Comment please........

[4Horsemen]

I have only a few. I won’t take on something so thought-controlling as a belief unless it is absolutely necessary.

Belief precedes scientific theories. One has to believe in the reality of an observation and its progression to a theory in order to have it accepted as a scientific fact. You, yourself, said you believed and then “predicted the existence of dark energy.” A definition of belief:

Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

I have a number of theories which make sense to me and seem to fit the facts of our day. They even predicted the existence of dark energy, but I was too slow to publish.

‘Publish or perish!’

I’ve found that the opinions of any man trying to understand the universe should be as closely held as the affections of a housecat or woman, and as trusted as the promises of a politician one has not personally bought at great expense.

Doesn’t mean that one can’t be satisfied with the cat’s mousing skills or the woman’s affections, or the Senator’s help— at the moment. But a new neighbor might set out free tuna fish for your cat, be the better looking and richer guy your woman was really looking for, and give your Senator a bigger bribe.

Interesting.

I learned this decades ago after coming to admire the writings of Ayn Rand and subscribing to her journal, The Objectivist, written mostly by the stooge she was cozy with, an intellectual nitwit. Their writings were disfigured by atheism. Ayn and her cronies were kind of objective in politics and human motivation, but were too narrow of mind to be genuinely objective in wider areas.

Been there done that! Read Ayn Rand in college. I agree with your assessment.

Objectivity is a kind of perfection, something to strive for. You’ll know exactly what it is when someone else finds it first.

We can be as objective as possible in opinions about many things by seeing things from differing viewpoints, but absolute objectivity is God’s domain.

To be objective, argue your beliefs with people whose minds you respect, who know things you don’t, and with whom you disagree. (Like you’re doing now.) I discussed my ideas about God and physics with Ph.D physicists who thought I was nuts. So I bought the drinks. I argued with Witnesses too (cheaper, and you get what you pay for). Today you can find my annoying posts on the Physics Forum as well as CAF.

It seems to me that you set up your own personal religion and value system which can change in a heartbeat. The whole idea of reincarnation (that might be from another thread) is totally unscientific and unsubstantiated. It sounds New Age–that which you exhibited disagreement about. What is objective about wondering if you’ll make it out of your body or get stuck in another form? It’s basically subjective and unreasonable. There is no scientific evidence to support such a claim. Being a scientist, I would think you’d consider it hogwash (not a very scientific way to put it). You don’t accept the divinity and in another breath say that God is bound by the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics. God? Where is the evidence?

Always honor facts. Few do. I knew an astronomer who’s motto was, “Never let mere fact interfere with a good theory.” He was not successful because science honors facts, however grudgingly.

When new information is discovered, “facts” are often changed.

Yeah, I know, but I’d have to look for it myself, taking the same time as you would. It is recent, and is a brief thread. CAF has a decent search engine. Last I looked, mine was the last post.

I don’t figure that you’ll be greatly engaged by the ideas, and if I’m right, my time would be wasted. However, by actually spending your own time to find them, you’d develop enough of a vested interest to maybe take them a tad more seriously than if they came easily. If the ideas prove interesting to you, you’ve gained something. If not, its your time wasted instead of mine.

I don’t consider my time wasted when I can talk about God and His wonderful works.

Since we are in agreement on the idea that God is Creative, we must also be in agreement that God does not know everything. Yes?

How does being the Creator (being creative to make the universe) imply that God does not know everything?

Any argument between us re: laws of thermodynamics is pretty silly, since only one of us has studied physics. I appreciate your honesty about your knowledge— great first step for acquiring some! I find Wikipedia an interesting and generally correct of basic (and some advanced) physics information, and there are many excellent books on the subject for non-scientists. It would be best if you came up to speed on the subject, as the simple exchange of assertions is unprofitable.

What can I say? I have a belief, based on evidence, that you are probably and substantially correct in your assertion. (I did have a basic course, if that counts for anything).

Both your assertions and mine are derived from ideas invented by others, which we learned in school.

Hmmmm . . . for the most part. Critical thinking is also learned behavior as well.

Sorry. From your answer, I assume that you do not follow the conversations on various science documentary channels. Thought you might, incorrectly.

I tune in now and then, but usually I’m too busy and have to often forego discussing on CAF more often than I’d like.

 

[greylorn]

Belief precedes scientific theories. One has to believe in the reality of an observation and its progression to a theory in order to have it accepted as a scientific fact. You, yourself, said you believed and then “predicted the existence of dark energy.” A definition of belief:

Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

It seems more complex than that. “Belief” is one of those dubious English words which has multiple definitions, like “love.”

When I was a devout Catholic I believed in God and the Church’s reliability, therefore I believed the Church’s definition of God’s properties and purpose. I had no rational basis for any of these beliefs. Trust was the only factor— trust in parents, priests, nuns, the Bible and the Baltimore Catechism… Plus there was the agreement factor— my schoolmates believed, and there was this handsome Notre Dame Church and school atop the hill.

I will never believe like that again.

I depend upon scientific theory and fact for my outside beliefs, and personal thoughts, experiences, and insights for my personal beliefs. But I’ve learned to be careful.

Once of the good things about scientists is that they are all competing for money and position, and are fearful of being caught falsifying evidence. Lying did not make it to the Ten Commandments list of shalt nots, but it is Number One on the schedule of scientific no-no’s.

Three kinds of lying are forbidden:

1. 
   
   *]Thou shalt not falsify thy formal credentials.
   
   *]Thou shalt not falsify data.
   
   *]Thou shalt not lie about experimental procedure.
   
   These laws are well policed from within the community. So I tend to trust them, particularly the older ones, and those which hang together in an elegant, systmatic manner.
   
   When evaluating the worth of a scientific law, I use a criterion, a question which might sound a bit strange. I’ve never heard of anyone using it, not even avowed Christians who are also scientists. It would be laughed at if proposed as a serious scientific criterion. Nonetheless, one of my goals is to leave this question in the scientific legacy.
   
   
   Would God have done it this way?​

 

[greylorn]

We can be as objective as possible in opinions about many things by seeing things from differing viewpoints, but absolute objectivity is God’s domain.

Because I do not accept the belief in God’s omnipotence, I do not regard Him as absolutely objective.

Actually, Christians really do not, either. They believe that God loves us. “Love,” by most of its many definitions, is an emotion, one of the most powerful. Emotions are not objective.

Modern day religionists have bought into the notion that the Creator of the Universe must contain all useful properties in a infinite quantity, and must be absolute, perfect, etc. in all respects. These are attributes invented by humans. They are not logical, nor consistent with evidence.

Moreover, they do not seem to leave God with the opportunity to have much fun.

 

[greylorn]

It seems to me that you set up your own personal religion and value system which can change in a heartbeat. The whole idea of reincarnation (that might be from another thread) is totally unscientific and unsubstantiated. It sounds New Age–that which you exhibited disagreement about. What is objective about wondering if you’ll make it out of your body or get stuck in another form? It’s basically subjective and unreasonable. There is no scientific evidence to support such a claim. Being a scientist, I would think you’d consider it hogwash (not a very scientific way to put it). You don’t accept the divinity and in another breath say that God is bound by the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics. God? Where is the evidence?

Luckily, I lack the charisma to establish a religion, and don’t figure that the world needs another one. By way of value systems, I’m fairly comfortable with Christ’s core teachings, but not their Church-invented transmogrifications.

I have devised a theology, with the purpose of integrating creation as a viable and necessary scientific option.

Theology does not make a religion, (e.g. Confucianism, Buddhism) Moreover, religion does not need a theology. IMO the Church would have been well advised to trust Christ’s words and teach only those, never inventing a theology.

There is plenty of conflict between science and theology on matters of how the universe and man came to be, and what man is. There is no conflict between science and Christ’s teachings. Nor is there conflict between my science-based theology and Christ’s teachings.

On reincarnation: It is an odd subject. The Church claims that Christ did it two days after his death, and will do it again. The Church claims that we will all be reincarnated after the 2nd coming, therefore admitting the theoretical possibility.

Originally I did not accept it, believing as you do. However, after studying some of the data I found the evidence in favor of it highly compelling. I did a number of experiments with past-life regressions, carefully maintaining neutrality. Many of my subjects claim that the memories they recovered changed their lives.

Would you clarify your comment, “What is objective about wondering if you’ll make it out of your body or get stuck in another form?” I hope that it does not imply a belief on your part or worry on mine, that I’ll be reincarnated as a warthog, again.

If you imply that I should not be worried about reincarnating as a woman (for example), how is that different from your arranging your life so as not to be cast into hell?

When new information is discovered, “facts” are often changed.

YES!!!

What we commonly call facts are more often just opinion, and the sooner they can be corrected, the better. Often, physical facts are indistinct, the result of measurement resolution. For example, your view of Saturn through binoculars shows a planet out there, maybe some hint of rings, not much else. Poor resolution. Satellite flybys have provided much better resolution, providing details of the ring structures, mini-moons, and a curious hexagon atop one pole.

You would want the new facts accepted, yes?

Also, pre-modern theories declared Saturn’s rings to be amorphous, fog-like, because that is how they appeared through cheap telescopes. Only one physicist, James Maxwell, declared that they were made up of discrete rocks and boulders, as a result of his theoretical calculations. The fog-theory of rings was an accepted fact for centuries, until data from a spacecraft, transmitted to earth using Maxwell’s theory of electrodynamics.

Would you not want to have that bogus “fact” corrected?

The power of physics comes from its willingness to adjust its theories, or scrap them altogether, in the face of new information. Admitting a mistake is not a weakness. Insisting upon the invariance of one’s beliefs in the face of contrary evidence is the mark of fear, weakness, and complete absence of intellectual integrity. IMO, of course. Science also depends strongly upon logic, mathematical forms preferred.

Religions, unfortunately, refuse to adjust their theories in accordance with facts, or with common logic. That is why religion is out of favor among the best minds of our day.

I don’t consider my time wasted when I can talk about God and His wonderful works.

Likewise. I admire the works of God’s Creation particularly, in light of my notion that He brought them into being with conscious, deliberate, thought and experiment.

How does being the Creator (being creative to make the universe) imply that God does not know everything?

If one knows everything, past, present, and future, that knowledge precludes thought, which is the creation of previously unknown knowledge.

What can I say? I have a belief, based on evidence, that you are probably and substantially correct in your assertion. (I did have a basic course, if that counts for anything).

That basic course, and the fact that you chose to take it, probably explains why you are amenable to the arguments of fair logic, and why you do not phrase your counter arguments in terms of dogmatic reiterations. I appreciate that.

Hmmmm . . . for the most part. Critical thinking is also learned behavior as well.

Yes. According to my theories, all genuine thinking is learned behavior.

 

[greylorn]

I would say that you are wrong on two counts.
First of all, if God exists, He is the Creator and then He would be able to create and destroy and therefore not be bound by the first law of thermodynamics.

However, if God did not exist, then the Second Law of thermodynamics would hold, because as Clausius has pointed out no process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. If you think that this is wrong, then give a specific example.
But actually, God does exist, and still the second Law of thermodynamics does hold in the physical world. I haven’t seen any violation of it, except perhaps for an infinitesimal quantum process in an infinitesimal time interval.

Let me try to gnaw on this tree a little closer to the root.

Your first statement implies that your God-concept is correct. This is also the standard Christian concept.

You are having some trouble with my comments because somewhere along the line you missed my concept of God, which is different from the usual.

Let’s take a highly simplified view from my perspective. Before the creation of the universe, there existed the stuff that we call energy, and the entity we call God. Both had always existed.

At some point which probably defines the beginning of time, God discovered that he could use energy like silly putty, and being bored, made the dreadful mistake of creating the universe.

Remember, this is a simplified version. Trivial, really. Designed only to address what seems to be your core complaint.

The key for you in understanding my statements is to recognize that my understanding of the properties of the Creator differ from yours. That is because I am attempting to devise a theology which is well integrated with physics. I appreciate your question and hope that my answer forwards the addressing of it.

 

[sidbrown]

Let me try to gnaw on this tree a little closer to the root.

Your first statement implies that your God-concept is correct. This is also the standard Christian concept.

You are having some trouble with my comments because somewhere along the line you missed my concept of God, which is different from the usual.

Let’s take a highly simplified view from my perspective. Before the creation of the universe, there existed the stuff that we call energy, and the entity we call God. Both had always existed.

At some point which probably defines the beginning of time, God discovered that he could use energy like silly putty, and being bored, made the dreadful mistake of creating the universe.

Remember, this is a simplified version. Trivial, really. Designed only to address what seems to be your core complaint.

The key for you in understanding my statements is to recognize that my understanding of the properties of the Creator differ from yours. That is because I am attempting to devise a theology which is well integrated with physics. I appreciate your question and hope that my answer forwards the addressing of it.

Well, I suppose if you make up your own definition of a Hindhu type god with your own custom made attributes, then anything is possible.
But you have not given a specific example of a process whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

 

[greylorn]

Well, I suppose if you make up your own definition of a Hindhu type god with your own custom made attributes, then anything is possible.
But you have not given a specific example of a process whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

You are missing my point, but I’ll give it a try.

Start with a heat pump.

For a simpler example, put an ice cube in a glass of water. Heat will transfer from the ice to the water. However, this effect will be overshadowed by the transfer of more heat from the water to the ice.

While the Laws of Thermodynamics are expressed in terms of heat transfer, they are generally applied in terms of their broader application to all exchanges of energy.

At a more subtle level, creative thought, which can be viewed as the organization of information (represented in terms of energy forms) violates the 2nd Law.

Telekinesis is a good example. Objects are moved with the power of mind, without any known or measured transfer of energy. I have personally watched Uri Geller bend a spoon handle, upward, against the force of gravity. Until further investigation proves otherwise, this works for me as an excellent example of 2nd Law violation. (The spoon remained at room temperature, but entropy went backward nonetheless.)

I figure that this is not likely to satisfy you. Don’t know if anything will.

How about the notion that God’s acts of creation reverse entropy?

 

[sidbrown]

How about the notion that God’s acts of creation reverse entropy?

I thought your Hindoo type god did not create anything, but only molded putty which was already there?
Which is it? God the Creator as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe, or your version of a Hindoo like god who molds putty?

 

[greylorn]

I thought your Hindoo type god did not create anything, but only molded putty which was already there?
Which is it? God the Creator as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe, or your version of a Hindoo like god who molds putty?

None of the above. Since you seem incapable of understanding what I write, which is likely a great failure on my part and has nothing to do with your reading comprehension skills, this is my last reply to you. Thank you for your posts.

 

[4Horsemen]

It seems more complex than that. “Belief” is one of those dubious English words which has multiple definitions, like “love.”

When I was a devout Catholic I believed in God and the Church’s reliability, therefore I believed the Church’s definition of God’s properties and purpose. I had no rational basis for any of these beliefs. Trust was the only factor— trust in parents, priests, nuns, the Bible and the Baltimore Catechism… Plus there was the agreement factor— my schoolmates believed, and there was this handsome Notre Dame Church and school atop the hill.

I will never believe like that again.

Our belief as children is so honest although inquisitive, so pure although imperfect, but that is why Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven is for such as these. When we get older, we become brainwashed to believe impossible and improbable theories and mere suppositions.

I depend upon scientific theory and fact for my outside beliefs, and personal thoughts, experiences, and insights for my personal beliefs. But I’ve learned to be careful.

Regardless, you are still believing in something, so you have faith in science and its theories (which often change over time) and personal observations and experiences (which also change over time). Belief in God is dependable because God is dependable. We can trust Him. I like the biblical quote from Jeremiah 29: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” I claimed that verse when I needed something to cling to.

Once of the good things about scientists is that they are all competing for money and position, and are fearful of being caught falsifying evidence. Lying did not make it to the Ten Commandments list of shalt nots, but it is Number One on the schedule of scientific no-no’s.

The eighth Commandment is “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Isn’t that lying?

Three kinds of lying are forbidden:

1. 
   

   *]Thou shalt not falsify thy formal credentials.

   *]Thou shalt not falsify data.

   *]Thou shalt not lie about experimental procedure.

   These laws are well policed from within the community. So I tend to trust them, particularly the older ones, and those which hang together in an elegant, systmatic manner.

   That’s a good example of believing in something, even the scientific method. Secularists want to believe in something too. It is wishful thinking that they believe that God does not exist and that they are then free of traditional and moral standards.
   

   When evaluating the worth of a scientific law, I use a criterion, a question which might sound a bit strange. I’ve never heard of anyone using it, not even avowed Christians who are also scientists. It would be laughed at if proposed as a serious scientific criterion. Nonetheless, one of my goals is to leave this question in the scientific legacy.

   Would God have done it this way?​

   That question reminds me of What Would Jesus Do? We could well use it for our personal lives. Your question as a serious scientific criterion sounds as though it should work and produce results. If God would do something a particular way, it must be perfect!

 

[4Horsemen]

Because I do not accept the belief in God’s omnipotence, I do not regard Him as absolutely objective.

But in your post above you said you would use as a criterion, “Would God have done it this way?” I thought you meant that since God’s way would be the perfect way, it the yardstick from which we judge perfection and imperfection. God, being perfect, would also be omnipotent and completely objective.

Actually, Christians really do not, either. They believe that God loves us. “Love,” by most of its many definitions, is an emotion, one of the most powerful. Emotions are not objective.

Oh yes, Christians believe in God’s omnipotence, which is a different topic from God’s love for us. Although love is an emotion for humans, it should be based on some rational thought about the object of one’s desire and not just subjective emotion.

Modern day religionists have bought into the notion that the Creator of the Universe must contain all useful properties in a infinite quantity, and must be absolute, perfect, etc. in all respects. These are attributes invented by humans. They are not logical, nor consistent with evidence.

Moreover, they do not seem to leave God with the opportunity to have much fun.

Being infinitely perfect, God can be the most creative. He considers his work “good” (Genesis, so He must have had “fun.”)

 

[sidbrown]

None of the above.

You are not making any sense.
Here you say that your god uses energy like silly putty, and imply that your god is not a creator:

At some point which probably defines the beginning of time, God discovered that he could use energy like silly putty, …

Then you say that your god can reverse entropy by his acts of creation.

How about the notion that God’s acts of creation reverse entropy?

Your notion of god who uses silly putty to mold energy, is like a Hindoo type god.
Why don;t you study the Bhagavad Gita and the hindoo gods and blog on a Hindoo forum instead of trying to convince Catholics that God cannot be a Creator?