Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Marcus Tullius Cicero,  wrote the most prominent Roman treatise to advance the argument from intelligent design in: The Nature of the Gods (written in 45 BCE), where i wrote:

When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? … Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?

Epicurus taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles known as atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. He rejected the idea that the Gods have created our world for multiple reasons.

Epicurus, in attempting to provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity,  relied on an argument that transformed blind chance into contingency. Thus he adopted assumptions that not only
reduced the improbability of the world developing in its present form but made the appearance of such a world certain. This was what Epicureans called “the power of infinity” associated with the assumptions of

(1) infinite space, time, and matter;
(2) an infinite number of worlds;
(3) a mathematically smallest magnitude (so small as to be partless) that combined in precise ways with other such minimum magnitudes to form atoms (literally uncuttables);
(4) a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes;
(5) a largest possible size to a world; and
(6) the principle of isonomia, or distributive equality between like things.

As a result of these mathematical assumptions, together with the basic material postulates of Epicurean philosophy, anything possible was bound to happen in the universe at large, and anything necessary would occur in any given world. In short, a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability was used to bolster the case for a material explanation of the existing world.

“It is the specific originality of Epicurus that he is the first man known in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.” Epicurus has always had the reputation of being the atheist philosopher par excellence, and was always called a swine; for this reason, too, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul takes up arms against philosophy he has in mind Epicurean philosophy alone.

Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaQC1rvH1k
Comments
Thanks Querius, I was thinking of referencing that video. After rewatching it, I forgot just how good that 'cute' video is at getting the basic point across. According to a Physics World poll conducted in 2002, the most beautiful experiment in physics was the two-slit experiment with electrons. Feynman said that the experiment "is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”
"According to a Physics World poll conducted in 2002,[1] the most beautiful experiment in physics is the two-slit experiment with electrons. According to Richard Feynman,[2] this classic gedanken experiment “has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” - Richard Feynman https://thisquantumworld.com/the-mystique-of-quantum-mechanics/two-slit-experiment/ “We choose to examine a phenomenon, (the double slit experiment), which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.” - Richard Feynman – The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I - Feynman • Leighton • Sands - Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by California Institute of Technology, Chapter 37
Here are a couple of more double slit videos from Anton Zeilinger that I was going to reference alongside that 'cute' one.
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." - Anton Zeilinger Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0 "We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." - Anton Zeilinger Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment – video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgt69p_prof-anton-zeilinger-shows-the-double-slit-experiment_tech
Also of note, The double slit experiment has now been performed with ‘objects’ much larger than electrons.
Double-slit superposition for objects as large as protein molecules: Matter-wave physics with nanoparticles and biomolecules – March 2017 Excerpt page 1: Double- and multi-slit diffraction experiments with massive matter have been realized with electrons [3], neutrons [4], atoms [5, 6] and their clusters [7], as well as small [8] and large molecules [9]. The combination of several diffraction elements into full matter-wave interferometers allowed accessing states of increasing macroscopicity: Nowadays, it is possible to delocalize individual atoms on the half-meter scale [10] and to demonstrate spatial superposition states from single electrons [11] up to organic molecules exceeding 10^4 amu [12]. All studies together already span a factor of 10^7 in mass and are still fully consistent with Schrodinger’s quantum mechanics, as developed 90 years ago [13]. In our present lecture we report on explorations of quantum physics with strongly bound, warm objects of high internal complexity. We study matter-wave interference of organic nanomatter that may bind dozens or beyond a thousand atoms into one single quantum object [14, 15].,,, Excerpt page 13: Figure 7. The functionalized porphyrin TPPF20 (left) is the largest object for which matter-wave interference has been observed so far. It compares in complexity and mass with insulin (middle) or cytochrome C (right). The extension of TPPF20 can reach up to 50 A. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.02129.pdf
bornagain77
January 5, 2023
January
01
Jan
5
05
2023
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PST
Origenes @21,
To say that something does not exist before a measurement is logically incoherent.
That's a good question. It's not actually nothing. It's actually a probability wave and as soon as you observe/measure it, the wavefunction collapses into a particle. Yes, it's weird, but the reality in which we exist consists of information and probabilities at the smallest scales! Here's a cute video describing the mysterious behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzSLByrw4Q And now you know why quantum physicists are very , very puzzled. -QQuerius
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PST
BA77
They are talking about material reality, i.e. atoms and photons, not existing prior to measurement.
I know. To say that something does not exist before a measurement is logically incoherent. How do you measure "nothing" (something that does not exist)? When you measure "nothing" the only possible outcome is "nothing", because from nothing nothing comes.Origenes
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PST
They are talking about material reality, i.e. atoms and photons, not existing prior to measurement. Since we both intuitively know that some kind of reality must necessarily preexist the existence of material reality, (i.e. from nothing caomes nothing), then I, as a Christian, hold that it must be the infinite Mind of God that sustains the material reality of the universe in its existence. And, as I touched on yesterday in the 'unmoved mover' argument, given that the wave function is mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional/infinite information state, then I hold that only omniscient/omnipresent God has the 'causal sufficiency' within Himself necessary to explain the collapse of the wave function. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/aquinas-ockham-and-descartes-about-god-a-free-adaptation-of-their-main-arguments/#comment-773061 i.e. God sustains the universe in its existence. Verse:
Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST
BA77 @18 A quick response, without looking into the articles you link to:
“Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It”.
I suppose these people honestly try to explain something mysterious the best way they can, but a statement like this is logically incoherent, right? How can you measure what does not exist? What does one measure then? One cannot measure what does not exist, right?
“It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Again, if reality does not exist, you cannot look at it or measure it. If there is nothing in existence to look at, there is no way forward. From nothing, nothing comes. I really do hope these people find a coherent way of expressing their explanation of quantum mechanics.Origenes
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PST
Origenes at 15: as to how probabilities get into quantum mechanics, the late Stephen Weinberg, who was an atheist by the way, cleared up a lot of confusion for me surrounding how probabilities get into quantum mechanics in the following article, As Steven Weinberg succinctly explains, “the Schrödinger equation,,, It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation”.,, “So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?”,,, “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 2017 Excerpt: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
Weinberg’s statement, “these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure”, does not really capture just how devastating this is to atheistic metaphysics. What Weinberg is really saying, in essence, is that the wave function is not collapsing to its particle state until an observer chooses what to measure. This following experiments more fully captures just how devastating wave function collapse is to atheistic metaphysics. In the following delayed choice experiment with atoms it was found that, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence,”
Reality Doesn’t Exist Until We Measure It, Quantum Experiment Confirms – 01 June 2015 By Fiona Macdonald Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. Known as John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, the experiment was first proposed back in 1978 using light beams bounced by mirrors, but back then, the technology needed was pretty much impossible. Now, almost 40 years later, the Australian team has managed to recreate the experiment using helium atoms scattered by laser light.,,, ,,, “Quantum physics predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, a PhD student who worked on the experiment.,,, ,,, a future measurement was affecting the atom’s path, explained Truscott. “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence,” he said. https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
And in the following experiment which falsified ‘realism’, (which is the belief that an objective ‘material’ reality exists independently of our observation/measurement of it), it was found that, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
The Theistic implications of such experiments are fairly straightforward. As Scott Aaronson quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
“Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables
Of supplemental note, the recent Nobel Prize Lectures by Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger may be of interest:
"There's one important message I want to say here. When you look at the predictions of quantum mechanics for multi-particle entanglement,, so you could have one measurement here, one (measurement) there, an earlier (measurement), a later (measurement), and so on. These predictions (of quantum mechanics) are completely independent of the relative arrangements of measurements in space and time. That tells you something about the role of space and time. There's no role at all.",,, - Anton Zeilinger - 2022 Nobel Prize lectures in physics - video (1:50:07 mark) https://youtu.be/a9FsKqvrJNY?t=6607 Alain Aspect: From Einstein’s doubts to quantum technologies: non-locality a fruitful image John F. Clauser: Experimental proof that nonlocal quantum entanglement is real Anton Zeilinger: A Voyage through Quantum Wonderland - Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PST
Relatd @ Most of us are confused about quantum mechanics; even Einstein was. We have to put in real effort, unfortunately, there is no easy remedy available.Origenes
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PST
Origenes at 15, I hope you would allow my comment. An "electron gun" in a TV generates electrons that hit the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT). No knowledge of quantum mechanics was required to build this device. Its purpose was to produce electrons at a given rate. There were no considerations given to the designers aside from that. The electrons either hit the tube or they didn't. I would say that to achieve the desired effect, there was no question about where the electrons were. So, in the present, someone with a background in electronic devices would be confused about any statements derived from quantum mechanics.relatd
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST
Relatd @14, Bornagain77 Like you I am struggling to make sense of quantum mechanics. Here follows a presentation of my "understanding" of the wave function. Bornagain77 please correct me if I am wrong. - - - An electron can be viewed as a (probability) wave instead of a particle. Its properties (e.g. position, spin) are expressible in probabilities rather than in definite states. For instance, there is an array of greater and lesser probabilities of the electron being somewhere at some time. So, one can say that the electron has an 80% chance of being at position A and a 20% chance of being at position B. However, if I understand the experts correctly, we really should say that the electron wave IS for 80% at position A and at the same time IS at position B for 20%. Put differently, the electron exists somewhere between potentiality and actuality. At position A the electron reaches 80% actuality and at the same time at position B it reaches 20% actuality. We do not have a particle we really have a probability wave. Mysteriously, after measurement/observation, the electron gets 100% actuality at either position A or B. IOW before measurement/observation, the electron never reaches full actuality ....Origenes
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PST
Ba77 at 11, sigh. I'm not criticizing quantum mechanics. I am criticizing the "reality doesn't exist" presentation method. Instead of dismissing me, ask if you think I'm not getting it (whatever it might be) right. What I was trying to do - unsuccessfully, apparently - is to say: "Hey. Average people don't get this. This IS important and average people don't get this." Because what's the point of providing all this information if people don't understand it? That's all.relatd
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST
P.S. Many years ago a biology professor in southern California decided to spice up the interest in his classes by means of "guest lectures" by famous biologists from history. To do this well, he reached out to the theatrical acting department and even went so far as using period costumes and makeup. According to his book (that I must have lent someone), these lectures were standing room only! What a brilliant and dedicated professor! -QQuerius
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST
Otangelo @2,
Give me time… I made 7 videos, a total of 44 min, in a week !! Preparing the images, researching the text, etc. is quite a bit of work…
No worries. Having made a number of videos, I fully appreciate the work involved. You probably can see from the groups of scientists I chose, there are some persistent themes over the centuries and millinnea. Thanks for all your effort! -QQuerius
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PST
Whatever Relatd, as far as empirical evidence from quantum mechanics is concerned, materialism is false. With the falsification of 'realism', there is no 'out there' apart from our measurement of it. If you disagree, it will take more than your opinion to refute it. It will take empirical evidence. That's how science works.bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST
Ba77 at 9, A far too complicated and a "leading to nowhere" reply. I'm sure the writer thought himself to be rather clever. The quantum world itself may indeed be hiding another layer of reality. Keep in mind that unlike this writer's attempt at cleverness, he simply obscures what, like quantum mechanics, may one day be known. Scientific inquiry does lead to unexpected and spectacular discoveries in some cases. The key, I think, is in not assuming anything. Not in outguessing what science will or will not discover tomorrow. On a theological level, and I see no separation between reality, as best as we can describe it, and the action of God, then yes, reality is a mental undertaking that originates with and is sustained by God, whose thoughts are beyond our own. Whose knowledge is beyond our own. However, as I'm sure you know, many of the great scientists of the past acknowledged God and believed they were discovering what God did. And through their work, providing to others, something good and useful.relatd
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications By Bernardo Kastrup - March 25, 2019 Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,, To make sense of this conundrum, we don’t need the word games of information realism. Instead, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself. Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST
Ba77, I think you should consider a few things when you assign to quantum mechanics/sub-atomic phenomena, certain facts about reality. First, the desk I am sitting at is quite solid. I can buy ancient Roman coins. The average person has no frame of reference. No tangible frame of reference for quantum mechanics. It's one thing to discover that physical reality is based on the sub-atomic, and another to convey the discoveries associated with the quantum realm with physical/macro reality, which we experience every day. The defined quantum phenomena uses terminology that is truly alien to average readers. Then we have the apparent input from anyone measuring things in the quantum world. The "You can't know until you measure it" phenomenon. I would say that any scientific discussion ends the moment unique words and terms appear. So, if scientists won't explain it then we should. To put it another way, the shortest, most simply worded explanation is best. But back to the original topic. Part of the problem, and surprise, comes from the fact that people today are conditioned to want the new. Someone said something new today or discovered something new today. The "old" is to be discarded. But, it shouldn't be. It should be examined, as it is in this case. "Study history." is not a slogan, it's the truth. It should be mandatory. However, too many are more concerned with satisfying daily needs and some have an automatic "off" switch for certain types and/or quantity of information. Acts 17:21 "Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new."relatd
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST
Superstition Epicurus considered many, if not most beliefs held by his contemporaries as superstitions: omens, prognostications, "divine signs", and the like. As Epicurus (and, at great length, Lucretius) observed, many superstitions stem from the popular beliefs that the gods are actively involved in the everyday operations of the universe, and either favorably or adversely inclined towards particular individuals. The chief superstition, however, according to Epicurus is the folly of immortality, as it raises unrealistic expectations that can obviously not be fulfilled, and therefore causes far more anxiety than it offers hope. http://wiki.epicurism.info/Superstition/
So Epicurus would hold the personal God of Christianity, and belief in eternal life, to be merely superstition. So, for all intents and purposes, my criticism of Epicurus stands, i.e. "So apparently Epicurus was motivated to put forth materialism since he believed that belief in God(s) was merely an imaginary, even silly, superstition." And again, Epicurus's materialism, via advances in quantum mechanics has now been empirically falsified.. , (i.e. falsification of 'realism' via violation of Leggett's inequality), Moreover, and again, Epicurus's materialism, via denying the necessary primacy of mind/consciousness in putting forth any coherent definition of reality, winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure. In short, Materialism is a garbage philosophy that is directly contradicted by empirical evidence and common everyday experience. Nobody lives their life as if atheistic materialism is actually true.
,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona/ Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. - per answers for hope
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PST
The video doesn't really make clear what "superstitions" Epicurus purports to deliver us from. He certainly did not argue that the gods do not exist. He argued that if one assumed with Plato and Aristotle that the gods are perfect, then it would make no sense to believe that they take notice of us. Hence we should not believe that our prayers and sacrifices make any difference to them. The video does state correctly that he believed that if both empty space ("the void") is infinite and that there are infinitely many atoms (of infinitely many different shapes, though not sizes), then every possible configuration must occur. (And, as Nietzsche realized, not only occur once but every possible configuration must reoccur infinitely many times.)PyrrhoManiac1
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
Moreover, besides our sense of self becoming merely a 'neuronal illusion' for the atheistic materialist, many other things that people, including materialists themselves, regard as being undeniably real, also become illusory for the atheistic materialists.
Free will, beliefs about reality, perceptions of reality, the design we see in life and the universe, meaning and purpose for life, morality and beauty, ALL those things become illusory for the atheistic materialist. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727328
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheistic materialist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real. In what should be needless to say, any worldview that is devoid of any real meaning, beauty or purpose, for life is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to have to hold. How anyone can personally stand to be an atheist I have no idea. It is as if someone had the keys to a luxurious mansion with plenty of gourmet food to eat, and fine furniture to sit and lay on, but instead choose to live their life in the squalors of a garbage dump, eating nothing but whatever rotting food they can manage to scavenge from the garbage. Again, I simply can’t understand how anyone would willingly choose to live their life as an atheist without any real meaning, purpose, and beauty in their lives. It is a severely impoverished, even severely depressing, worldview for anyone to willingly hold on to. Don't take my word for it, psychological studies bear this fact out,
“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
The good news is that you, as an atheist, don’t have to live your life in such 'illusory' squalor, but you can choose to accept a very 'real' God, with very real meaning, beauty and purpose, into your life anytime you wish. Verse and Music:
Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Chris Tomlin – Good Good Father ft. Pat Barrett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlsQrycKKsY&t
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PST
From the video: Epicurus: "I am the first man in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition." So apparently Epicurus was motivated to put forth materialism since he believed that belief in God(s) was merely an imaginary, even silly, superstition. Sounds familiar,,,
1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yet Epicurus, and his modern day followers, are now known to be wrong in their materialistic presuppositions. And are found to be wrong on multiple different levels. Aside from the 'minor' empirical fact that quantum mechanics itself, via the falsification of 'realism', has now falsified material particles as being the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based,
An experimental test of non-local realism - 2007 Simon Gröblacher, Tomasz Paterek, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Caslav Brukner, Marek Zukowski, Markus Aspelmeyer & Anton Zeilinger Abstract: Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of ‘realism’—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ‘spooky’ actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 ?Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.?Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.?They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."?http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 “hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358
,,, Aside from the ‘minor’ empirical fact that quantum mechanics itself, via the falsification of ‘realism’, has now falsified material particles as being the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based,, there is also another fatal problem with materialists assuming material particles as the ultimate substratum upon which everything else is based. Eugene Wigner succinctly put the 'other' fatal problem for materialists as such, “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied."
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
As well Max Planck himself stated, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck (1858–1947), The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
In short, with their rejection of consciousness as the ultimate substratum upon which everything is based, materialists have rejected the only thing by which we can have sure knowledge of the external world. This puts the materialist in quite the pickle. Although Epicurus, in his rejection of the 'non-material' realm of mind/consciousness, apparently believed he was 'liberating' mankind from the imaginary superstition of God, the fact of the matter is that Epicurus was enslaving himself, and other atheistic materialists, to a world of fantasy and imagination. A world where even Epicurus himself, and everyone else, becomes merely a 'neuronal illusion', i.e. merely an 'emergent property' of the material brain.
“Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.” Anil Seth, "The Real Problem" at Aeon - (Nov. 2, 2016) https://evolutionnews.org/2022/10/is-consciousness-a-controlled-brain-hallucination/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II The Illusion Of Control Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker - Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267
The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is, in a word, insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PST
Of related note:
How I Came to Take Leave of Darwin: A Coda Neil Thomas – November 15, 2021 ,,, Here I will make the attempt to drill down even further to the root causes of what appeared to be the Western world’s unprecedented rejection of tried-and-tested philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and the physician Galen in a strange capitulation to “out there” philosophic fantasists like Epicurus and his Roman disciple, Lucretius. It was the would-be rehabilitation of those ancient materialist thinkers by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the late 18th century, coupled with the later Victorian crisis of faith and the sudden irruption into this already volatile mix of Charles Darwin which was to result in the particularly strange irrationalism which has stubbornly persisted right up to the present day. This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/how-i-came-to-take-leave-of-darwin-a-coda/
bornagain77
January 4, 2023
January
01
Jan
4
04
2023
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST
Give me time... I made 7 videos, a total of 44 min, in a week !! Preparing the images, researching the text, etc. is quite a bit of work...Otangelo
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PST
How fascinating to hear these quote from across over two millenia of discovery that have not really changed substantially. How refreshing that they're devoid of unsupported assertions, appeals to the majority, or rank ad hominem attacks. In addition to Albert Einstein, I would have liked to hear quotes from Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Anton Zeilinger, plus Jan Baptist van Helmont, Lazzaro Spallanzani, Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Charles B. Davenport, Michael Behe, and James Tour. Of course, Steve Allen was there first with . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKRxZSOqAYw How fun! -QQuerius
January 3, 2023
January
01
Jan
3
03
2023
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply