tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post4845208412820207836..comments2024-03-29T01:45:45.002+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Debate - The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-89855273456901387472019-01-11T10:13:11.323+00:002019-01-11T10:13:11.323+00:00What exactly IS 'immaterial information', ...What exactly IS 'immaterial information', please?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-7336319227451004332018-08-25T23:22:21.944+01:002018-08-25T23:22:21.944+01:00The presence of uncaused events at the quantum lev...The presence of uncaused events at the quantum level abolished the KCA argument that all events need a cause. Sorry, but your fox has been shot. I can understand your bereavement but the KCA is as dead as the dodo. Denial won't bring it back to life.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-18405849724196204772018-08-25T23:18:03.995+01:002018-08-25T23:18:03.995+01:00They describe what scientists observe to happen. ...They describe what scientists observe to happen. I don't understand the problem here. Sorry if you want a different definition so you have a place for your god, but that's not the way it works.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-52091900125664079242018-08-25T16:04:44.483+01:002018-08-25T16:04:44.483+01:00The (potentially) stochastic nature of individual ...The (potentially) stochastic nature of individual quantum events by no means disproves the universally accepted recognition that all that begins to exist has a cause or a set of causes. To believe otherwise is to believe in magic.Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40867870757087999162018-08-25T16:03:12.163+01:002018-08-25T16:03:12.163+01:00Our laws of nature are descriptive. But what are t...Our laws of nature are descriptive. But what are they describing? Something or someone * prescriptively makes* all the atoms in the universe do what they do. This prescriptive action is being described by our laws of nature.Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-16774803699894175072018-08-12T18:16:09.190+01:002018-08-12T18:16:09.190+01:00@Rosa Rubicondior (Bill Hounslow): Have you seen t...@Rosa Rubicondior (Bill Hounslow): Have you seen this article written by Paul Anlee: https://www.paulanlee.com/2018/01/09/who-is-this-god-we-dont-believe-in/ ? Helmer von Helvetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02136543309048013677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-56973175988964598902018-08-12T17:52:57.933+01:002018-08-12T17:52:57.933+01:00>yes, our formulation of them is descriptive<...>yes, our formulation of them is descriptive< So you knew your question deliberately confused descriptive scientific laws and man-made prescriptive and proscriptive laws then. You knew very well that the answer to 'Who made the laws of MQ?' was scientists, who write down their observations and call them laws. <br /><br />So why did you ask it? Who were you trying to fool?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-84752289963348574232018-08-12T17:48:01.348+01:002018-08-12T17:48:01.348+01:00The point I dealt with, as I did in the debate abo...The point I dealt with, as I did in the debate above, as you would have seen had you read it, was the fact that at the quantum level events do not necessarily have a cause, hence to base your argument on the claim that ALL events must have a cause, as the KCA does, is fallacious.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, by the way, which says that quantum duality resolves when observed and thus reality may be due to our perception of it. <br /><br />You might do better if you read the debate above and stopped hopefully stabbing in the dark, gambling on readers not understanding things like Copenhagen Interpretation and uncause quantum events.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-7163639816951956182018-08-11T14:41:51.403+01:002018-08-11T14:41:51.403+01:00The complexity of the creative entity is irrelevan...The complexity of the creative entity is irrelevant, and for several reasons.<br /><br />First, if the creative entity turns out to be multiverse, this universe-generating machine would be far more complex than our universe. Yet, scientists do not discard the multiverse hypothesis based on its purported complexity. Why do we do that with God?<br /><br />Second, I don't need to *deal* with where this (supposedly) complex entity comes from. If that's where the evidence leads, that's where the evidence leads. I cannot discard a plausible explanation only because I cannot fully explain its origin.<br /><br />Third, again, God does not "come from anywhere." Words like "come," "from," and "anywhere" are time- and space-bound. We know from relativity that time and space are not absolute; they are dimensions of our universe. If relativity is correct (so far it has been), there is no time and space without our universe, which means that the creative entity of our universe is time-less, space-lesss, matter-less; it's eternal and immaterial.<br /><br />Fourth, we don't know that the creative entity of the uiverse is complex. Complex is a vague term. According to digital physicists and philosophers, God is simple; He's not comprised of parts and is the conscious equivalent of Conway's game of life. https://www.wired.com/2002/12/holytech/Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-44137534368186008792018-08-11T14:31:08.097+01:002018-08-11T14:31:08.097+01:00You didn't answer any of my six points. Quantu...You didn't answer any of my six points. Quantum events may be uncaused (if the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is correct), or we might not yet know what causes them, but extrapolating that, since quantum events may be uncaused, therefore they created the universe is unwarranted. It's also special pleading; we have quantum events today. Why doesn't stuff pop into existence uncaused?<br /><br />Please also read my other objections above.<br /><br />As for the laws of nature, yes, our formulation of them is descriptive, but descriptive of what? Something *makes* matter interact. As cosmologist Joel Primack once asked physicist Neil Turok, "What is it that *makes* the electrons continue to follow the laws?"<br /><br />Whatever it is that *makes* matter interact, that *makes* atoms follow the laws, that *governs* that relationship of matter and energy started at the moment of the Big Bang. It had no time to evolve (and how would properties of matter and energy evolve exactly anyway?). Where do these properties described by our laws of nature come from exactly?Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-62432609726855960512018-08-11T10:18:09.667+01:002018-08-11T10:18:09.667+01:00>The complexity of the creative entity (whether...>The complexity of the creative entity (whether it's God or a multiverse or other) is irrelevant.<<br /><br />We'', if you can declare any creative entity's complexity to be irrelevant so you can avoid dealing with where it came from, then so can I, but grown-ups don't claim special privileges and exemptions and special lower standards for their argument. Special pleading debased your argument and the need for it debases you god which is reduced to needing lower standards than you demand of science so it can compete.<br /><br />So, now try for a grown-up answer and using the same standards you would expect of science, please explain how a creative entity with enough complexity to micromanage a universe arose from nothing please. In other words explain what you demand science explains in your KCA. Who or what caused your god, please.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-75711046339281306792018-08-11T10:09:31.405+01:002018-08-11T10:09:31.405+01:00Ah! You didn't read the debate above that you...Ah! You didn't read the debate above that you are purporting to comment on did you, otherwise you wouldn't be trying refuted arguments. The argument you are avoiding is the fact that quantum events can be and frequently are uncaused, therefore, since the BB was a quantum event the assumption in the KCA that there must have been a cause is invalid.<br /><br />On your invented problem of where the laws came from, you are trying the sleight of hand of pretending scientific laws ate proscriptive or prescriptive; they re neither, they are descriptive. They describe how matter interacts; they do not compel it to interact. In a singularity of course there is nothing else for the singularity to interact with therefore there are no descriptive laws. <br /><br />Have you anything other than assertions which are contradicted by evidence and fallacies which are nothing more than a play on words designed to mislead?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-65615681141753637242018-08-10T22:59:18.153+01:002018-08-10T22:59:18.153+01:001. The complexity of the creative entity (whether ...1. The complexity of the creative entity (whether it's God or a multiverse or other) is irrelevant. One needs to go where the evidence leads.<br /><br />2. Phislosophically, God is not infinitely complex. On the contrary. https://www.wired.com/2002/12/holytech/<br /><br />3. God does not pop from nowhere and is not made of nothing. Space- and time-related concepts like "popping up," "from," and "nowhere" are meaningless when it comes to God because God is not a being of time, space, or matter. We are time- and space-bound creatures and find it difficult to conceptualize and verbalize the idea of a Being who is pure existence, beyond time, space, and matter, but that's where the evidence from science, logic, and philosophy leads.<br /><br />4. God is also the best explanation for timeless and immaterial concepts like math and logic. https://creation.com/god-and-logic<br /><br />5. Theists are not the only ones who have theorized a (philosophically) simple entity behind the universe. Some atheists have proposed Conway's Game of Life as a God-less alternative (also mentioned at the end of the above article God is the Machine). The problem with Conway's Game of Life is that it still requires a Conway, so to speak.In fact, a game (or a computer simulation) requires a developer, a software program, and a computing device. In the case of the spacetime continuum we call universe, this trinity [developer/OS/computing devices] is one immaterial, spaceless, timeless entity.Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-60916952314366634142018-08-10T22:17:04.468+01:002018-08-10T22:17:04.468+01:001. Quantum indeterminacy is specific to the Copenh...1. Quantum indeterminacy is specific to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is only one of many interpretation of the theory.<br /><br />2. Even if QM indeterminacy were to be confirmed, concludig in such a facile way that it can build a uinverse is an unwarranted extrapolation.<br /><br />3. If QM indeterminacy can build universe, why don't we observe that today? We have had QM indeterminacy for the past 14 billion years. Why only one universe? Where are all the others?<br /><br />4. QM or Quantum Physics is, well, physics, which is Greek for nature. QM cannot create nature because it depends on nature and is part of nature. It's just how nature works at its smallest scale.<br /><br />5. If QM and its laws ontologically precede nature in order to create nature, and since nature is spacetime and matter, then, paraphrasing physicist Gerald Schroeder, we have non-physical laws of QM outside of space and time, creating a universe. This description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe.<br /><br />6. Where do the laws of QM come from exactly?Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-14715007135844663762018-07-31T17:32:57.959+01:002018-07-31T17:32:57.959+01:00Evidently you've chose to remain ignorant of u...Evidently you've chose to remain ignorant of uncaused quantum events, which are well documented. As I point out in the debate, the BB was of course an event at the QM level and thus does not require a cause. This is fully explained in the debate which you probably haven't read.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-72410879783084453082018-07-31T17:23:43.187+01:002018-07-31T17:23:43.187+01:00IOW, he 'created' it from nothing that you...IOW, he 'created' it from nothing that you thought up another phrase for. <br /><br />You'll need to explain why an unproven entity of infinite complexity popping up from nowhere and made of nothing, creating everything out of nothing is the most reasonable conclusion when common sense should tell you that it is the least reasonable conclusion.<br /><br />Your wishful thinking doesn't change the logic.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-66431575540504234902018-07-11T01:02:27.879+01:002018-07-11T01:02:27.879+01:00Richard is right.
P1. Everything that begins to e...Richard is right.<br /><br />P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (or a set of causes, if you prefer).<br />P2. Nature began to exist.<br />C. Nature has a cause (or a set of causes).<br /><br />P1. Quantum physics is irrelevant to the origin of nature beause it is part of nature (physis in Greek); that's why it's called quantum "physics." If it is physics, it cannot have created physics (physis = natura = nature = universe = STEM or spacetime, energy, matter). <br /><br />Theories that the universe is a product of quantum fluctuations have two big problems. First, they are assuming that quantum fluctuations can produce something as big as the universe; we have no empirical evidence whatsoever of this. Why don't they do this now? Second, quantum fluctuations presuppose that there is something to fluctuate. They need space, time, matter-antimatter potential, and laws of quantum physics. It's a far, far cry from nothing. <br /><br />The concept of a "universe from nothing," popularized by scientists like Krauss, is an assault to reason, and it was rightly ridiculed by other scientists like David Albert (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html) and Massimo Pigliucci (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html) and philosophers like Brian Leiter (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/04/lawrencekrauss.html).<br /> <br />A third problem is the belief that quantum physics is acausal. This is simply false. Radioactive decay is not acausal; it's constrained by physicial actualities and internal potentialities and is governed by the laws of QM. The fact that we don't yet know what causes it does not mean it's uncaused. To reach that conclusios is an argument from ignorance.<br /><br />P2. Undisputed. Our best cosmological model points to a begininng of the universe, of spacetime itself; therefore, unless we believe in magic, the universe had a cause or a set of causes. <br /><br />C. Therefore the universe had a cause or a set of causes. This follows necessarily from the premises, which are both correct. This cause is either natural or supernatural, where supernatural means beyond natural or meta (beyond) physical (natural). Science alone is unable (and will probably always be unable) to tell us whether the cause is natural or supernatural, but the most reasonable conclusion from the scientific evidence available to us is that this cause is intelligent. How do we know that? The fact that at t=0 the universe had an inflation rate as precise as one part in 10^24, started in an extraordinarily low state of entropy, and was immediately governed by precise mathematical and chemical parameters, all point to intelligence as the best explanation from the evidence.<br /><br />Of the two causal options for the universe (natural or supernatural), the supernatural is the more parsimonious one, since the natural option only pushes the problem back one stage and does not answer the questions about the origin of the laws of physics for "their" universe, the origin of their genetic code, their consciousness, etc. It's basically the problem of panspermia applied to the entire universe; it only pushes the problem back one stage.<br />Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-4286674307147294822018-07-10T22:33:42.939+01:002018-07-10T22:33:42.939+01:00God did not create the universe from nothing. He c...God did not create the universe from nothing. He created it from "no (material) thing"<br />The most reasonable conclusion is that God created the universe from immaterial information.<br />https://www.wired.com/2002/12/holytech/Francescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13212594135507465553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-603361965075387672016-02-02T20:43:06.264+00:002016-02-02T20:43:06.264+00:00Sorry but I've no idea what that means. Which...Sorry but I've no idea what that means. Which god are you talking about and how did you detect it, please?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-49571366395042350562016-02-02T19:03:45.159+00:002016-02-02T19:03:45.159+00:00Logically complete cosmological concept. /due to l...Logically complete cosmological concept. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/ <br /> <br />In order to present the unlimited space originally:<br />1. homogeneous - enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with Simple and Complex /closed systematically/<br /> 2. heterogeneous - enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element - the Most High and Almighty God - with open systematically.<br />It is easy to assume that even at the lowest possible deployment of the intangible component of the essence of God - the Spirit of God - for the level of the original downwardly directed the permanent deployment of the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of Simple and Complex /i.e.. It is their decay due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy intangible components of the entity / as much as possible heterogeneous to God's essence minimum possible number of cell uniformity (1H), and God on the basis of the material components of the 1H deploys the minimum possible heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerically elemental homogeneity (2H). Coagulation process will begin in 2H known God start time since the completion of its deployment. curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds 1H - God potential for transformation 1H into 2H and 1H into 2H limitless!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239336251830934876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-46424509303394416212015-06-13T04:03:51.047+01:002015-06-13T04:03:51.047+01:00This debate was better than the debates I have act...This debate was better than the debates I have actually. When I assert the uncertainty principle and radioactive decays in a particle, the opponents of mine usually begin to laugh, as though they have never heard it before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-1916679428530783802014-08-13T19:44:53.466+01:002014-08-13T19:44:53.466+01:00Thanks. I can confirm that I am not a consort of Y...Thanks. I can confirm that I am not a consort of Yahweh. :-) Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-51103474291216885552014-08-13T19:11:40.655+01:002014-08-13T19:11:40.655+01:00I'm deeply impressed, Rosa, by your polyhistor...I'm deeply impressed, Rosa, by your polyhistor-like knowledge. Furthermore you're very good at making complex scientific data/facts accessible for most of us (of course with the exception of creationists). <br /><br />Not even school teachers have always got that broad & deep knowledge and the talent to pass the information on to others. So sometimes I wonder if you maybe are an incarnation of Ashera; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#In_Israel_and_Judah . But tell me, Rosa, if you really are Asherah, consort of Yahweh, why don't you believe in Him? ;)Helmer von Helvetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02136543309048013677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-63098795635902039852013-08-18T11:45:57.593+01:002013-08-18T11:45:57.593+01:00I think that may very well be the case. It's a...I think that may very well be the case. It's a shame really because if it were not for the intellectual dishonesty, he'd be a worthy intellect.darqmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14441186525417484953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-76719786165456523722013-08-18T11:39:24.817+01:002013-08-18T11:39:24.817+01:00I'm beginning to wonder if Richard's tacti...I'm beginning to wonder if Richard's tactic is to keep challenging people to debates in the hope that he'll eventually find someone who doesn't refute his arguments, so he can claim to have won and therefore proved his claim. <br /><br />It's a bit like the creationist who keeps asking the same questions about evolution and ignoring the answers. A kind of last-man-standing debate technique used by those who think the last player to leave the ballpark has won the game regardless of the actual score.<br /><br />It seems particularly infantile to me.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.com