Its counterintuitive – Dawkins

_{David L. Hagen

April 7, 2016

Atheism, Eyes Rolling, Origin Of Life, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Of course, its counter intuitive you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something for nothing! That’s why its interesting. Its got to be interesting to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very very simple . . . (laughter) Why is that funny?

Bishop Thug Lyfe

Well I think it is a bit funny to try to define nothing!

Laughter – the best medicine for Dawkins!

Link: https://www.facebook.com/1057346700949990/videos/1223907387627253/

Comments

Max Planck, a Lutheran church sidesman all his life. Planck was very conservative in his thinking, so it went against the grain to accept what he found. But his research forced him, as an honest seeker, to accept his own findings. 'It was Planck's law of radiation that yielded the first exact determination—independent of other assumptions—of the absolute magnitudes of atoms. More than that, he showed convincingly that in addition to the atomistic structure of matter there is a kind of atomistic structure to energy, governed by the universal constant h, which was introduced by Planck. This discovery became the basis of all twentieth-century research in physics and has almost entirely conditioned its development ever since. Without this discovery it would not have been possible to establish a workable theory of molecules and atoms and the energy processes that govern their transformations. Moreover, it has shattered the whole framework of classical mechanics and electrodynamics and set science a fresh task: that of finding a new conceptual basis for all of physics.' Albert Einstein, "Max Planck in Memorium" (1948) - from Wikiquote. Someone claimed that Planck had told him he did not believe in a personal God who answered prayers, etc, however such quotes as this one, emphatically suggest someone was telling 'porkies' : 'Long and tedious reflection cannot enable us to shape our decisions and attitudes properly; only that definite and clear instruction which we gain can form a direct inner link to God. This instruction alone is able to give us the inner firmness and lasting peace of mind which must be regarded as the highest boon in life. And if we ascribe to God, in addition to His omnipotence and omniscience, also the attributes of goodness and love, recourse to Him produces an increased feeling of safety and happiness in the human being thirsting for solace. Against this conception not even the slightest objection can be raised from the point of natural science, for as we pointed it out before, questions of ethics are entirely outside of its realm.' 'No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear. They mutually supplement and condition each other. The most immediate proof of the compatibility of religion and natural science, even under the most thorough critical scrutiny, is the historical fact that the very greatest natural scientists of all times — men such as Kepler, Newton, Leibniz — were permeated by a most profound religious attitude.' 'Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: "On to God!"'Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

Axel @ 14
It’s why they would never have discovered quantum mechanics in a million years.
Who do you think discovered Quantum Particles and created QM?Me_Think_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

It's why they would never have discovered quantum mechanics in a million years. Why they should think that 'intuition' could save Reason's bacon, how they can accept the reality of intuition - a psychic phenomenon - would defy the most fertile of imaginations. They're trying to 'go along' to get along', though they DEFINITIVELY 'missed the boat' with the discovery of QM.Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

ppolish, paradoxes and oxymorons, eh ? Our atheist, secular-fundamentalist friends, those paragons of reason and logic, trying to confuse oxymorons with paradoxes ! What a wonderful let-out for them, paradoxes will increasingly prove, in their own sorry eyes, as they sink further and further into madness and gratuitously UN-scientific and putatively metaphysical conjectures. They hate true paradoxes, genuinely veridical and meaningful oxymorons, whereby the worlds of Spirit and matter are seen to merge, the divine and the profane, are actually true, because it 'knocks on the head' once and for all, the notion that the divine mysteries must necessarily be false, since they defy the logic of our analytical intelligence, being quite beyond its scope. So, yes, 'counter-intuitive is possibly their favourite, if extraordinarily shallow, ruse, to try and get away with nonsense. Yes, they really do believe in a whole array of Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and there's no sign that they will cease to proliferate - if only to keep up with the ever-increasing, genuine paradoxes of physics.Axel_{April 9, 2016
April
04
Apr
9
09
2016
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

"Counterintuitive" is putting it mildly. Let's be blunt - it is irrational and it is illogical . Disregards mountains & mountains of scientific evidence. "Counterintuitive", please stop.ppolish_{April 8, 2016
April
04
Apr
8
08
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Mung #6
"It’s amazing that Richard Dawkins reaches the same conclusion as the philosophers and theologians of the Catholic Church. God is utterly simple."
No. God is "simple" only in the sense of "indivisible" and "without parts". Otherwise God is the most complex, because implies all the possibilities. Richard Dawkins does not at all reach the same conclusion as the Catholic Church or any other orthodox metaphysical tradition. He, like all evolutionists, is wrong because believes that more can come from less. The worst case of their more-from-less is indeed this all-from-nothing, which is "counterintuitive" indeed because is nonsense at the highest degree. They should stop to use the easy alibi of "counterintuitiveness" to sell their blatant absurdities.niwrad_{April 8, 2016
April
04
Apr
8
08
2016
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Zachriel doesn’t seem to understand the term ‘counterintuitive’.
Zachriel: It’s counterintuitive that people are tracing complex orbits in space due to the combined effect of the Earth’s rotation and revolution.
Why would that be counterintuitive? Because intuition informs us that the earth must be unmovable?
Zachriel: It’s counterintuitive that the Earth’s continents have moved over incredible stretches of time.
Why would that be counterintuitive? Because the continents look so shiny and new?
Zachriel: It’s counterintuitive that a seemingly solid table is actually mostly empty space.
That “mostly empty space” is not empty, but instead filled with electromagnetic force fields (energy) and no one knows what that is. IOWs the main realization should be that we don’t know/understand what a table is made of.
Zachriel: Most interesting scientific findings are counterintuitive.
Especially in quantum mechanics, which you don’t mention, since it spells the ruination of physical realism.Origenes_{April 8, 2016
April
04
Apr
8
08
2016
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

It's counterintuitive that people are tracing complex orbits in space due to the combined effect of the Earth's rotation and revolution. It's counterintuitive that a seemingly solid table is actually mostly empty space. It's counterintuitive that the Earth's continents have moved over incredible stretches of time. Most interesting scientific findings are counterintuitive. If they were obvious, we wouldn't have need to wait for science to describe them.Zachriel_{April 8, 2016
April
04
Apr
8
08
2016
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

It is counter intuitive to get something, indeed something cool, out of nothing. Its also counter intuitive to get glorious complexity from , nobel prize stuff, bits flying around and bumping into each other.Robert Byers_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Mung, Something is. In the final analysis... It's all one.mike1962_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

It's amazing that Richard Dawkins reaches the same conclusion as the philosophers and theologians of the Catholic Church. God is utterly simple.Mung_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Wine from water.Indiana Effigy_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Consciousness from moleculesmike1962_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Of course, its counter intuitive you can get something from nothing. [Dawkins]
Dear Richard, besides a universe from nothing, there are more "counter intuitive" aspects to your materialism: Organization from chaos. Information from randomness. Free responsible rational agency capable of doing science from deterministic non-rational blind particles.Origenes_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Here's another version of Dawkins' nothingness that's pretty funny. It is literally nothing! If one is (un)fortunate enough to have read Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing, in which Dawkins wrote the Afterward, you'll notice there is no bibliography and no footnotes or endnotes. Just sayin'RexTugwell_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

It's interesting that Thug Lyfe thinks it’s funny to try to define “nothing.” Here's Hugh Ross on that weasel word “nothing” in science and philosophy—it comes in nine varieties at least. It’s doubtful that any of them would prove of use to Dawkins or Lyfe.News_{April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply