O That the Atheist....

[Desk trauma]

Woe, woe, forevermore, be to the time-turning atheist, who hath one god and one religion for summer, and another god and another religion for winter

Atheists have zero gods.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Atheists have zero gods.

There are gods that are no gods. Whatever one gives their full attention to becomes their god. A wife or husband can be a god, an idol. Music is a lot of people's god. I know Rock n roll was my god in my teens. Drugs too, especially weed: and alcohol. Money is a big one: money is many people's god. Cars, sex, sports, Science... - any of these things, some not good nor evil in themselves can be a persons god.

Yahweh the Creator is God, and in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead is manifest bodily. It is He whom we must turn to and acknowledge as God, but even more so than mere acknowledgement, fall on our knees or on our faces in humility, as His Holy Spirit convicts of sin, and open our hearts that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm perusing through some of Samuel Rutherford's works and came across this!

"Woe, woe, forevermore, be to the time-turning atheist, who hath one god and one religion for summer, and another god and another religion for winter,

The problem with this statement: Atheists don't have any gods at all, certainly not different ones for each season.

From, To the Parishioners of Anwoth, from Aberdeen, 13 July 1637

I see that statements about atheists haven't improved in 400 years.

 

[Desk trauma]

Whatever one gives their full attention to becomes their god.

Nope.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are gods that are no gods.

This statement makes no sense, even if you clean it up to "there are gods that are *not* gods". It is a self-refuting statement or you are using two different definitions of gods.

Whatever one gives their full attention to becomes their god. A wife or husband can be a god, an idol. Music is a lot of people's god. I know Rock n roll was my god in my teens. Drugs too, especially weed: and alcohol. Money is a big one: money is many people's god. Cars, sex, sports, Science... - any of these things, some not good nor evil in themselves can be a persons god.

Good work diminishing the meaning of "god".

Yahweh the Creator is God, and in Jesus Christ the fullness of the Godhead is manifest bodily. It is He whom we must turn to and acknowledge as God, but even more so than mere acknowledgement, fall on our knees or on our faces in humility, as His Holy Spirit convicts of sin, and open our hearts that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

This is merely your personal theology, shared in large part with about 30% of all humans, but not with the other 70% of us.

 

[stevevw]

There is no need to assume that time, space, and fields didn't always exist.

OK well the pre existing void that is claimed to be nothing yet is something.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK well the pre existing void that is claimed to be nothing yet is something.

I know not of this void of which you speak.

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't change reality at all. Just changes our models of reality.

But it changes what reality means for us. At one point we thought for example we thought that human behaviour was determined by external conditioning. This influenced all our models of human behaviour. Then we discovered that the root of behaviour came from within. So this completely changed reality in how we seen human behaviour.

General Relativity is very complicated. In most circumstances scientists still use Newton's models, but when calculations need to include fast speeds, or gravity then they go to Einstein's models. For example GPS would be highly inaccurate under Newton's models.

I'm thinking of theories like BB, Inflation, String theory, evolutionary behaviour theories where they have added onto to to solve anomelies only to create even more anomelies and never really fitting the data.

But there are anomelies between Newtons and Eiensteins theoies such as the uniting problem between classical physics and QP which no one can overcome and which seems to lead to these complicated unscientific ideas like String theory. Whereas other ideas seem better suited and more simple but are rejected because they don't fit the material paradigm.

Was there ever a time when we didn't have time and space and energy? No one knows.

But thats just appealing to a different kind of God of the gaps in saying time and space and energy was always there. It also breaches the material paradigm that everything that exists has a beginning and a cause within the causal closure of the physical. But at some point there had to be something beyond the causal closure of the physical to begin the physical components that cause the material world.

Religious folk will say, Yes there was, and before all that was God, my God, the god of my religion with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.

What all religions are saying is the same thing that a god or entitity of force was beyond the material but created the material world. That they disagree on exactly which God is not the point. Its that they all have this innate belief that there is something beyond the material. We are born with this innate belief. It just gets hijacked by various cultures.

You will say, YES there was, and before that there were eternal minds, with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.
Scientists will say, there is no evidence of having no time, no space, no energy so it is unknown. What precedes is unknown. Is there a god poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim. Is there evidence of minds poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim.

But the material scientific paradigm's own logic, own methodology says that energy cannot create itself and has to come from somewhere. So it may not point to a specific god or gods at all (at least evidence wise) but it does point to something beyond time, speace, matter and energy.

So what else could it be if not any of these things but something beyond them. What could be beyond this that can create the energy and conditions that would give birth to our universe or any universe.

Sure

Nope, that isn't reasonable at all.
What is it made of?
What mechanism does it have to poof things into existence?
Or to move things?
or to change reality?
How can information and knowledge pre-exist existence? All it could possibly have is knowledge of nothing.

Well obviously the same question about what thoughts or infomration are made of. They are not made of physical stuff yet they are real and exist in the universe and can change things or birth new ideas that change our reality. So what mechanism would you call that in which non physical thoughts can have an influence on the physical world.

Why cannot that some idea by the original. That there was always a mind that exxxisted which contained all knowledge and that this was somehow expressed into existence just like we do. It seems I am not the only one who thinks this way and its got nothing to do with religion. Many scientists are looking to this fundemental idea as a simple and elegant way to united physics such as with Intergrated Information Theory orr Panpsychism.

Perhaps spacetime is eternal, perhaps there is a multiverse. answer = Unknown.

A multiverse just puts the inevitable problem of what caused the first state of conditions to create the multiverse. If spacetime is eternal wouldn't that breach our conceptions of time and entropy.

A thought is the inner workings of the brain. Conceptualising ideas, concepts don't physically exist, they are just tools and models used by conscious beings to think about things. Like a circle, it is just a concept. A circle doesn't exist.

I am not sure, they say that the Universe is Math. A circle has some real representation in nature. Certain equations make reality and patterns exist in nature like with the Madlebrot equation which defies human conceptions.

The math has always been there and we are just dicovering it through our conceptions and models. A thought or conception can exist forever and it can change the world when dicovered and used.

I feel you are falling for the same trap that many religion folk fall for. Getting confused between the idea of conceptual things vs physical things.

Behind all physical things are information, maths or concepts. WE create those concepts and models but they are discovered concepts that already existed fundementally. All physical behaviour that brings about changes in the world originates from the mind. Without them we would not have the same world and would be just meat puppets subject to electrical impulses and for forces of nature.

Nope. No one thinks something into reality.
If someone has an idea for a lightbulb, they have to physically get some metal and create a wire, get some acid and metal and create a battery, physically put it all together to create that lightbulb. There is nothing special about this. The mind isn't poofing a lightbulb into existence.

You missed the point. The idea in the first place comes from the mind. There would be no light bulb but for the mind. We could have been zombies that just driven to survive through their physical reactions and instincts.

But we have a mind that differentiates us from the wires and material components. The ideas that we can then make the light build is from Mind as well as it takes the mind to understand and utilize the materials, measure and make the light bulb.

No, that's not even close to what QM says.
They are saying that observation collapses the wave function. It's not creating the fields, it's not creating the particles, it's not creating or deciding upon the velocity or the position. You can't sit somewhere in USA with your eyes closed and think really hard and next minute a lightbulb turns on in China.

I don;t mean like that. But rather the observer may be through observations be collapsing the wave function. This may happen in an instant. The interface we see may be that collapse in real time always occuring as many oberverse are observing the same thing.

But still maintains a degree of subjectivity in that observers can have different perceptions of the same thing ie the famous dress or how from different positions we get different objective outcomes. Thus showing that there is no one fixed material reality but rather its a reflection that can vary from person to person to some degree.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Ifg Mind is behind all human conceptions of objective reality then why not the same logic apply for how objective reality came to be in the first place or at least that Mind is fundemental to objective reality. All we know is a direct experience of reality. Any conception about suff really existing outside our Mind cannot be directly verified. We could be a brain in a vat of in a simulation for all we know.

If you can't verify your idea, then throw it onto the trash heap of nonsense ideas. There are a very lot of those.
Thankfully we toss them aside and move on.

Why we cannot verify what conscious actually is, what its nature is or even measure it and never will and yet scientist hold onto an impossible to verify idea like its fact. Especially in the like that at least some of the ideas of consciousness beyond brain have good arguements and some evidence.

We cannot directly verify matter outside the Mind yet we don't throw it in the trash bin.

If you can't explain something then just put "Unknown" as a placeholder. No need to come up with an unverifiable idea of a god or mind abstract from physical reality. That's just being lazy, and presupposing something that you have no intent to find any evidence for.

The very idea of Mind and consciousness being fundemental comes from science itself. It comes from rational thinking about alternative ideas and what the data is saying. There are many good scientific ideas and arguements for MInd, Information and consciousness being fundemental. Here are just a few

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...

futurism.com

Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Is All About Observers
Whether you favor a Wheeler-ish universe where the act of observation creates reality by triggering a collapse from outside, or a Many-Worlds approach where individual perceptions subdivide a complex reality from within, observers are central to both the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations.
Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Is All About Observers

Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate

Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Uncovering the neural basis of consciousness is a major challenge to neuroscience. In this Perspective, Tononi and colleagues describe the integrated information theory of consciousness and how it might be used to answer outstanding questions about the nature of consciousness.

www.nature.com

Is the Universe Made of Math?

Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]

In this excerpt from his new book, Our Mathematical Universe, M.I.T. professor Max Tegmark explores the possibility that math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe

www.scientificamerican.com

A quantum physical argument for panpsychism
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9572/1/Shan_Gao_-_A_quantum_argument_for_panpsychism_2013.pdf

Quantum and Electromagnetic Fields in Our Universe and Brain: A New Perspective to Comprehend Brain Function
According to our new perspective on brain function, infinite waveless energy is an infinite frequency (energy) that is not related to time or space.
Quantum and Electromagnetic Fields in Our Universe and Brain: A New Perspective to Comprehend Brain Function

An Ontological Solution to the Mind-Body Problem
I have argued for a coherent idealist ontology that explains reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This idealist ontology also offers more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism, in that it does not fall prey to either the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ or the ‘subject combination
problem’, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: there is only universal consciousness.
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/philosophies/philosophies-02-00010/article_deploy/philosophies-02-00010.pdf?version=1492682089

The mind-blowing science behind how our brains shape reality
Social reality can even shape physical reality.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-mind-blowing-science-behind-how-our-brains-shape-reality/

So as you can see there is a variety of well supported ideas that are based on Mind and Consciousness being fundemental.

Sorry what?
You are saying knowledge comes from nature and the universe.
But then, didn't you say the mind had this knowledge from before the universe existed?

So obviouslt if the universe and everything is created by knowledge and information itself from a mind then we should expect to find that knowledge and information embedded in nature. We see this in ideas in how the universe fits so well with math (the Math Universe), or in how nature exibits certain patters for example that align with the Madelbrot set.

Tomas Edison was asked where he gets his ideas for his inventions and he said they come to him from the universe out there somewhere as I could not have imagined such things on my own, This is a common them in art and other areas. The idea of laws governing the universe speaks of information and knowledge behind what we see.

 

[stevevw]

I know not of this void of which you speak.

Don't physicists like Krausse and Dawkins for example claim that the void from which everything comes was actually nothing in the sense it was energy cancelling each other out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm thinking of theories like BB, Inflation, String theory, evolutionary behaviour theories where they have added onto to to solve anomelies only to create even more anomelies and never really fitting the data.

The Big Bang theory is a very well evidenced description of the expansion of the Universe from a previously hot-dense state to the present. It doesn't solve anomalies, nor does it create any, though it does put limits on what can be prior to the start of the current expansion of the Universe.

But there are anomelies between Newtons and Eiensteins theoies such as the uniting problem between classical physics and QP which no one can overcome and which seems to lead to these complicated unscientific ideas like String theory. Whereas other ideas seem better suited and more simple but are rejected because they don't fit the material paradigm.

Newton's laws of mechanics and motion are completely contained within Enstein's theories of relativity. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation that works perfectly fine in regimes we now call "non-relativistic" or "Newtonian".

Quantum mechanics is a separate theory, not related to either.

 

[stevevw]

The Big Bang theory is a very well evidenced description of the expansion of the Universe from a previously hot-dense state to the present. It doesn't solve anomalies, nor does it create any, though it does put limits on what can be prior to the start of the current expansion of the Universe.

It does create anomelies such as it violates the first law of thermodynamicsthe, Horizon, redshift anomelies, the lack of Lithium and Helium created by a super hot explosion in the early universe, the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction. The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

As telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.

The CMB is smooth on such large scales that , in a Big Bang there would be too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light.

To solve some of their anomelies other ideas like Dark matter and Inflation theory have been proposed but the list of anomelies is just as great as the BB teory. IT gets more complicated and not comprehensive and simple as theories should be.

Newton's laws of mechanics and motion are completely contained within Enstein's theories of relativity. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation that works perfectly fine in regimes we now call "non-relativistic" or "Newtonian".

Quantum mechanics is a separate theory, not related to either.

But don't they need to be united and that is the BIG problem are partly why alternative ideas like MInd and Consciousness being fundemental to solviog this riddle.

The subject and observer, the scientist themselves has to be incorporated into the equation. Any theory of Everything that excludes subject conscious experience will fall short.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It [BBT] does create anomelies such as

let's look at them one by one...

it violates the first law of thermodynamics

The Big Bang satisfies the laws of thermodynamics in an expanding space time. No violations.

the, Horizon,

Is not an anomaly at all. Finite age + finite speed of light = finite horizon.

redshift anomelies,

Don't know what you think these are. I'm not aware of any.

the lack of Lithium and Helium created by a super hot explosion in the early universe,

These are both predicted by BB nucleosynthesis and observed in stars, galaxies, and nebulae. (Also BB is not an explosion in the Universe, it is the *expansion OF the Universe*.)

the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction.

The Big Bang "prediction" (or rather fit to the data) shows that the "matter" in the Universe is only a few percent of total mass-energy needed to make the Universe "flat", but that is not billions of times. (Where are you getting these?)

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

The speed limit *inside* space time is the speed of light, but there is no limit on the growth rate in distance between points of spacetime from expansion.

As telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.

Not really. These are minor issues related to the galaxy and structure formation models.

The CMB is smooth on such large scales that , in a Big Bang there would be too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light.

And that's how we know the early expansion was very rapid.

To solve some of their anomelies other ideas like Dark matter and Inflation theory have been proposed but the list of anomelies is just as great as the BB teory.

Dark matter was not proposed to solve any problem with the Big Bang. Inflation actually arose from fundamental particle physics.

IT gets more complicated and not comprehensive and simple as theories should be.

I'm sorry the Universe isn't as simple as you'd like. (But the Universe isn't sorry.)

But don't they need to be united and that is the BIG problem are partly why alternative ideas like MInd and Consciousness being fundemental to solviog this riddle.

The subject and observer, the scientist themselves has to be incorporated into the equation. Any theory of Everything that excludes subject conscious experience will fall short.

That's not what a "theory of everything" is in physics. It is a theory that combines all of the forces into a single fundamental theory. Such theories are only usable at certain levels (for example the equivalent, usable theory of fields called the Standard Model is impossible to use in full for large objects like molecules. Approximations are made at all levels, dependent on the levels below.)

 

[Roderick Spode]

This is merely your personal theology, shared in large part with about 30% of all humans,

That many?

 

[Roderick Spode]

The atheist generally require physical/material evidence for any proposal, which can result in a big problem. Since the unseen spiritual realm is out of the question; when evidence is given for something beyond human capability, and defies the general pattern of nature, they have no choice but to accept it without the consideration of potential spiritual deception.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since the unseen spiritual realm is out of the question; when evidence is given for something beyond human capability, and defies the general pattern of nature,

If it's beyond human capability, no human can see it. How could humans possibly determine the truth about anything unseeable?

 

[Seb the Atheist]

But wasn't Thomas an Atheist, he questioned (not that I know the bible well). I did a quick search but Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version) seems to suggest that individuals who, despite not having been exposed to the specific teachings of Christianity, live according to moral principles and conscience may be judged favorably by God. It implies that God's judgment takes into account more than mere adherence to religious beliefs or practices. Which would make sense from a humane perspective as there might be instances where people with a mental handicap, unable to understand the word of Christ would not end up in hell right?
Not that I myself believe in a heaven or hell and if it does exist and I was somehow give a choice then I woud rather live in my favorite video game Skyrim.

 

[Roderick Spode]

If it's beyond human capability, no human can see it. How could humans possibly determine the truth about anything unseeable?

To give an example of what I meant by beyond human capability (as we know it); if someone or a group of people came along who were able to move objects with their mind, the atheist would have to acknowledge psychokinesis as a verifiable force due to witnessing it. They can assume the individual(s) has some unique mental abilities, but would not consider them having tapped into some unseen spiritual force, which could be deception based. Particularly if they presented some sort of ideology.

 

[Roderick Spode]

But wasn't Thomas an Atheist, he questioned (not that I know the bible well). I did a quick search but Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version) seems to suggest that individuals who, despite not having been exposed to the specific teachings of Christianity, live according to moral principles and conscience may be judged favorably by God. It implies that God's judgment takes into account more than mere adherence to religious beliefs or practices. Which would make sense from a humane perspective as there might be instances where people with a mental handicap, unable to understand the word of Christ would not end up in hell right?
Not that I myself believe in a heaven or hell and if it does exist and I was somehow give a choice then I woud rather live in my favorite video game Skyrim.

I don't think he was an atheist. All the disciples appeared to have a problem believing Christ was resurrected, including Peter who prior acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, Son of the living God. They all received their proof at some point after the resurrection. Thomas required more proof than some of the others.

 

[Seb the Atheist]

I don't think he was an atheist. All the disciples appeared to have a problem believing Christ was resurrected, including Peter who prior acknowledged Jesus as being the Christ, Son of the living God. They all received their proof at some point after the resurrection. Thomas required more proof than some of the others.

Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

"And now, where are the scoffers of these last days, who count the lives of Christians to be madness, and their end to be without honor? Unhappy men! you know not what you do. Were your eyes open and had you senses to discern spiritual things, you would not speak all manner of evil against the children of God, but you would esteem them as the excellent ones of the earth and envy their happiness. Your souls would hunger and thirst after it; you also would become fools for Christ’s sake. You boast of wisdom, so did the philosophers of Corinth—but your wisdom is the foolishness of folly in the sight of God.

What will your wisdom avail you, if it does not make you wise unto salvation? Can you, with all your wisdom, propose a more consistent scheme to build your hopes of salvation on, than what has been now laid down before you? Can you, with all the strength of natural reason, find out a better way of acceptance with God than by the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it right to think your own works can in any measure deserve or procure it?

If not, why will you not believe in Him? Why will you not submit to His righteousness? Can you deny that you are fallen creatures? Do not you find that you are full of disorders, and that these disorders make you unhappy? Do not you find that you cannot change your own hearts? Have you not resolved many and many a time, and have not your corruptions yet dominion over you? Are you not bond-slaves to your lust, and led captive by the devil at his will?

Why then will you not come to Christ for sanctification? Do you not desire to die the death of the righteous, and that your future state may be like theirs? I am persuaded you cannot bear the thought of being annihilated, much less of being miserable forever. Whatever you may pretend, if you speak truth, you must confess that conscience breaks in upon you in your more sober intervals, whether you will or not, and even constrains you to believe that hell is no painted fire. And why then will you not come to Christ? He alone can procure you everlasting redemption!

Haste, haste away to Him, poor beguiled sinners. You lack wisdom; ask it of Christ. Who knows but He may give it you? He is able, for He is the wisdom of the Father; He is that wisdom which was from everlasting. You have no righteousness; away, therefore, to Christ: He is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. You are unholy; flee to the Lord Jesus: He is full of grace and truth; and of His fullness, all may receive that believe in Him. You are as if afraid to die; let this drive you to Christ: He has the keys of death and hell. In Him is plenteous redemption; He alone can open the door that leads to everlasting life.

Let not, therefore, the deceived reasoner boast any longer of his pretended reason. Whatever you may think, it is the most unreasonable thing in the world not to believe on Jesus Christ, Whom God hath sent. Why, why will you die? Why will you not come unto Him that you may have life?" - George Whitefield