Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

[Bill3000]

According to a current thread in S&T, one cannot use entanglement as a means of instant (FTL) communication because the effects of your action cannot be predicted and therefore no pre-arranged code could be used. To my mind, this fact, in and of itself, is sufficiently non-predictive. If a prediction is not reliable, what good is it?

It can't be "predicted" because it's a nondeterministic phenomenon, but that does not mean that a statistical prediction can't be made. It just means that the predictions are of the sort "Event occurs with 27% probability" instead of "Event will occur at location X and time Y." There are plenty of reliable predictions in quantum mechanical theories; indeed, quantum electrodynamics has made the most precise predictions out of all physical theories. QED predicts the anomalous magnetic dipole moment to the billionth place.

 

[orrery]

No it hasn't. As for the quantized redshift, see Tang and Zang (2005) and Hawkins et al. (2002) which had shown that there is no evidence for redshift periodicity.

hawkins is hardly an expert on anything other than fictional black holes. every study has shown redshift is a plasma phenomenon of the local object. redshift quantization has however been shown in the laboratory time and again by every wannabe debunker that has ever tried. big bang is bunk and only anti-science creationist theologians continue to grasp to their straws.

 

[punkbass2000]

It can't be "predicted" because it's a nondeterministic phenomenon,

Yes, but this is my point. Pantheistic God is non-deterministic. I'm sorry if the word "random" offended your sensibilities, but this is what I meant.

 

[Bill3000]

hawkins is hardly an expert on anything other than fictional black holes. every study has shown redshift is a plasma phenomenon of the local object. redshift quantization has however been shown in the laboratory time and again by every wannabe debunker that has ever tried. big bang is bunk and only anti-science creationist theologians continue to grasp to their straws.

First off, wrong person; E Hawkins wrote that paper, not Stephen Hawking. Cute to know that you're not even interested in reading the papers. Second off, it's quite clear that not "every study" has shown redshift to be a plasma phenomenon as represented by the fact that lambda-CDM is still the standard theory as you can see in any reputable journal. Redshift quantization hasn't been shown in the laboratory as there are quite a few papers which debunk it. A historical review by Bajan et al (2006) concluded that redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established. A paper by Martin Bell et al. (2006) which apparently showed that quasar data showed six visible peaks was shown to be incorrect by Schneider et al (2007), where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for.

Third off, your precious quantized redshift is cited by creationists as evidence that the big bang theory is false. YECs don't believe in the big bang theory, anyway.

 

[orrery]

Third off, your precious quantized redshift is cited by creationists as evidence that the big bang theory is false. YECs don't believe in the big bang theory, anyway.

I'm reading your articles but you used a logical fallacy. Big Bang being false does not validate YECs.

Besides, Big Bang Creationism is creationism itself so at worse its hypocrisy for you to imply it. Whether or not you believe the Universe created 6000 yrs or 14billion yrs ago, on cosmological terms its irrelevant. Creationism is itself wrong whether or not you want to create a Big Bang theory to support it or not.

In any case, your referenced articles fails to address the Arp Phenomenon and the Fingers of God phenomenon. I don't see how I could take that study seriously. Red Shift Quanitization, Plasma Red Shift Theory, and Gravity Field Red Shift are the only viable descriptions of Red Shift that are scientifically supported.

Tifft, William G., and Cocke, W. John; "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts," Sky and Telescope, 73:19, 1987

The problem with the Big Bang Theory that you're espousing is that it has a "sliding scale" feature and can be made to show the Universe was created 6,000 years ago simply by adding "sliding figures" such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy (which has never been observed to actually exist)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The problem with the Big Bang Theory that you're espousing is that it has a "sliding scale" feature and can be made to show the Universe was created 6,000 years ago simply by adding "sliding figures" such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy (which has never been observed to actually exist)

You'll have to explain this one.

Sidequestion, does this also mean you doubt the Theory of Gravity and seeing how singularities in black holes crap all over Einstein's theories, do you also doubt his theories?

Is there a substitute, a better scientific theory which is able to replace it?

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm no YEC, but I do question the idea that the laws of physics must have always been as they are now.

 

[orrery]

You'll have to explain this one.

Sidequestion, does this also mean you doubt the Theory of Gravity and seeing how singularities in black holes crap all over Einstein's theories, do you also doubt his theories?

Is there a substitute, a better scientific theory which is able to replace it?

There is no such thing as a Black Hole. The IEEE has been proving that for decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVif4hUAJ8c

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=80

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You didn't explain the "sliding scale" feature.

 

[orrery]

You didn't explain the "sliding scale" feature.

I had thought you asked about an alternative model to so-called 'singularities'

I'm confused, do you not know what sliding-scale modeling is?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I had thought you asked about an alternative model to so-called 'singularities'

I did. I have the ability to ask multiple questions in one post

I'm confused, do you not know what sliding-scale modeling is?

I'm confused as well. Would I ask if I knew? I know sliding scale models, but you claimed "The problem with the Big Bang Theory that you're espousing is that it has a "sliding scale" feature and can be made to show the Universe was created 6,000 years ago simply by adding "sliding figures" such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy (which has never been observed to actually exist)"

So, I'm asking how Dark Matter/Energy introduce a sliding scale feature.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

I don't need an exact description of your experiences. I appreciate it may be personal and hard to convey in words. I am wondering about the nature of them. What I would imagine:

- Feeling a loving presence who comforts you.
- Having seemingly miraculous events happen before your eyes (the agnostic athy in me needed to put the word "seemingly" in there, ignore at will (I think going on your remark "they can easily dismiss them as coincidence, imagination, pure luck" some of your experiences will be of this nature)
- Getting an inner conviction when faced with a hard decision.

I'm not looking to debunk these, or dismiss them, since it should be clear beforehand that I believe other explanations would account for your experiences. If I didn't I wouldn't be an atheist now would I?

But one thing surprised me in your comment
This seems to me your faith was already in place when you had your personal experiences which confirmed and reinforced those believes.

Is that right? If so, what made you have faith in the first place?

Wow, I go out of town for a couple days, and this turns into a discussion on New Age theology. It is a pretty convenient belief system.

I'll do my best to answer this, and trust that it reads as well as it feels.

Yes, Ziggy, my faith was in place before any confirming experiences, quite a while as I recall it.
Your guess work as to their nature is quite close to the mark. I would suspect you know a bit about this sort of thing.

I understand your questions are sincere, and I'll do my best to respond.

But first things first: At the age of 12 or 13, I was in church one Sunday. I can get bored real easy, and my mind wanders if it is not focused on something. So sitting there, I pulled out the church hymnal, and began to read the words of the songs. I love to read, always have, so this was a natural thing to do.
I was taken by the sentiments and words used by the writers of those hymns. It was very plain that they had truly experienced something, or at the very least, strongly believed what they were writing about.
And in looking around, at that church, and at how much Christianity had become a part of everyday life, it just made sense to me that there was someone "up there" who caused it all to be.
So I said a prayer, all on my own, telling God that I was going to believe in Him. And that was pretty much that. Jesus said that all it takes is the faith the size of a mustard seed, and that was about all I had.

As for the nature of the experiences. There are various ones, and I suppose taken one at a time, and out of the context of the moment of the experience, many will just pass them off. And I am sure some will say that their meaning is just misunderstood.
Nothing much I can do about that.

There have been times when I can say I felt a certain presence.
But those can be so subject to an emotion of a moment, or a state of mind, that one has to be careful with such things. No one can base a system of belief simply upon an emotion.
And emotions are not really an experience, but a reaction to that experience. I think some get into alot of trouble by confusing the two.

I need to add here that the emotion of experiencing God's presence in your life is huge. There is nothing that can compare to it. And the very inadequate explaination is the awareness of extreme power, love, forgiveness, and freedom all in one big light.
It weighs you down and lifts you up at the same time. I know that this makes no sense at all to many, but then again "holistic pantheistic view of god" makes no sense to me, either.

The "inner conviction" comment has alot to it. I believe that God gave us a conscience, a basic knowing of right and wrong. It might be trained to act and react in a certain way, or be ignored to the point where it seems to be non-existant.

But there have been times when I just knew something, or knew a course of action to take.(or not take) And those have never, never been wrong.
The Bible talks about a "still small voice" that you hear with your mind.

I have been in situations where circumstances and events totally beyond my control led me to certain actions. And they had remarkable results. Or where I was a spectator to something, that I had no control over, but gave me a direction or answer in my life.

There has been the rare occasion where something that can only be described as miraculous has happened either to me, or where I personally witnessed it.

Some others might be mentioned as well, but this is a good sample.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Was this faith not constructed as a result of previous (perhaps mundane) experiences?

If God alone is, all experiences are brought to you directly from, by and through God, and they speak much louder than words or thoughts, no?

Hi punkbass.

The issue of faith is a great discussion, because it is a bit like creating something out of nothing. What it amounts to, is a decision to believe something, or at least give it a good solid try.
For reasons of what I suppose is the nature of free will, and perfect love, God wants us to take that first step towards Him, in faith.
So, a short answer to your question is no. The egg came before the chicken.

Depending totaly upon the concept of "God alone is" in your sentence, this 2nd question is either correct, or heading us away from the path He wants us to follow.
There can be alot of truth to it, or it might be wrong from the start.
As the highest creation of God, on the earth, man was given the ability to create things himself. And to make his own choices. So some of the experiences, and thoughts that man encounters, are from himself. And the choices that are contrary to God's laws and Word, are what is referred to as "sin".

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Here is where I will take issue for now. Now certainly, with Newtonian Mechanics, we can observe and predict phenomena which occur within our natural fields of perception (though, even then, only within a vacuum, which isn't part of our natural state).

But when we enter Quantum Mechanics, the laws are not predictive at all. In fact, the explicitly prescribe the opposite. Now, I don't know that you're necessarily espousing a universe of order in these senses, but it certainly appears that way.

Is guaranteed randomness the sort of rule you're ascribing to God?

(There's an excellent Hawking rebuttal to Einstein in here somewhere.)

I guess I do not have what you or some others might call an answer that explains everything. In fact I understand almost nothing about many of these discussions.
In reading some of the links, and some other sources, I do see where each of these ideas have their detractors and benefactors. If fact with each of them there seems to be a measure of debate as to their correctness. Some of that debate has been brought to this thread.
It seems like they raise as many questions as they ask. So I am not alone by not having an answer to everything.

I do read that each of these mechanics still have their own rules. So, where is the difference, and who is to say that God didn't create the atomic particles to function this way?

As I see it, we are all composed of these cells, which are made of atoms. And within each atom there is all this movement and wave-thing going on. And each cell is off doing it's own thing, looking for food, making more cells, etc. That's essentially what all these discussions are about, the nature of these atoms, and the rules that govern their actions.
Yet we, and the entire universe are not falling apart, and splitting into all these atoms and cells. Why not?
Just maybe because it is not in their nature to do that, because they were created to hold together. And just maybe it is by design that the universe functions like that.
But there are rules, and they always apply, or there would be no order at all. And if one wishes to break things down into the smallest of tiny particles, then you might see some randomness. But at some point that randomness has disappeared, and we have things like rocks, and people.
So, I guess I am, in my uneducated way, saying that there is, at it's essence, a universe of order.
And I am saying that such a complex universe, with such complex life forms functiong in such complex ways, strongly suggests the existance of a creator, instead of complete randomness being responsible for it all.

And if I understand your 2nd question, no, I do not see God as a guarantee of randomness. Quite the contary, I see Him as the One that is holding the entire thing together.

 

[Lay_Lay]

OP: As you noted, your view/understanding of God is very much shaped by the culture around you.
Though this may at first glance seem to hamper an argument which asserts that, "it is the same God we are talking about, he just manifests himself in different ways to different folks", I am also a believer in this same God philosophy, except maybe we need to say "same God(s)".

How does a specific weird one-off short lived polytheistic view compare to your view of God? I believe that such analysis can lead to an agreement that this can indeed be the same God. The ancient Mayans too - we share their God(s). Jupiter, Venus, even Perseus, etc. That is God.
The idea of God is instinctual for humans. It is a very base instinct. The idea is in our DNA, but it is your culture which really shapes your understanding of God.

And since God is a concept, an idea which exists in every man's DNA, we probably shouldn't be talking about it as if it is more than such.

Religion on the other hand - that is really real. Worthy of questioning.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Still hard to wrap my mind around this. It's like imagining I'm a glass of water which was dropped in the ocean and I'm wondering about how wet the ocean is.

I watched a docu about Infinity on BBC's Horizon yesterday. Made me feel the same way.

I have to admit that I have no concept of the size and scope universe. Something billions of light years away has no relavance for me. I understand that when we view a galaxy from that distance we are looking into the past, because it took that long for the light to get here. But at some point I have to stop trying to contemplate it, and just look at it, and admire it.

Sometimes a great work of art, or a wonderful movie, should be appreciated for just that, and not all the hidden meanings, and messages that we imagine that it might contain, or want it to contain.

Wet is wet. At the saturation point, you cannot get any wetter.

God is God, and sometimes He just wants us to take Him as He is, and stop trying to fathom the unfathomable. It can be as simple as that.

 

[squadbroken]

I take it that the short version of the OP is: I don't believe in god(s) but I'm open to the possibility; what would it/they be like?

Personally the only answer I can come up with to that is: no idea. There's no evidence that any specific religion is correct and no evidence of supernatural meddling on Earth or in the universe at large so we're left with essentially a great big question mark. It's like the whole "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" question; only they know, and they're not telling.

 

[punkbass2000]

Hi punkbass.

The issue of faith is a great discussion, because it is a bit like creating something out of nothing. What it amounts to, is a decision to believe something, or at least give it a good solid try.
For reasons of what I suppose is the nature of free will, and perfect love, God wants us to take that first step towards Him, in faith.
So, a short answer to your question is no. The egg came before the chicken.

How, then, did you come to discover Faith?

Depending totaly upon the concept of "God alone is" in your sentence, this 2nd question is either correct, or heading us away from the path He wants us to follow.
There can be alot of truth to it, or it might be wrong from the start.
As the highest creation of God, on the earth, man was given the ability to create things himself. And to make his own choices. So some of the experiences, and thoughts that man encounters, are from himself. And the choices that are contrary to God's laws and Word, are what is referred to as "sin".

What do you believe the consequences of "sin" are?

 

[punkbass2000]

I guess I do not have what you or some others might call an answer that explains everything. In fact I understand almost nothing about many of these discussions.
In reading some of the links, and some other sources, I do see where each of these ideas have their detractors and benefactors. If fact with each of them there seems to be a measure of debate as to their correctness. Some of that debate has been brought to this thread.
It seems like they raise as many questions as they ask. So I am not alone by not having an answer to everything.

Certainly you are not. This is one of the Joys.

And if I understand your 2nd question, no, I do not see God as a guarantee of randomness. Quite the contary, I see Him as the One that is holding the entire thing together.

Yes, but to use a hopefully familiar analogy, might not God be holding it together much as your computer holds you Civ game together? Your computer holds it together and maintains all the rule-sets, yet does not know the outcome.

I have to admit that I have no concept of the size and scope universe. Something billions of light years away has no relavance for me. I understand that when we view a galaxy from that distance we are looking into the past, because it took that long for the light to get here. But at some point I have to stop trying to contemplate it, and just look at it, and admire it.

Sometimes a great work of art, or a wonderful movie, should be appreciated for just that, and not all the hidden meanings, and messages that we imagine that it might contain, or want it to contain.

Wet is wet. At the saturation point, you cannot get any wetter.

God is God, and sometimes He just wants us to take Him as He is, and stop trying to fathom the unfathomable. It can be as simple as that.

This I completely agree with. But sometimes it's fun to contemplate.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mike, thanks for answering me.

I'll respond later when my boss isn't looking over my shoulder