- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipAh. My apologies.
Thank you for your carefully spaced reply.
I'll think about it.
One question while I think on it. You say that if the universe did not run on rules science would still work.
How would science be able to make predictions if that were the case ?
That's a typo.
It should be if the universe didn't run on rules the science wouldn't work.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually I don't know of any facet of the universe that doesn't appear to run on rules.
I am guessing that was a typo. However, I think it is an unavoidable fact that it does. Without rules there would be no atoms, no physical objects and no life. Existence itself is a manifestation of rules. I think rules are as fundamental as existence:
"I think therefore I am"
I am therefore 'rules'.
I must note that there are areas in science where ...[text shortened]... t is nevertheless still the best and most reliable method for studying any phenomena whatsoever.
Some events appear to be probabilistic, although there is debate as to whether there
is some deeper underlying set of rules that are completely deterministic that just look
probabilistic at the scales we can currently access.
But the probabilities are predictable and rules based.
But you are quite correct, anywhere there are rules, science is not just the best but the
only known way of analysing what is going on that actually works.
Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe by Dr. Walter L. Bradley
I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
Multiverse Theory: Avoiding the Evidence of Design in our Universe
Atheism & the Law of Causality
The Instructor
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay. Got you, a typo.
Ah. My apologies.
That's a typo.
It should be if the universe didn't run on rules the science [b]wouldn't work.[/b]
Let me ask you a question about a certain rule. I am curious.
How many shumways does it take to make up one gumba ?
Can you please answer that for me ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipWhich is relevant to what?
The Law of Causality and Miracles - a short video by Cambridge Mathematician Dr. John Lennox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2yx9e-PyU
Ok, the guys an idiot, The rise of the Christian church is not evidence it is/was
right, let alone extraordinary evidence for the miracles described in the bible.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipUm, no.
Okay. Got you, a typo.
Let me ask you a question about a certain rule. I am curious.
How many shumways does it take to make up one gumba ?
Can you please answer that for me ?
Because the question is literally and intentionally gibberish.
What has it to do with anything?
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am not in a terribly argumentative mood today. But I would like to hear your stab at the answer.
Um, no.
Because the question is literally and intentionally gibberish.
What has it to do with anything?
What is the rule concerning how many shumways constitute exactly one gumba ?
By "Um, no" you really mean that you don't know ?
I know. Would you like me to tell you ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipI have no idea what (in this context) a shumway or a gumba is.
I am not in a terribly argumentative mood today. But I would like to hear your stab at the answer.
What is the rule concerning how many shumways constitute exactly one gumba ?
By "Um, no" you really mean that you don't know ?
I know. Would you like me to tell you ?
And know of no rules to do with them.
I am still waiting to know what, if anything, this has to do with what we were talking about.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay googlefudge.
I have no idea what (in this context) a shumway or a gumba is.
And know of no rules to do with them.
I am still waiting to know what, if anything, this has to do with what we were talking about.
I will tell you that it takes exactly 4.27 shumways to make one gumba. Not less and not more.
As for what a shumway IS or what a gumba IS ?
I don't know. I have not yet invented them, what ever they are, or defined them.
Only the rule already exists.
4.27 shumways = 1 gumba.
Now you said, and I agree, that without the rules governing the universe science would not be possible.
Do you believe that the rules governing the universe were in existence apart from the universe being in existence ? I mean in the same way I said a rule existed "before" the thing to which the rule applies existed.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhen the most we can say about an event is the probability of it happening, then we do not know its exact rule, and it may not have a rule for exactly when or if it will happen.
Actually I don't know of any facet of the universe that doesn't appear to run on rules.
Some events appear to be probabilistic, although there is debate as to whether there
is some deeper underlying set of rules that are completely deterministic that just look
probabilistic at the scales we can currently access.
But the probabilities are predictable and rules based.
True randomness is an absence of rules and rules are an absence of true randomness. Sure, randomness can be bounded, but it still represents an absence of rules.
But we can never know whether an event is truly random, we can only know when we have found a rule: so that debate you mention will not go away unless we can show that events are not completely probabilistic.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipSigh, this is going down exactly the same path as the 'discussion' with freaky.
Okay googlefudge.
I will tell you that it takes exactly 4.27 shumways to make one gumba. Not less and not more.
As for what a shumway [b]IS or what a gumba IS ?
I don't know. I have not yet invented them, what ever they are, or defined them.
Only the rule already exists.
4.27 shumways = 1 gumba.
Now you said, a ...[text shortened]... mean in the same way I said a rule existed "before" the thing to which the rule applies existed.[/b]
I don't know if there IS a before the universe.
First because I don't know if there was something before the universe from which
this universe formed, which is possible.
Second, because one of the things IN this universe is time. And without it there
is no before. If time formed at the start of this universe then the question of
whether there was anything before the universe doesn't make sense.
So to answer the question, I do not know if the laws of physics existed before
the universe did. I don't even know if there were laws before the universe existed,
or even IF there IS a before the universe.
None of this in any way means that the universe must have been created or that
there needed to be a being to create these rules.
This is a done to death dead end, don't go there.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadUm, no. Pure randomness is not an absence of rules.
When the most we can say about an event is the probability of it happening, then we do not know its exact rule, and it may not have a rule for exactly when or if it will happen.
True randomness is an absence of rules and rules are an absence of true randomness. Sure, randomness can be bounded, but it still represents an absence of rules.
But we can neve ...[text shortened]... te you mention will not go away unless we can show that events are not completely probabilistic.
There are all kinds of rules to do with randomness.
Also, any event that is probabilistic is not Purely random.
it's probabilistic, which is entirely not the same thing.
And those probabilities are governed by rules.
Whether or not there are deeper rules we don't know yet
that are entirely deterministic.
5 edits
Sigh, this is going down exactly the same path as the 'discussion' with freaky.
Argument by boredom. What next ?
I don't know if there IS a before the universe.
For lack of a better word, I put "before" in quotations. I do believe that sometimes the human language is limited to express some things.
So far, I guess this makes me think that either the rules of nature existed apart from nature or came about simultaneously with nature.
I just wanted to know if you think the laws governing the universe, you think, existed [for lack of a better word] prior to the universe that they governed.
First because I don't know if there was something before the universe from which this universe formed, which is possible.
I think it is fair to say that the current consensus opinion of cosmology is that the universe began to exist.
By universe I would mean all space, all time, all matter, all energy any and all worlds of any quantum state or string theory plane. The whole of the known universe or N + ? other "universes" of a multi-universe.
I would mean everything which we could call "nature."
Second, because one of the things IN this universe is time. And without it there is no before. If time formed at the start of this universe then the question of whether there was anything before the universe doesn't make sense.
I understand that. And that is why I put "before" in quotations. And that is why I spoke of the limitation of human language and also used the expression "for lack of a better word."
So to answer the question, I do not know if the laws of physics existed before the universe did. I don't even know if there were laws before the universe existed, or even IF there IS a before the universe.
Okay. You do not know how to answer. I don't even get a guess.
Well, I don't really know either. I am not sure if the rules governing the universe existed apart from it or came about at the "moment" in which the latter also came about.
None of this in any way means that the universe must have been created or that there needed to be a being to create these rules.
This is a done to death dead end, don't go there.
Yea, you can cavalierly state that. But with your non-committal stance you leave so much ambiguity in your position that you'll never have to rationalize this.
If the rules existed "prior" to the universe -
1.) The rules themselves did not cause the universe to come into existence. They only governed behavior once it was there.
2.) The implication that they existed in some "mind" is not at all an unreasonable assumption, given that such a mind was uncreated, eternal, and purpose conscious.
I don't think it helps the atheist position to move from ambiguity to committal and say "Ok, the rules came into existence when the universe came into existence."
If that is the case it still is not unreasonable to assume that they exist in some mind of at least tremendous purpose consciousness.
You see googlefudge, regardless how casually you dismiss the evidence of intelligence, you come off weakly. Other than you just don't like the idea of Someone's mind conceiving and/or legislating rules, it is not at all an unreasonable belief.
I expect you to continue to dismiss concept of laws requiring a legislator, and a legislator having in mind a plan, a purpose.
I don't see the atheist position has the rational high ground here. I think you have assured yourself enough wiggle room of saying "I don't know" to never have to commit to a defense of an atheist position.
Ie. "Well I didn't SAY that the laws of nature came about with the coming into existence of the universe."
Ie. "Well, I didn't SAY the other either."
No position is by far the easiest to defend.
As for me, I think that rules require a mind is not at all an unrealistic proposal either way. We just have to accept that we may be dealing with a mind which is vastly more transcendent than our own human minds.