What god did Einstein believe in?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Thanks for admitting you're a liar and a bullshitter, but you and I both knew that already as do most people.
Meh. We're all links in the chain of life and will all eventually be replaced. So it goes.
Basic mathematical probability and logic. Think man, think!
By the laws of physics and logic, something cannot come from nothing. No matters how many chances there are. You could roll a six sided die 500 trillion times and never get a 7.
By the laws of logic, the rational does not spontaneously pop out by chance from the irrational. The rational mathematical scaffolding of physical reality would not spontaneously pop into existence by random chance.
By the laws of probability and logic, fine tuning is statistically implausible. In principle, the geometry and the physical constants seem like they could have taken on any value. The perfect flatness of space; the perfect net zero balance of positive and negative energy; the fortuitous values of the universal constants to allow complex atomic matter, all point to a coincidence too massive to sweep under the rug and ignore.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
Monad Portal
Was it me?
those are just descriptors we devised.
you have still not addressed what gave reality this consistency.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Monad Portal
Was it me?
shut up, bitchy whore.FTFY, Freddy.
For an atheist you don't think very well.
Math is a language of logic, and what we have found is that the universe surprisingly follows logical, rational, predictable patterns and principles
That is not what you would expect if your hypothesis is correct: that somehow a rational, predictable, lawfully organized universe just popped into existence by inanimate and irrational random chance.
You would expect a universe caused by random irrational chance to be inherently irrational, unlawful, unorganized, unintelligible.
There's really only three choices
1) Something came from nothing by random chance and irrational inanimate causes.
2) The universe is infinitely old and it's design is random chance, therefore we don't have to explain an origin or cause.
3) Some external rational agency or force caused a rational and lawful universe.
Based on logic and physics the first two options are logically incoherent, though I could always be wrong. The last inference to the best explanation left standing is #3.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
matter and energy behaving consistently is just an innate characteritic, not something created.
you're just a fool.
Saying "it's just an innate characteristic!" is exactly the same as throwing your hands up in the air and blurting out "well, that's just the way it is!".
That's not a scientific answer, it's not a logical answer, it's not a philosophical answer. It's not an answer at all.
The simple rote memorization you were taught in ninth grade science class did not train your mind to ask the deeper questions about physical reality.
You have to have more than a ninth grade science education to even conceive of the question that there is no explanation for exactly why matter and energy behave lawfully and according to rational mathematical principles. It's not a topic your middle school teachers would have delved into.
Last edited:
Monad Portal
Was it me?
it is the way it is.
presuming a creator because of consistencies is also not scientific.
this is all just unwarranted condescension and elitism.
the truth is you're dumb.
'It is because it is'....that is not a scientific answer.
You have two choices based on logic and physics:
Either a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe popped into existence by irrational, inanimate reasons and random chance.
Or a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe only could be the product of a rational agency.
As for me, I have never seen the rational appear from the irrational.
I've never seen lawful organization randomly appear from chance or chaos.
The laws of probability tell me a finely tuned universe arising by chance is mathematically implausible.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
i said "it is the way it is" it's called an observation without preconceived notions and biased retarded paradigms like yours.
false dichotomy fallacy.
you're still retarded.
So you choose option #1:
Monad Portal's Worldview:
The rational can come from the irrational.
Lawful order can come from random chance and chaos.
We totally lucked into a mathematically implausible finely tuned universe.
I find your explanation for the universe logically incoherent and difficult to defend.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
no.
I Rejected your question as a false dichotomy, and rightfully called you retarded again.
I'm not attempting to explain the universe.
but by all means, keep talking to yourself.
You have to choose one option if you are a person who uses logic and reason:
Either a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe popped into existence by irrational, inanimate reasons and random chance.
Or a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned universe only could be the product of a rational agency.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
no i don't.
fale dichotomy fallacy.
your two assertions are both retarded.
same same.
Why are you militant atheists always afraid to say you accept the option that a mathematically rational, lawfully organized universe was created by irrational, inanimate physical forces and random chance??
I suspect you avoid associating yourself with that option because you begin to recognize it is logically incoherent when you stop and think about it.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
I think your proof is scant and retarded.
you're a masonic idiot who insists on woo-wooing science.
and you misunderstand the value of religion in the first place.
the value of religion is in the morality it inculcates.
you masons like to woo-woo everything so you can keep religious war alive.
Still afraid to say what you believe the most logical inference for the origin of the universe is.
I don't blame you. Trying to explain how the rational can come from the irrational is a tough sell.
Just blurting out "Well, that's just the way it is!" is a chickenshit cop out, because what you're really saying is you don't believe anything, and are afraid to pick an option which might be logically incoherent.