Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ben Masada

Things God Did Not Create

1,940 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ben Masada

I was talking about the collapse of a wave function, not a universe. When the universe began expanding it was at such a small state it was subject to quantum effects. It would have existed as a wave function prior to its collapse into defined particles. Now the universe may have Ben observed measured by a god to collapse, or as experimentation shows us it could have been measured by us, or basically the existing universe. Since things only manifest from quantum fields when they need to and it's irrelevant of time I'd say the universe needs to be here so you can be born. It's entirely possible that the universe created itself from simple potentiality.

I know tangled hierarchies are difficult to grasp but the quantum world does not behave in the liner way that we think, and the universe definantly once occupied a quantum state. It's also pretty consistent with super symmetry, and if super symmetry happens to be closer to the truth there are a lot of scientists that think this could be evidence for god, because the cosmological constant is so perfectly aligned. If there are multiverses however then we are just one universe amoung many with different constants. The large hadron collider was supposed to give us this answer when it confirmed the Higgs boson. If the mass of the Higgs was a high number 140 I think the universe was mare likely to exist amoung multiverses if it was like 115 ( I think) it was more likely to be super Semetrial. It turned out it was smack in the middle at 125 so it could go either way. Either way way dont need a creation god, now a coexisting god, or a universal produced god is entirely possible. It's even possible that another universe produced a god capable of producing other universes. Maybe like procreation. But the point is that science dosn't need a creation god so bringing it to a scientific or logical discussion is pointless, because all data tells us that its not needed. Faith on the other hand it's fine. Just because its not needed dosnt mean there is not a much more complicated level of creation behind it all where god resides. But those levels of reality are scientifically beyond us at the moment.

Sorry WCF, but yours is just another post that you would not have printed after reading Einstein's last book, "Out of My Later Years."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Davros of Skaro

See what I mean? You did as I bid you, shot the gun and hit the target in the bull's eye. I agree with you. I also believe that Ezra was the

one who codified the Tanach to what we have today.

You look to be under some delusion that you guided me for some reason?

Anyway, you have Mashiach Cyrus to thank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Sorry WCF, but yours is just another post that you would not have printed after reading Einstein's last book, "Out of My Later Years."

Yes it is. I don't guruify scientists. Einstein was incredible and I know he did not like quantum mechanics. "God Dosnt play dice with the universe." This is his famous mis interpreted sentence.

In fact Einstein was often wrong about stuff and he would be the first to Tell you this, so are all theoretical physicists. He did not believe his own prediction of black holes either, but guess what, they are proven to exist.

Let me explain a little more. There are two branches of physics. Theoretical physics and experimental physics. They rely upon each other. Theorists are the think tanks. They come up with the theory's while the experimental physicists test them to see if they might be true. They are more technical. Not even the theorist himself thinks he is right ( at least not supposed to) until their theories are confirmed by experiment. This process played out a few years ago. When the Higgs was discovered many good scientists found out they had been on the wrong path some of them for their whole careers. Sure it's not fun to find that out, but they are not bad scientists, they don't loose their jobs, and they now must incorporate the new evidence into new theories. If Einstein were alive today he would be forced to accept the validity of what we know about quantum mechanics. We know it exists and can even build devices relying on it. Light switch dimmers are based off of quantum tunneling, there are new security systems being developed that ensure knowledge of a breach that are "infallible". We know that the sun shines because of QM. It's core is to cool for fusion to take place. The rest of the energy is supplied by tunneling from outside the core. There many verified and repeatable experiments that QM theorists predicted and the experiments confirmed. In science this is the holy grail of a theory.

As I mentioned before Einstein predicted black holes, he did not believe that they existed because it violated his sense of order for the universe (a fault in physics). Then latter they were confirmed to exist. He also predicted the "cosmological constant", something that for years and years was thought to be an error. Even Einstein stopped assuming it. Why? Because there was no experimental evidence for it. Then wow!!! It turns out that there is something like it. To bad Einstein is not around to see. But this points to Einstein as being a real physicist and following his nose only as far as he can follow the evidence. This is how science works.

Qm is a verified description of how things behave at there very small, relativity is a verified description of how things behave above quantum scales. By verified I mean we KNOW that things behave this way because the descriptions predict that certain things should happen if they are right, then those things are tested and what do you know? They are right. The casimeer effect the jhosephson junction, delayed choice quantum eraser, and others all variety the validity of quantum behavior.

Now Einstein would probably suspect that there is something going on a deeper level that fit his sensibilities a little better. As do I, but we may never be able to discover this. This isn't science though, and Einstein would chastise you for suggesting otherwise.

It's important to understand the difference between science and philosophy. They go hand and hand even to the point that science is built off of a philosophy, but they are still different. It's in these nuances that we realize that logic can be wrong regardless of its strength, math is just numbers, and yes even Einstein can, was, and will be wrong sometimes. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

You look to be under some delusion that you guided me for some reason?

Anyway, you have Mashiach Cyrus to thank.

I think you mean that "I seem to be..." in your opinion under some delusion. To look sounds like you see that I look like I am under...

Anyway, Cyrus was not Maschiach but a Messianic political figure for having proclaimed freedom for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel and for having financed the rebuilding of the Temple. He was a good Gentile king though. A little confused but because he was not aware of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 years of exile of the Jews to Babylon and tried to liberate the Jews 26 years short of total fulfillment.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Yes it is. I don't guruify scientists. Einstein was incredible and I know he did not like quantum mechanics. "God Dosnt play dice with the universe." This is his famous mis interpreted sentence.

What in your opinion was in Einstein's mind when he let go that statement, "God does not play dice with the universe?" You claim to have been a misinterpretation of his words. What would be the right interpretation of what he meant to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Id3al Experience

What in your opinion was in Einstein's mind when he let go that statement, "God does not play dice with the universe?" You claim to have been a misinterpretation of his words. What would be the right interpretation of what he meant to say?

My representation on that statement was that he could not see based on observation and his theory of relativity that the universe as a series of random events.

But since then we have had better technology such as the LHC in switz which has proven many theorys of this bizzare physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

My representation on that statement was that he could not see based on observation and his theory of relativity that the universe as a series of random events.

But since then we have had better technology such as the LHC in switz which has proven many theorys of this bizzare physics.

Okay but, my issue with atheists in this forum is not about the expansion of the universe which I am aware of, and what constitutes the reason for the series of random events but the beginning; what caused the beginning of the universe. Since the universe could not have caused itself to exist, I am trying to see if there is room for the Primal Cause to explain the origin of the universe.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

What in your opinion was in Einstein's mind when he let go that statement, "God does not play dice with the universe?" You claim to have been a misinterpretation of his words. What would be the right interpretation of what he meant to say?

You have to put it into context.

He was debating with Niels Bohr one of the founders of QM in which Bohr responded by saying "stop telling god what to do". Neither of them were haveing a theological discussion. ;)

Einstein is also quoted as saying

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and action of men."

Quite obviously, at least at this time, he had a philosophical problem with what QM was beginning to show us. Spinozas god is a deterministic universe, and QM is certainly not ( at least at this time) deterministic.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

You have to put it into context.

He was debating with Niels Bohr one of the founders of QM in which Bohr responded by saying "stop telling god what to do". Neither of them were haveing a theological discussion. ;)

Einstein is also quoted as saying

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and action of men."

Quite obviously, at least at this time, he had a philosophical problem with what QM was beginning to show us. Spinozas god is a deterministic universe, and QM is certainly not ( at least at this time) deterministic.

Yes, I am aware of Einstein's quote that he believed in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and action of men.

How is the above statement different from Psalm 19:1 that, "The universe declares the glory of God and shows His handiwork?" That's one way for God to reveal Himself to man. I am also of the same opinion of both Einstein and Spinoza that God does not strike a personal relationship with man. We can establish a personal relationship with God as long as we don't expect the Divine feedback on a personal basis.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Yes, I am aware of Einstein's quote that he believed in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and action of men.

How is the above statement different from Psalm 19:1 that, "The universe declares the glory of God and shows His handiwork?" That's one way for God to reveal Himself to man. I am also of the same opinion of both Einstein and Spinoza that God does not strike a personal relationship with man. We can establish a personal relationship with God as long as we don't expect the Divine feedback on a personal basis.

Well what can I say. I agree also. But that dosn't mean god can't be personal if it wants to.

The point was the context of the argument between Bohr and Einstein was a scientific discussion and Bohr was pointing out to Einstein that he is adding his philosophy into science which is a no no. Which is fairly egoic of Einstein but that's common for successful physicists who are usually right.

The misinterpretation and misuse by many theists is evident. Spinoza's god is really about the unity of the universe and is also deterministic, they way Einstein believed, everything is. A deterministic universe has no free will in it or no room for random events. Einstein is proven to be wrong on this a and Bohr right by accepted scientific evidence. Of course beneath it all it could be deterministic, but as of the evidence now. It's not.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Well what can I say. I agree also. But that dosn't mean god can't be personal if it wants to.

The point was the context of the argument between Bohr and Einstein was a scientific discussion and Bohr was pointing out to Einstein that he is adding his philosophy into science which is a no no. Which is fairly egoic of Einstein but that's common for successful physicists who are usually right.

The misinterpretation and misuse by many theists is evident. Spinoza's god is really about the unity of the universe and is also deterministic, they way Einstein believed, everything is. A deterministic universe has no free will in it or no room for random events. Einstein is proven to be wrong on this a and Bohr right by accepted scientific evidence. Of course beneath it all it could be deterministic, but as of the evidence now. It's not.

God can be any thing and every thing but one: The thing you wish he were or should have been. Now, to get personal with man, I don't believe He does as Einstein and Spinoza didn't believe it either.

I can see why you guys must have a problem with religion but why include Philosophy? The major of the man responsible for the theory that the universe has always existed was Philosophy. I am talking about Aristotle. But then again the major of the man responsible for the death of the Aristotelian theory for the eternity of the universe was Theology. I am talking about George Lemaitre.

Regarding Determinism vs. Freewill, I think freewill is of the individual and determinism of the people, the community. And both are observed only among intelligent life as opposite to animals who live by instinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

God can be any thing and every thing but one: The thing you wish he were or should have been. Now, to get personal with man, I don't believe He does as Einstein and Spinoza didn't believe it either.

I can see why you guys must have a problem with religion but why include Philosophy? The major of the man responsible for the theory that the universe has always existed was Philosophy. I am talking about Aristotle. But then again the major of the man responsible for the death of the Aristotelian theory for the eternity of the universe was Theology. I am talking about George Lemaitre.

Regarding Determinism vs. Freewill, I think freewill is of the individual and determinism of the people, the community. And both are observed only among intelligent life as opposite to animals who live by instinct.

Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ben Masada

Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

Even science is built upon physicalist philosophy, that's why non physical interpretations don't belong in physics. Even if its true that there is a non physical reality. Font get me wrong, per fondly I think there is one, but when we talk physics we are confined by the philosophy of the subject, but ill be the first to tell you science had fine such a good job that if us hinting at transcending the philosophy it is built upon. But applying a personal philosophy to interpretation is a mistake. :) at least when speaking purely about physics.

Wow! So, that's where Physics took that method of "non-physical interpretations don't belong in Physics." It does make sense, even in spite that Science is built upon the physical concept of Philosophy. Now, I can understand a little better why atheists in general find so hard to understand the concept of Logic which is of the realm of Philosophy. On the other hand, they reject Logic because the system of theories could never be based on Logic given the connotation of "guesses" as the essence of theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Wow! So, that's where Physics took that method of "non-physical interpretations don't belong in Physics." It does make sense, even in spite that Science is built upon the physical concept of Philosophy. Now, I can understand a little better why atheists in general find so hard to understand the concept of Logic which is of the realm of Philosophy. On the other hand, they reject Logic because the system of theories could never be based on Logic given the connotation of "guesses" as the essence of theories.

Yes. You are correct. Many atheists ( not all ) have adopted a fundamentalist attitude toward empiricism. While I understand why, it's fairly illogical to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are indeed other kinds of evidence that maybe not as reliable can add up to quite a bit of non mathematical certainty. This is ground that is forbidden for the empirical fundamentalist. Yes. It's very much a dogma. You would be interested In Carl Jung's book " The Undiscovered Self".

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Yes. You are correct. Many atheists ( not all ) have adopted a fundamentalist attitude toward empiricism. While I understand why, it's fairly illogical to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are indeed other kinds of evidence that maybe not as reliable can add up to quite a bit of non mathematical certainty. This is ground that is forbidden for the empirical fundamentalist. Yes. It's very much a dogma. You would be interested In Carl Jung's book " The Undiscovered Self".

I have read Carl Jung, what do you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.