Thief
Rogue Theologian
diamonds are not complex
and the comparison to my post doesn't work
would a simple stone contain a spirit?
I've seen a movie where such an idea was the fulcrum point
maybe you saw the same movie?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Watchmaker Revisited
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
- Status
and the comparison to my post doesn't work
would a simple stone contain a spirit?
I've seen a movie where such an idea was the fulcrum point
maybe you saw the same movie?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
godnotgod
Thou art That
Adding a God to nature would be a supernatural condition.
You continue to force Reality to fit your conceptual models. But at least you're peristent....er...uh...I mean...consistent....doggedly so.
Moishe3rd
Yehudi
A Primitive Alien?
Cool.
The Science Folk vs. the Religious Folk sure seem to get all het up about humorous assumptions.
And y'all completely ignore the Alien (probably because he has no legal right to be here...).
So? Nu?
Why assume the dude is "primitive?"
It takes a very discerning mind to posit a Creator when all your Ugh and Ughette friends are mumbling "pretty rock" and ridiculing you when you try and explain it is obviously much more than a rock and must have been Created by Something Else!
They would probably tell you what a moron you were to believe that there was Something Else in This World besides the materially obvious.
"Prove it!" they'd say.
"WTF!?" you'd reply.
You want me to prove that this alien object which looks like nothing else we've ever seen; that functions in a way that is unlike anything we've ever seen, has a Creator and is not just some kind of rock!??
Oy.
Who's the freakin' moron, Ugh?
Fine.
It's just a rock... I'll stop bothering y'all with this obviously annoying idea of "Something Else" if y'all let me alone, stop tring to stone me, and don't make my investigations of this watch illegal!
Cool.
The Science Folk vs. the Religious Folk sure seem to get all het up about humorous assumptions.
And y'all completely ignore the Alien (probably because he has no legal right to be here...).
So? Nu?
Why assume the dude is "primitive?"
It takes a very discerning mind to posit a Creator when all your Ugh and Ughette friends are mumbling "pretty rock" and ridiculing you when you try and explain it is obviously much more than a rock and must have been Created by Something Else!
They would probably tell you what a moron you were to believe that there was Something Else in This World besides the materially obvious.
"Prove it!" they'd say.
"WTF!?" you'd reply.
You want me to prove that this alien object which looks like nothing else we've ever seen; that functions in a way that is unlike anything we've ever seen, has a Creator and is not just some kind of rock!??
Oy.
Who's the freakin' moron, Ugh?
Fine.
It's just a rock... I'll stop bothering y'all with this obviously annoying idea of "Something Else" if y'all let me alone, stop tring to stone me, and don't make my investigations of this watch illegal!
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yeah well.....God seems persistant
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It is, one must choose IMO where that spirit will be!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Logical fallacy here: "A more likely" argument, given as evidence. Perhaps we can take a vote at the forum and make this a full-on ad populum for you.
For your encore, prove natural process have no root Creator without infinite regression or taking a "most likely" view of pre-Planck time!
You've further made NO argument, since every person on Earth, including the born agains I know who walk in miracles, agree, MOST things are natural processes, and the rare supernatural event is . . . super.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yet a fallible human told us exactly what happened, from the horse's mouth, in Genesis 1. Start there.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
I was just giving my opinion, not a logical argument. In my opinion, natural explanations tend to be a better route for investigation than magical poofing. If you think my opinion is wrong, then please show me all of the discoveries we have made about the universe where magical poofing has been the verified cause.
For your encore, prove natural process have no root Creator without infinite regression or taking a "most likely" view of pre-Planck time!
A creator is your claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for this claim.
Great. Now, where is the evidence for these events?
Religious assertion of belief, and you are neglecting the objective verifiable evidence of science and the history of the Bible.
A horse did not write Genesis nor the Pentateuch, neither did one human. It is a compilation beginning with Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite cuneiform tablets and compiled and edited after 1,000 BCE by the evidence.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Oh! The "how did the OT come to be" discussion can end now. Thanks!
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
To me the watch maker idea of religious thinkers is what I call a "Top Down approach", intelligent design.
The grand designer makes a cozy little world and puts his windup toys on it, scatters some stars about, grabs some popcorn, and sits back and watches with humor as the little toys beat the hell out of themselves. (This logic begs the question who created God?).
Science on the other hand has shown that in our universe, a "Bottom Up approach" has actually vastly more evidence. "From little things, big things grow." (Quarks>>>Universe>>>Prokaryotic bacteria>>>Humans>>>?).
So there is a definite antithesis between the 2 concepts if one is right the other is wrong.
Cheers
The grand designer makes a cozy little world and puts his windup toys on it, scatters some stars about, grabs some popcorn, and sits back and watches with humor as the little toys beat the hell out of themselves. (This logic begs the question who created God?).
Science on the other hand has shown that in our universe, a "Bottom Up approach" has actually vastly more evidence. "From little things, big things grow." (Quarks>>>Universe>>>Prokaryotic bacteria>>>Humans>>>?).
So there is a definite antithesis between the 2 concepts if one is right the other is wrong.
Cheers
godnotgod
Thou art That
As regards the 'Bottom Up' approach, the hard question is how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious, while the 'Top Down' approach says that consciousness has always been the case, and what we think of as 'material reality' is simply a manifestation, but not a creation of that very consciousness. Now Quantum Physics comes along and finds that all particles in the Universe possess no actual 'materiality'; that all such 'particles' are none other than standing waves of energy, created by their surrounding fields.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Again the top down approach ie consciousness then matter.I still hold to bottom up. matter then consciousness, but its a cute concept.
Also, yes we are 99.9% vacant space with arrays of tiny spinning standing waves of energy holding us together, but you forgot to mention most of these standing waves also have a property called mass with its implications, spin and charge also become relevant, and don't you love Heisenberg and Schrodinger.
The individual atoms quantum world can be in amazingly variable and often unpredictable states, but as the entire state of a substance is the sum average of its constituent atoms, as the aggregate size increase, the substances behavior is averaged to a very predictable consistent form, we are now in the newtonian universe we are familiar with.
Finally if "how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious" is a hard question, I find the counter question even harder.
Cheers
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
I don't see why you bring "consciousness" into this. It seems to me that consciousness is the activity of a living brain, that's all. I see no reason to treat "consciousness" as a thing, an entity, when it refers to an activity of a physical structure. That is making a category error, in my view.
It is not accurate to say that QM treats matter as "standing waves of energy". It treats matter as having both a particle-like aspect and a wave-like aspect. That is rather different.
Energy is not a substance. You can't have a jug of "energy". Energy is just a property of a physical system (generally defined as the ability of the system to do work). The system has to exist first, in order for an amount of energy to be associated with it. You may perhaps have in mind the energy of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light or radio waves. But even then the energy is a property of the radiation (a physical system, comprising oscillating electric and magnetic fields). It is not correct to say the radiation "is" energy.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Is the TV signal the activity of a TV set, or does it exist independently of the hardware, being that which makes the TV set work?
A particle is not solid material; it is a standing wave, appearing as solid material.
Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave
Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:
Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.p.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C
Total internal energy E = Q2/C ... substitiuting for C, we get
Total internal energy E = Q2/(4.p.e0.r), Substitiuting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules
Using E=mc2, we get
Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.
This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.
The Particle: The new proposed atom model
Unknown to many of us, it is a fact that Einstein rejected the discrete point particle and stated that matter must be spherical entities extended in space. He writes:
"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
Erwin Schroedinger understood the requirements of particle structure when he wrote in 1937:
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just 'Schaumkronen'.
The Particle: The big flaws of the atom model
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is actually unintentionally hilarious. The author of the crank website has not realised that the classical electron radius is a calculated figure, based on exactly the derivation he uses! Here it is: Classical electron radius - Wikipedia
So this fool thinks he has made a discovery, using this so-called "classical radius" of the electron as an input, when in fact it is just the output number you get if you assume there is an electrostatic energy equivalent to its rest mass.
There is nothing about waves here at all, needless to say.
This is silly crank physics. Just goes to show how much rubbish is available nowadays on the internet.
Don't believe a word of it.
Last edited:
Hmmm...what do you mean by the term 'materiality'? Also, particles are NOT created by their 'surrounding' fields. The particles are the modes of the fields.
godnotgod
Thou art That
IOW, the particle mode is a function of it's respective field.
'materiality': solidity
godnotgod
Thou art That
This is actually unintentionally hilarious. The author of the crank website has not realised that the classical electron radius is a calculated figure, based on exactly the derivation he uses! Here it is: Classical electron radius - Wikipedia
So this fool thinks he has made a discovery, using this so-called "classical radius" of the electron as an input, when in fact it is just the output number you get if you assume there is an electrostatic energy equivalent to its rest mass.
There is nothing about waves here at all, needless to say.
This is silly crank physics. Just goes to show how much rubbish is available nowadays on the internet.
Don't believe a word of it.
This idea is on other sites as well. I have sent your response to Blaze Labs. We'll see what response we get, OK?
- Status