No i don’t, because your definition of God was a straw-man in the first place. And ignoring what has been said further solidifies my position and my opinion that you don’t really know what you are talking about.
Then you can say hes responsible just like you can say hes responsible for animals. But if you look at a dog and say where did that come from you wouldnt say god made it. You are trying to make god the only answer to a question that people like profersor penrose might have a natural answer for. Just like we have a natural answer for where the dog came from.Barnesy:
That’s what happens when people treat God as a scientific cause. But it does not follow that God is not a necessary reality by which physical reality exists. Just because some arguments are fundamentally wrong does not mean they are all wrong by default. And just because a universe is cyclical doesn’t mean that it is an uncaused-cause requiring no cause for it’s existence. That idea is not something that Penrose has argued, and neither is it an idea that can be justified scientifically.
So to say that God has nothing to add to a scientific theory is irrelevant and completely misunderstand what it means for a being like God to be a cause.
No i am not. I’m just not a metaphysical naturalist, because the universe, however you wish to imagine it, cyclical or not, does not have the attributes of a necessary being.
But you are the one who calls him the uncaused cause. If we find out there was no cause then the way you describe him doesnt fit any more. Its like saying hes the cause of that dog and there was no other cause. Well we know how dogs are made. God may be responsible in the end but he is not the cause of dogs. Nobody would say that. A cyclical universe doesnt mean god doesnt exist. It just means that the way you describe him doesnt work any more.Barnesy:
No i don’t, because your definition of God was a straw-man in the first place. And ignoring what has been said further solidifies my position and my opinion that you don’t really know what you are talking about.
And you are the one that doesn’t truly understand the meaning and is in a habit of conflating metaphysical absolutes with scientific inferences, something that Penrose doesn’t do.
Im not talking about religion or absolutes or anything. Im just pointing out that some clever people are saying that to say there is a cause for the universe is wrong. If they are right then it makes no sense to call god the cause of the universe just like it makes no sense to call him the cause of dogs. If you dont want to mix up science and god then you must not talk about both in the same place and you cant complain if other people answer your posts about science with more science. But thank you for listening to me even if you dont agree. And than you for the link to profersor penrose. I couldnt find it. At least i know some more about the subject now after talking about it.Barnesy:
And you are the one that doesn’t truly understand the meaning and is in a habit of conflating metaphysical absolutes with scientific inferences.
You are, you are making a metaphysical absolute out of Penroses hypothesis. You are basically saying that because physical reality does not have a physically defined beginning, that therefore it is by definition a self existing necessary being. You are saying that they are the same thing. But that does not follow true from Penroses theory and it does not follow logically or out of necessity. You are misrepresenting a theory because you don’t really understand whats being said.
So if we find out that profersor penrose is right and someone says what caused the universe then the answer would be what penrose has said. It would be the previous one because its a cycle. If you want to say that god is responsible for the cyle then thats fine if thats what you want to do. It would sound silly to say that something supernatural was the cause of something that we know was a natural cause. Just like if someone asked where did the dog come from and you said god made it.Barnesy:
You are, you are making a metaphysical absolute out of Penroses hypothesis. You are basically saying that because physical reality does not have a physically defined beginning, that therefore it is by definition a self existing necessary being, but that does not follow true from Penroses theory and it does not follow logically or out of necessity. You are misrepresenting a theory because you don’t really understand whats being said.
The fact that something doesn’t have a physically defined beginning does not mean that it doesn’t require a cause for it’s existence. That a thing is cyclical just means that it’s cyclical and only that. A circle might not have a beginning to it’s circumference but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t caused to exist.
You are ignoring what has been said. Thanks for the discussion.
Okay, I’ll take the discussion, because I’m well aware of where @Barnesy’s confusion lies.
The quantum field doesn’t need a cause. Reality arises out of the quantum field. And it’s reality that’s cyclical, but the field itself isn’t.
The field is fluctuating energy, it’s transformative. The universe doesn’t pop out of nothing, it comes out of the field. Lol
But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body — indeed, every particle in the Universe — is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics.
Now you’re the one that’s confused. The field never changes…EVER. You’re making the same mistake that skeptics of God make. They read the stories in the bible and conclude that God changes. But as we both know, God exists outside of time. So it’s only from our perspective that God appears to change, when in actuality He doesn’t.
Things come out of the fabric of the field itself, so it does change. I left a post with the link.
No, no, no. I don’t know what you think you know. Things do indeed emerge from the field, But it’s not that the field transforms into “stuff”. The “stuff” and the field are two completely separate things. That’s not just conjecture. I’ll go find the studies that demonstrate this if you need me to.
But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body — indeed, every particle in the Universe — is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics.
No problem. Facts don’t change whether you are here or not.
I haven’t got time to explain this to you at the moment, but it doesn’t imply what you think it implies.