Amaleq13

Quantum fluctuations are part of the natural world and their existence in no way requires or even suggests that an appeal to "supernatural" phenomena is necessary or even relevant.

Sven

Umm, no. The Big Bang is defined as the beginning of our universe. If there was something like a "natural world" "before" it, is still not clear.

According to General Relativity, yes. But we already know that GR breaks down at the Big Bang. So nobody knows (yet) if this is really correct.

Since they are also not much more than speculation at this time, they don't "prove" anything.

Propose all you want. I've only no idea why you think anyone should take this seriously.


Nope. As soon as miracles fit into a pattern, they cease to be miracles.

And you of course entirely ignored my point. Surprise, surprise.

EarlOfLade

You can not have light before stars have been created. The bible says light came before stars.

Chaupoline

My initial posts described an atheistic view of reality. I advocated that the perceived beginning of the universe could be traced to an initial action, the Big Bang. I referred to the Big Bang as the Initial Action of the Universe or the Initial Action of N, and then described the expansion of matter from the Big Bang as a series of subsequent actions from the Initial Action of N, or simply, the Pattern of N.

One error pointed out in the atheistic belief that reality is only made up of the pattern of N.

But then the author backtracks on the statement. Opposition for the sake of opposition, I guess.

Which is what led me to believe that the Initiator of the Big Bang (the Initial Action of N) was a subsequent action, of a series of actions, that I referred to as, the Pattern of S. The Pattern of N is not independent of the Pattern of S since subsequent actions of S still interact and otherwise deviate the pattern of N.

You are correct, this is not a logical conclusion and another error in the view that reality could be solely defined as everything that came as a result of the Big Bang. Simply having the right conditions is not enough for what is apparently, the miracle of life.

mir·a·cle (mÄ*r'É™-kÉ™l)
n.
An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

The lexical definition of a miracle is an action that can not be traced through the pattern of N and otherwise is the result of a subsequent action of S interacting with and deviating the pattern of N.

Sven

Umm, no. Opposition because you failed to address this initially.

[snip undecodable blather]

I don't know of anyone who defines reality this way. Reality certainly includes the Big Bang itself and the history in between.

By calling it a miracle, you are again assuming your conclusion. And your comment makes as much sense as saying that "A dice having a six on it is not enough to say that for a specific throw, a six will come up."
In other words, the right conditions existing and many, many tries still don't lead to life 100%, but very close to it.

You again agree with my point - and again don't appear to understand it.

And you ignored my point about the tsunami for the second time.

Chaupoline

Reality includes the Big Bang itself and the history in between, but that is not the entirety of reality.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of reality. The actions which led to the Big Bang were caused by other actions, and they were caused by other actions, and so on and so on. I referred to this as a pattern because like threads in a pattern they also react to the consequences of other actions that have come before them and are happening simultaneously. The Big Bang was thread N in pattern S. The other threads in pattern S did not end with the Big Bang.

You are under the impression that Thread N, the Big Bang, began an entirely separate pattern because you have do not see the other threads in pattern S. However, as Thread N is weaved into the quilt of reality, the other threads from the S pattern are still being weaved into the same quilt.

By calling it a miracle, I am referring to it as weaves that have come from thread N that have also been interweaved from other threads in pattern S.

The Gospel of John begins by referring to the Word and God. Genesis refers to God and the Lord God. The Trinitarian view is that God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The patternmaker is the God of Deism. It uses Natural Selection to define what persists and what ceases. Everything follows a pattern. This aspect of God doesn’t care about anything other than the continuance of the pattern. In the Trinity, the patternmaker is the Father.

The Abrahamic view of God is as a separate entity from the creation whom interacts with humanity through angels and signs in an attempt to make us all good boys and girls. The Abrahamic God will punish groups of people because of the actions of those in control of the group.

The God of Abraham thinks of humanity as a corporate entity and as such focuses solely on cause and effect. This is why El deals only with those it deems capable of initiating change. I don’t believe that the God of Abraham is the pattern maker but is rather a part of the pattern and attempting to manufacture its own artificial environment regarding the planet and its inhabitants. In the Bible, it has been referred to as the Lord God, the Word, or in the Trinity, the Son.

Both aspects of God are cultivators of life and death. They both adhere to cause and effect. The third aspect of God is the Holy Spirit, and it is directly linked to people. Humanity as I have previously stated is another cultivator and as such is attempting to manufacture its own vision of an artificial environment.

All three aspects of God are tied directly to the pattern and are initiators of change. The Son is God because it is aware of the pattern and as such it is an initiator of change within the pattern. As is the Holy Spirit.

Why does God allow bad things to happen to us, if we are so loved.?

God (the Father) runs everything in patterns. It kills indiscriminately based solely upon the chain reactions of events. However, it also provides the means to save lives through the chain reactions of events. Although God (the Father) allows there to be such things as tsunamis, God (the Father) has provided the means to avoid them through subsequent chains of events. Through the pattern, we have changed and have obtained the realization in the pattern and have obtained the means to impose our will upon the pattern as well.

God (the Son) loves our potential. We are deemed good if the effect of our existence causes the pattern to move in a manner that is deemed beneficial to the pattern by the Son.

Sven

Well, if General Relativity is correct, there were no actions before the Big Bang.

No, I'm under the impression that only Thread N exists and that everything else is a figment of your imagination.

One of the most ridiculous ideas men ever thought up, if you ask me.

If only his signs were in some way distinguishable from nature itself...

[snip unintelligible rest]

I don't think this discussion makes any sense. Bye.

Amaleq13

As you have already mentioned, that may not hold true at the quantum level of reality so your "reasoning" from this point is rendered moot.

And, as you've already been told, recognition of "quantum weirdness" offers nothing to support an appeal to magic.

Chaupoline

The Quantum level of reality is what preceded the Big Bang, it is also the factor that deviates the pattern set in motion by the Big Bang. This is why quantum mechanics acts diffrently from classical mechanics.

Quantum_mechanics There have been attempts to create a Grand Unification theory, but the problem that arises is that they are interpreting both theories as occuring simultaneously spawning forth from the Big Bang.

I am advocating the belief that the universe is like an onion, and follows many patterns.

Amaleq13

It suggests we were wrong to think that reality operates the same way no matter how small a piece of it one considers.

Surely you don't really think your statement offers any sort of answer to the question of "why".

To my knowledge, no one (and that certainly includes you) knows "why" the quantum level of reality seems to behave so differently.

Where did you obtain your degree in physics?

I do as well but, unlike you and despite your quote of him, I agree with Feynman that each layer reveals more of nature with no need to appeal to magical layers.