This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It certainly explains nothing to me.

It doesn't explain to you how atoms stay stable sometimes, and sometimes decay? It doesn't explain to you how we take a rock and put it in water and make electricity? Or how stars twinkle? I think it does, if you check.

This is confusing for me. What kind of "explanation" are you looking for, from a scientific model?

 

[Grumblenuts]

The mysteries don’t end there. Atoms are known to be electrically neutral — the positive charge of the protons is cancelled out by the negative charge of the electrons — but as to why this is so, Lincoln says, “Nobody knows.”

Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should easily be able to answer. But, alas no.

It may not explain anything to people who don't understand it. Which is most people. Don't feel sad about it.

Don't sweat it, Lincoln. A no brainer for those who understand the fundamental magnetic/dielectric coupling driving everything in nature, but.. you know,.. we've got spacetime and quantum mechanics instead. There's no crying in Large Hadron Collider!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Uh oh, help! It's all being leaked into the mainstream:

nextexx.com

This domain may be for sale!

nextexx.com

What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.

 

[Dusty]

Quantum mechanics explains nothing,

*as vomited on his quantum mechanical device

It may not explain anything to people who don't understand it. Which is most people. Don't feel sad about it.

Try again genius

Opinion | Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics (Published 2019)

Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it.

www.nytimes.com

“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. That’s not surprising, as far as it goes. Science makes progress by confronting our lack of understanding, and quantum mechanics has a reputation for being especially mysterious.
What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have.
Quantum mechanics, assembled gradually by a group of brilliant minds over the first decades of the 20th century, is an incredibly successful theory. We need it to account for how atoms decay, why stars shine, how transistors and lasers work and, for that matter, why tables and chairs are solid rather than immediately collapsing onto the floor.
Scientists can use quantum mechanics with perfect confidence. But it’s a black box. We can set up a physical situation, and make predictions about what will happen next that are verified to spectacular accuracy. What we don’t do is claim to understand quantum mechanics. Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.

 

[Dusty]

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics

Could it be that what we see as chaos is simply a process too complex for our intellects?

Hmm, i am not totally clear on your meaning, but we actually have a pretty good mathematical understanding of chaos. That is the version of this word to which i was referring.

So, backing up I find:

Believing humans are deterministic physical systems subject to the same laws as any other still does not mean all outcomes can be predicted, forever. Chaos plays a factor, as does quantum mechanics

Then after I had mostly facetiously agreed:

We can't accurately predict all future choices, even if we knew the current state of every atom in the universe.

Which I also can't help agreeing with, but as Fort Fun knows or should by now, aside from obviously getting the math right, I fundamentally disagree with any notion of "quantum mechanics" truly explaining anything. I think, or perhaps just hope we've established a sort of truce, agreeing not to continue arguing about that though. Neither one of us desiring to go there having gotten nowhere fast attempting to do so repeatedly in the past. And I accept that it's my problem, not his, since he's just sticking exceedingly well to the mainstream script while I'm being the weirdo. We tend to agree completely otherwise.

Anyways, ignoring mention of quantum mechanics just leaves "chaos" which is all you started out with. Beyond "complete disorder and confusion," Google's quick Oxford Languages definition strikes me as a nice, terse summary of our current usage vs our previous understanding:

• PHYSICS
  behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

The first expressing this modern sort of fearful, fatalistic, resignation to being permanently beyond our understanding or control . So unpredictable it "appears" random, but is it? We'll sure as hell never know.. That much is clear.. Far too complicated.. Oh well, I guess we best leave it to the egghead theoretical physics community to endlessly work it out at tremendous public expense with their differential equations, atom smasher data, and so forth.. Add in not even yet mentioning entropy, Heisenberg uncertainty, thermodynamics, virtual particles.. I mean, forget it man, game over! Game over!!

Meanwhile, the second simply says: It's obviously just the Aether, stupids. Very simple, uncomplicated, reassuring, comforting, makes perfect sense, effectively saying, Hey, yes ma'am, we can deal with this! Not a problem! Can't really have any of that now, can we? I mean, that almost sounds as simple as goddidit! No, it was good enough for the Greeks, Newton, Tesla, Maxwell, even Einstein for most of his life.. But no, we can no longer go there. Sorry!

Quantum Mechanics is a useful model that yields accurate descriptions and predictions. I don't know what you expect it to "explain", otherwise. So go ahead and search for an explanation, or make one up. But it needs to be consistent with the Standard Model , or it's wrong.

Quantum mechanics explains nothing, all it raises is more questions that seem to undermine classical physics.

It certainly explains nothing to me. Hell, from what I read, there are many serious minded scientist who can't even define what it is. But then, perhaps those are simply naysayers taking a shot.

Entanglement is amazing as there is literally not even a serious theory as to what causes it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.

I think Feynman worked hard and earned his early success, then mostly just drifted, satisfied to be a big name, pompous ass. By "nobody really understands quantum mechanics" he, of course, meant except him. His interview where he's simply asked why magnets repel and completely dodges the question is classic. Oh, he sure wants everyone to think he could answer, but damn, he just can't bring himself to do so without knowing tons more about the questioner and blaa, blaa, de blaa, big, distracting, shit eating grin:


Oh, and when you "turn 'em the other way"? They still repel, dumbass.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It certainly explains nothing to me.

It doesn't explain to you how atoms stay stable sometimes, and sometimes decay? It doesn't explain to you how we take a rock and put it in water and make electricity? Or how stars twinkle? I think it does, if you check.

This is confusing for me. What kind of "explanation" are you looking for, from a scientific model?

First, your truncated quote of what I wrote dilutes the balanced comment that I made when I wrote: "It certainly explains nothing to me. Hell, from what I read, there are many serious minded scientist who can't even define what it is. But then, perhaps those are simply naysayers taking a shot."

I understand, appreciate and acknowledge that there are scientific models that explain many things. Further, regardless of my meager ability to indulge advanced mathematics, its equations and proofs, I accept that science works because it bears obvious fruit.

However...

I seem to recall that I entered the conversation with a philosophic opinion that all things are predetermined. You are welcomed to the opposite opinion with the caveat that no amount of vacuum cleaners, computers and and modeling of why the stars twinkle reflects with any finality on what I broached.

You assigned me the question of what explanation I expect, and here I am defending that strawman. I didn't ask for an explanation. I simply indulged supposition on a very large unknown.

Allow me to switch gears. What do your models say of the "hard question"?

 

[Ben Thomson]

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should be able to answer

Theories don't answer "why". They answer "how".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, your truncated quote of what I wrote dilutes the balanced comment

But i wasnt responding to that. I was responded to the statement i quoted. I am sure people know how to scroll up 3 comments.

You assigned me the question of what explanation I expect, and here I am defending that strawman. I didn't ask for an explanation.

You said it explains nothing to you. You don't have to say you "expect" an explanation for me to ask what explanation you expect, so it isn't a strawman. If the answer is "none", then say "none", instead of taking the discussion in circles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Or not.

Predestination & Catholic Dogma

There is little to no doubt that the average reader of this site will be familiar with the term “predestination.” And if the reader is familiar with the term, there is also a good chanc…

rationalcatholicism.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should be able to answer

Theories don't answer "why". They answer "how".

Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".. "Atoms are known to be electrically neutral — the positive charge of the protons is cancelled out by the negative charge of the electrons — but as to" why {oops} how "this is so".. your theory is? Again, 'Lincoln says, “Nobody knows."'

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".

I didn't contradict a word he said. So no idea where you are coming from, there.

How? Because a +1 charge cancels a -1 charge. Well that was a softball.

What theory of "why" did he propose? None? Looks like he agrees with me.

 

[LittleNipper]

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

If God loves us all, especially the innocent children, why do we have pediatric cancer wards? Nothing more depressing than to see a small beautiful child dying from lucyhemia

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

If God is a loving God and loves us all, especially innocent children, why do we have pediatric cancer wards? Nothing more depressing than to see a small beautiful child dying from leukemia. Why use innocent children to punish us, if that is what it is.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fine. Since you wish to argue with the Fermilab "particle physicist".

I didn't contradict a word he said. So no idea where you are coming from, there.

How? Because a +1 charge cancels a -1 charge. Well that was a softball.

What theory of "why" did he propose? None? Looks like he agrees with me.

Again, fine. So then you must be arguing with Ken Wheeler who I quoted next somewhat expecting you might try weaseling out that way. Full paragraph:

Understanding the truth of how all the technology around you works is to understand the secrets of nature. What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.

I credit Lincoln with being one of the at least somewhat humble ones. Still wish to stick with "how" and not "why"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So then you must be arguing with Ken Wheeler who I quoted next somewhat expecting you might try weaseling out that way.

But i am not. Do i have to keep explaining this to you?

Yep, science deals with the how, not the why. And that person obviously agrees with me.

"Why" is for philosophy and self delusion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, science deals with the how, not the why. And that person obviously agrees with me.

So you agree

that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep, science deals with the how, not the why. And that person obviously agrees with me.

So you agree

that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work

Yes, of course! Would we need science if that WERE true?