding money. Physics, either QT or RT, has not been able to explain this phenomenon. I should add the latter demands came waaay after an incident of prostitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 10/31/09 10:02 PM
|
|
What determined the structure of the Quantum Foam? Well, whatever determine it must have been pretty clever to have designed it to unfold in such a way as to become a universe full of conscious beings. So you are saying from the Quantum foam onward, its all natural flow of process. But Quantum Foam is the super intelligence, or the agency by which all is planned? Well, I'm forced to "stop" at the quantum foam because that's the limit of our capabilities to know. I'm not necessarily saying that the quantum foam itself is this "super intelligence", perhaps the quantum foam is merely the "Display matrix" on the computer screen of this "super intelligence". All I know is that all the information required to construct this universe and make it unfold the way it does is already contained within the quantum field. That's obvious from what we already know about it. How is that different then any other apologist explanation? Because it's science. We've seen it in the labs. We've observed and recorded it's behavior right up to actually showing why we can only ever know certain things about it. So it's not just an apologist's argument. It's an observable measurable fact. You can go into a lab and do experiments on it (assuming you have enough funding! ) No god under rocks . . ok, lets say he is in the clouds . . . no god in the clouds . . . ok, lets say he is in a parallel universe with puppet strings attached to this one . . . oh darn we can explain natural processes with science . . . oh there we go, QFoam, thats unexplained . . . DUN DUN DUN: GOD! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Arguing" for or against the existence of what you call "God" is pointless because everyone knows it can't be proven.
But I see nothing harmful with considering every possibility. If you can really stop at "I don't know, and will never know.." and be satisfied with that, then you have no reason to even think about it. I like to imagine solutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Arguing" for or against the existence of what you call "God" is pointless because everyone knows it can't be proven. But I see nothing harmful with considering every possibility. If you can really stop at "I don't know, and will never know.." and be satisfied with that, then you have no reason to even think about it. I like to imagine solutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution is at sector 5 area 1.6A in the galaxy of Trintine. Intelligent lifeforms know of the answers we have been asking for thousands of years. All we need to do is advance in technology to get there.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/01/09 01:01 AM
|
|
"Arguing" for or against the existence of what you call "God" is pointless because everyone knows it can't be proven. But I see nothing harmful with considering every possibility. If you can really stop at "I don't know, and will never know.." and be satisfied with that, then you have no reason to even think about it. I like to imagine solutions. I'm sorry, I don't really know what you mean by the term "God." You are the one who keeps using that term. There is a lot of prejudice (and paranoia) in the meaning of that which has to do with religious ideology. Because I see intelligence and design everywhere I can see how how that could indicate an intelligent and creative source. I am not paranoid about considering that possibility and I don't consider it to be 'ignorant.' I am not as ignorant as you might think and I don't appreciate the implication. You do not have the solution so you are not in a position to criticize my positing anything. You do not know what I know so don't pretend you do. Atheists sometimes think they are of superior intelligence than everyone else and it sure shows on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 11/01/09 06:05 AM
|
|
Umm, this is a thread about atheism right?
So . . .the word god seems fitting to use . . . And she even thinks I called her ignorant . . . sigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/01/09 06:16 AM
|
|
Umm, this is a thread about atheism right? So . . .the word god seems fitting to use . . . And she even thinks I called her ignorant . . . sigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Yes the questions in the O.P. are for FOR atheists to answer. And they were not about "positing God."  You are assuming too much. (I already know how atheists think about that.) The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. There is no "argument" about positing God on this thread. That is not what the thread is asking. You still must just love to use that word "ignorance."  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, this is a thread about atheism right? So . . .the word god seems fitting to use . . . And she even thinks I called her ignorant . . . sigh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Yes the questions in the O.P. are for FOR atheists to answer. And they were not about "positing God." You are assuming too much. I myself do not hold a positive belief in the existence of a god (by any attributes so far presented that come anywhere close to consciouness ect)BECAUSE, the only arguments that currently are in favor are arguments from ignorance. Its always what we do not know that theists, pantheists, deist ect point to for god, or spirit, or whatever the heck you want to call it . . . This is fallacy, and insufficient to garner respect from a scientific perspective, of which being a scientific skeptic, I only hold beliefs that can be supported from this perspective. This says nothing about you, it says something about the arguments used, and why my perspective remains agnostic about deities, or intelligent creative forces. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/01/09 06:20 AM
|
|
Thank you for that information. Now what I really want is some answers to the question in the O.P. not an argument about the existence of 'God.'
In fact, I did not even mention "God." Perhaps I am just talking about life after death or reincarnation. There does not have to even be a God. You are assuming I am talking about a God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Besides, if I believe that I am God, then I already KNOW I exist.)
I am inquiring into the nature of the beliefs of atheists in order to better understand their different ways of thinking. I want to know what they think about what causes animals to instinctively reproduce, and if they really are trying to "pass on their genes." As far as humans are concerned, I am asking why would they care about the survival of the human race after they are gone? Dead is dead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for that information. Now what I really want is some answers to the question in the O.P. not an argument about the existence of 'God.' If you believe that when you are dead, you are dead forever, never to live again... then why care about the survival of your species? Why care about having any decedents? Why worry about the future of the human race or the future of the world when you die and you are gone... none of that matters to you. This entire line of reasoning hinges on the presupposition that these things are meaningless without eternal spirit or whatever. That is the problem with your question. I already did, but I guess I could elaborate. Your initial post is also fallacy. Its begging the question. Your start with assuming that only eternal consciousness could care about these things. Your wrong. I do care. For the same reason I care about my mom, and her dog. I don't want the neighbors dog to come out of the his yard and attack my moms dog. So I put up a fence at my own expense, to protect the dog, and my mom. We care becuase we care, there does not have to be some eternal life for me to care about the future of mankind either. This concept of self centered thoughts if not all of us are connected by some invisible spirit stuff is troubling. Is the same argument theists use to say that morality comes from god. It just doesn't hold water. I've never met an atheist, strong, weak, or otherwise that doesnt care about the future to some degree. We have wants, we think about things and the way the thought advances effects us, just like anyone else. I think hmm, Terrible future thought #1 -- world on fire, puppies, children, kittins all dieing, not cool. Dont want that, so I will help with the environment now to prevent that. I think, if I died tomorrow, I wouldn't want my brother to be struggling so much . . . Ill leave him my money. I wouldn't want some kid 500 years from now to be drinking water from a well and get sick from oil in the ground water . . . so ill be careful with my oil change. Human beings have the capability to place themselves in others shoes, so to speak, and can imagine what it would be like, this allows us to feel about that thing in the abstract. Belief in deities and spirit are not needed for this to function. We don't need to be eternally present ourselves to witness the outcome in the future, nor have some watchful creator thumbing his nose at our actions or sending us to bad places to coerce us into it either . . . IMHO that makes us better people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for that information. Now what I really want is some answers to the question in the O.P. not an argument about the existence of 'God.' ok. here's the best i can do: If you believe that when you are dead, you are dead forever, never to live again... then why care about the survival of your species? we don't care. survival is genetically implanted and instinctual Why care about having any decedents? most species don't care about decedents. Why worry about the future of the human race or the future of the world when you die and you are gone... none of that matters to you. many such as me don't care about the human race or the future of the world when we die and are gone. And why would an animal work so hard to pass on his genes? What does he care? Does he even think about dieing or the survival of his species. (I doubt it.) i doubt it too. If he doesn't, then how did he obtain that kind of programing? Genetic memory? If genetic memory is involved, then what does that say in regards to the idea of reincarnation? Will his memory live in his decedents? Does he remember the lives of his ancestors? in the case of most species, no. |
|
|
|
|
