"I don't like even being around them"

[Justadude]

"speaking in tongues"

LOL....apparently my conversation with @amadeus is over. I just hope we both came away with a better understanding of each other's POV.

 

[bbyrd009]

LOL....apparently my conversation with @amadeus is over. I just hope we both came away with a better understanding of each other's POV.

ah well i am sorry if i was meant to interpret there, as i now suspect is possible

 

[Philip James]

You've forgotten why this came up in the first place. Remember, you asked if it was reasonable if "we define 'God' as that first cause on which the entire universe depends". I replied by asking if it turned out that a quantum fluctuation was the "first cause", would you refer to that as "god".

I haven't forgotten. Indeed i have been pointing our that a quantum fluctuation cannot be the first cause, but may indeed be am action of the first cause.

The idea that a quantum fracture cam occur presupposes some quantum field or state from which the fracture proceeds..

We can speculate that such an eternal quantum state may im fact 'be' but we have no way of determining that.

That a such an eternal first cause must exist is exactly my point

Here's something i thought you might en
Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Peace!

 

[amadeus]

I think I've identified one of the main factors behind some of the disconnect between us.
Like many others here, you've had a spiritual experience that was deeply meaningful for you. That last part is the key....it was meaningful for you. You've derived many of your beliefs about the world, God, and reality from that personal spiritual experience. But the thing is, the whole construct is entirely subjective. Your beliefs only make sense in light of your personal experience and revelation. You acknowledged that your beliefs are circular and illogical, unless one has gone through the same sort of spiritual experience/revelation as you. So your beliefs about the world, God, and reality are all dependent on those personal experiences, which means they are subjective by definition.

And before I get too far with this, let me be clear....just because they're subjective doesn't mean they're not true or real. They are certainly true and real for you, in the same way a person thinks a type of food is "delicious". Is that true? It is for them, even though it isn't true for others.

The disconnect comes when I see you speak about those subjective beliefs as if they are objective reality. It's no different than if someone who thinks fermented duck eggs are delicious tells me that the truth is that they are delicious and if I don't agree then I'm somehow "limited", "missing something", or otherwise lacking.

I'll show some examples of what I'm talking about....

That's all entirely subjective (i.e., dependent on your experiences and beliefs), yet you present them as if they were objective truths.

You've been trying to draw objective conclusions from subjective experiences.

I understand that and I think we'd be fine as long as we both understand and agree that "What God has put in my heart" is a subjective experience, unique only to you.

Since we both agree that humans do delude themselves into believing things that aren't true, did you ever consider the possibility that your spiritual experiences were the product of self-delusion?

You state that as if it were objectively true, even though it's entirely subjective. "Fermented duck eggs never taste bad, which is why I try and eat one every day."

Do you appreciate how because those are all subjective beliefs based on your personal experiences, they are not meaningful to me?

That's much better IMO. You qualify your statements with "as I understand it" and "I believe".

Yes, because it is entirely subjective and based on personal belief. You believe that I'm wrong in the same way the person who likes fermented duck eggs believes I'm wrong when I say they taste gross to me.

Right, because your answers are only meaningful to someone who's had the same sort of experiences as you.

But "my way" is hardly unique to me. The standard of objective evidence is why you and I are able to have this conversation even though we're physically thousands of miles apart. It's what helps save lives (medical science). It's what's behind just about everything around you....your house, your car, your clothes, your glasses, your books, etc. All of that is the result of our understanding of objective reality and application of objective evidence.

That's a really odd thing to read coming from a person who used a computer and the internet to post it.

Hold on there. How do you know I didn't "give it serious continuous try"? Because I didn't get the same outcome as you?

That brings me back to the subjective/objective issue. You're turning your subjective experience into an objective reality, and from that concluding that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you is therefore wrong. That's no different than the guy who likes fermented duck eggs telling me that I'm wrong when I say I don't like them and insisting that the reason I don't like them is because I'm not "giving them a serious continuous try".

You believe it's there.

You believe that to be so. But it could very well be that the Christian God really does want believers to do horrid things. Or it could be that the God doesn't exist and Christians just use it as an excuse to justify their horrid actions. How would we actually know which is really the case? Because the entire construct is completely subjective, we can't know.

I can only speak to what is reasonable to me, just as I can only speak to what tastes good or bad to me. I'm telling you that the fermented duck egg just doesn't taste good to me and you're responding by telling me there's something wrong with me because it's objectively true that those eggs are delicious.

I have no idea how that relates to what I asked.

This is no different than you telling me that the truth is, fermented duck eggs are delicious and anyone who says otherwise is missing something.

While I suppose that I could, I won't go through all of this with you. I really don't see that more of it would help anyone.

 

[Justadude]

ah well i am sorry if i was meant to interpret there, as i now suspect is possible

Oh no, I wasn't expecting you to do that. Just joking around.

 

[Justadude]

I haven't forgotten. Indeed i have been pointing our that a quantum fluctuation cannot be the first cause, but may indeed be am action of the first cause.

The material I posted indicates the professionals think otherwise, so you'll understand if I defer to them.

The idea that a quantum fracture cam occur presupposes some quantum field or state from which the fracture proceeds..

We can speculate that such an eternal quantum state may im fact 'be' but we have no way of determining that.

That a such an eternal first cause must exist is exactly my point

You still haven't answered the question I originally asked though. If it turns out a quantum fluctuation, or a quantum field is the "first cause" behind the universe's existence, would you call that "god"?

Here's something i thought you might en
Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks!

 

[Justadude]

While I suppose that I could, I won't go through all of this with you. I really don't see that more of it would help anyone.

I understand. FYI, our exchange has helped me think through some things and see them a bit differently. So thanks!

 

[amadeus]

I understand. FYI, our exchange has helped me think through some things and see them a bit differently. So thanks!

I only wish you had approached and exceeded King Agrippa's stated position to Paul:

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28

 

[Justadude]

I only wish you had approached and exceeded King Agrippa's stated position to Paul:

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Acts 26:28

LOL...I bet.

Maybe the main thing I took away from our conversation is that when someone tells me about a religious/spiritual experience they had, I shouldn't approach it as a skeptic where I question the experience, but instead I should take it for what it is...a personal experience that is meaningful to the person who had it.

 

[bbyrd009]

Oh no, I wasn't expecting you to do that. Just joking around.

well, i like both you guys, so it prolly falls on me; unfort my life is a bit too interesting right now lol

not sure how effective i would be anyway, pretty sure amadeus still believes that Jesus died for his sins, and etc, not sure though

 

[Philip James]

The material I posted indicates the professionals think otherwise, so you'll understand if I defer to them.

With all due respect, the material used a sensational and misleading headline. While I only read the abstract of the paper, I am quite confident that in it energy is conserved, and the first law of thermo is safely still applicable.

As already pointed out it assumes a pre-existing quantum field or state, or something...

You still haven't answered the question I originally asked though. If it turns out a quantum fluctuation, or a quantum field is the "first cause" behind the universe's existence, would you call that "god"?

If the quantum: field, singularity, essence... whatever you want to call it, that spawned the universe is itself eternal (and how can it not be if it 'is' before space and time..), then yes I would call that 'god'

Imo, one could very well see quantum theory as mathematical proof of the 'being' of this first cause.

If we are agreed that it is reasonable to conclude that this fundamental essence must 'be', then it becomes possible to speculate about it using our intellect and reason.

Thanks!

you're welcome! i can only take a little of that stuff at a time... gets my head spinning lol..

Peace!

 

[Justadude]

well, i like both you guys, so it prolly falls on me; unfort my life is a bit too interesting right now lol

not sure how effective i would be anyway, pretty sure amadeus still believes that Jesus died for his sins, and etc, not sure though

No worries. I don't think anyone was expecting you to play that role anyways. Appreciate the thought though!

 

[Justadude]

With all due respect, the material used a sensational and misleading headline. While I only read the abstract of the paper, I am quite confident that in it energy is conserved, and the first law of thermo is safely still applicable.

As already pointed out it assumes a pre-existing quantum field or state, or something...

Like I said earlier, I'm content to let the professionals work on it and relay their findings to the rest of us as best they can.

If the quantum: field, singularity, essence... whatever you want to call it, that spawned the universe is itself eternal (and how can it not be if it 'is' before space and time..), then yes I would call that 'god'

Imo, one could very well see quantum theory as mathematical proof of the 'being' of this first cause.

If we are agreed that it is reasonable to conclude that this fundamental essence must 'be', then it becomes possible to speculate about it using our intellect and reason.

I have to say, that's not the answer I expected! I guess then you would worship the quantum fluctuation? If so, would you expect it to "hear" you?

you're welcome! i can only take a little of that stuff at a time... gets my head spinning lol..

It's not only ridiculously complex, a lot of it's counter-intuitive. I can stomach it for a little bit, but eventually I usually lose interest since how the universe came to be isn't all that important to me. I appreciate that a lot of religious folks have a stake in it though.

 

[Philip James]

Like I said earlier, I'm content to let the professionals work on it and relay their findings to the rest of us as best they can.

The trouble of course is that different 'experts' often give contradictory interpretations. That seems to be true for quantum physics as it is for just about any discipline. In the end, we can only reason with that information as we ourselves understand it, as incomplete as that may be.

I have to say, that's not the answer I expected!

Truth is always compatible with truth, i would suggest is axiomatic.

I guess then you would worship the quantum fluctuation?

Not as I understand the universe as some kind of quantum fluctuation, no.

That would be worshipping that which has been created..

I worship that eternal quantum essence, which itself created the quantum fragment/universe.

That may seem like splitting hairs, but to me it is important to worship the creator and not the creation.

If so, would you expect it to "hear" you?

That's a good question. I will come back to it.

So given that the eternal essence (quantum field, singularity... Whatever it is) must be..

What can we know about it?

Of ourselves, only that it is eternal and omnipresent (it is independent of time and space)

We have no faculty with which to examine it, test it, observe it, so we can only speculate by extrapolating the experiences of our reality on to it.

We can however in speculating reason thus:

Is it alive or not alive? And by alive I mean self-aware, conscious, intelligent...

If it is not, it would be impossible for us to ascertain with certainty any more about it..

If it is alive, well then there is a possibility that it may be able to communicate information about itself to us.

I'm out of time, lol, so I will try and pick that thought up later..

Peace!

 

[Justadude]

The trouble of course is that different 'experts' often give contradictory interpretations. That seems to be true for quantum physics as it is for just about any discipline. In the end, we can only reason with that information as we ourselves understand it, as incomplete as that may be.

Only if it's important to you. For someone like me (for whom it is merely a mild curiosity), we're content to let the professionals work it out.

Not as I understand the universe as some kind of quantum fluctuation, no.

That would be worshipping that which has been created..

I worship that eternal quantum essence, which itself created the quantum fragment/universe.

That may seem like splitting hairs, but to me it is important to worship the creator and not the creation.

I don't see it as much as splitting hairs, as imposing an unnecessary variable into the scenario. If the physicists can explain the origin of the universe via a quantum event, which they also say is uncaused, then there's no need to impose a god to explain the quantum event.....except to suit the theological needs of theists like yourself.

But I'm also of the mind that if doing so resolves your theological questions in a satisfying way, knock yourself out!

That's a good question. I will come back to it.

So given that the eternal essence (quantum field, singularity... Whatever it is) must be..

What can we know about it?

Of ourselves, only that it is eternal and omnipresent (it is independent of time and space)

We have no faculty with which to examine it, test it, observe it, so we can only speculate by extrapolating the experiences of our reality on to it.

We can however in speculating reason thus:

Is it alive or not alive? And by alive I mean self-aware, conscious, intelligent...

If it is not, it would be impossible for us to ascertain with certainty any more about it..

If it is alive, well then there is a possibility that it may be able to communicate information about itself to us.

I'm out of time, lol, so I will try and pick that thought up later..

Peace!

Personally, I can't envision a quantum event that is alive, self-aware, conscious, or intelligent. That'd be like assigning those attributes to gravity.

 

[Philip James]

I don't see it as much as splitting hairs, as imposing an unnecessary variable into the scenario.

Hello dude,

As you can't have a quantum event without a pre-existing quantum field of some kind (no energy, no 'bang'), far from unnecessary, it would seem to be a prerequisite..

Personally, I can't envision a quantum event that is alive, self-aware, conscious, or intelligent.

While your lack of imagination may be a problem for you, faith does not appear to be.
Imo your interpretation of an obscure opinion of a 'ridiculously complex' theoretical abstract construct convincing you that your conciousness has arisen from nothing.. Takes far more faith, than my acceptance of eyewitness accounts of a man rising from the dead...

In any event, i shall leave you to it.

May the light of Christ illuminate your heart.

Peace be with you!

 

[Justadude]

As you can't have a quantum event without a pre-existing quantum field of some kind (no energy, no 'bang'), far from unnecessary, it would seem to be a prerequisite..

That's not what the physicists have been saying, so as I said, I'll defer to them.

While your lack of imagination may be a problem for you, faith does not appear to be.
Imo your interpretation of an obscure opinion of a 'ridiculously complex' theoretical abstract construct convincing you that your conciousness has arisen from nothing.. Takes far more faith, than my acceptance of eyewitness accounts of a man rising from the dead...

That's a very biased way of framing the situation. I'd hardly think of the work of high-profile physicists we've been talking about as "an obscure opinion".

But then, this isn't exactly the first time I've seen Christians refer to science as "faith". So if that's what you need to do to diminish their work, have at it. It doesn't really matter to me.

 

[aspen]

In another thread, @Ezra noticed that I am an agnostic and said "i see you have agnostic beside your faith.. conversation ended". Apparently the mere fact that I'm not a Christian is justification enough to not talk to me. That put me in mind of something similar that happened a couple of years ago.

As I've described many times here, pretty much all my friends are Christians, some even are full-time employees of a local church. We became friends through our kids (they're all about the same age) and school.

For years we all would go camping together, sometimes at the church's campground and other times at a national forest campground....but always next to a lake. As our kids have grown older the tradition has waned a bit, but we try to go whenever we can. At the last camping trip, one of my friends invited his sister and brother-in-law. I'd never met them before, but they seemed like nice enough people to me....at first.

One day all the parents were floating in the bay on a large inflatable raft, just hanging out and chatting. I can't recall exactly what led the conversation towards non-Christians, but at one point my friend's sister says rather loudly "I can't stand non-Christians! I don't want them in my house, I don't want them around my kids...I don't even like being around them!!"

Now, everyone else (besides her husband) on that raft knew I was a non-Christian, so there was an immediate period of very awkward silence. I just sat there and turned my gaze towards the mountains and smiled and eventually the conversation moved to something else. But for the rest of the trip, there was an obvious tension as every once in awhile she would again say something about non-Christians. I don't know if any of my friends ever said anything to her about my lack of faith, but I didn't. I'd just met her and didn't feel like I should start up with her on what was otherwise a very enjoyable trip. So as usual I just spoke to her in pleasantries and left it at that.

Anyways, Ezra's comment earlier today reminded me of that day at the lake and how weird her statements seemed. What's with some Christians and this apparent fear of being around or.......GASP......talking to a non-Christian? Are they afraid I'm going to infect them with critical thinking and skepticism? Are they worried they might find out I'm a pleasant person who's fun to be around? Or maybe they think I've got some sort of demon that might jump from my body to theirs?

For the record, I am not talking to you because I am jealous of those golf pants in your pic

 

[bbyrd009]

if it turns out that a quantum event was the first cause of the universe, would you refer to that quantum event as a "god"?

cant think of a much better human description for Unknown God myself, but imo that would be problematic for a believer who desires...a Who; we expect an anthropomorphized God, right, a Super-Person, with a beard, and organs and whatnot?

 

[aspen]

cant think of a much better human description for Unknown God myself, but imo that would be problematic for a believer who desires...a Who; we expect an anthropomorphized God, right, a Super-Person, with a beard, and organs and whatnot?

as long as he can play the organ, i am cool with him