Seems to me that existence as a whole is uncaused. Even if we accept the big bang starting as some quantum event in some substrate, that substrate had to have some form of existence. And then we descend into infinite regress. So I can't escape the conclusion that on some level, existence is uncaused.
If not, then at some point, something "appeared" out of nothing. And if something can appear out of nothing, ANYTHING can appear out of nothing. If the appearance of things from nothing is limited by some underlying laws, then those laws are yet another layer of structure and they must exist before the appearance of something from nothing. Nothing means now laws or anything. From a truely null state, anything can happen.
The issue is that there are many things which have no cause nor causer. Read a book on quantum mechanic and you will see tons of things which have no cause... infact nuclear decay itself has no cause.
Actually, many things have a cause. Nuclear decay could be based on the Zero Point Field for example (which explains the rate of half-life...) Ditto, for seemingly 'uncaused' events such as quantum flucuations etc...
In fact, Quantum computing has always intrigued me and is part of what I base my beliefs on.
Using lagit scienct to postulate ambigious naked assertions is retrofiting science after the fact. Your pantheism is just as much a naked assertion as any ancient comic book myth.
You, like Wave, are simply attempting to put new wrapping on a broken concept. Quantim michanics do not, nor will ever support a dissimboided conciousness of any kind.
No one here will ever lay claim to know where modern science will lead us. But postulating naked assertions and attempting to fit science in is just new packaging to mask a broken concept.
"super natural/entity/dissimbodied conciousness/ ouiji boards/voodo dolls, deism, pantheism, are just different lame attempts to explain the unknown insted of accepting the unknown without jumping to conclusions"
Science does not support agendas or pet ideas, it is a metheod, a process that lead us to better data. If your claims were valid, they would be widely accepted and taught in science classes.
So CAPTIAN, write a book and get it peer reviewed by the scientific community. I dare you. My guess is if you ever did, lagit sceintists would laugh you out of the community.
I could see you teaching a science class, "Lets all go over to the electron microscope and take a look at a dissimbodied conciousness"
Your education level does not prevent you as a human from believing in asbsurdities as fact. There are many intelegent people who believe all sorts of absurd things. You merely fool yourself just like they do and falsely believe that quantum science supports your naked assertion.
"Quantum science proves my naked assertion of a purple snarfwidget"
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37
Girl Dancing In Orbit wrote:
Come on, you are refusing to understand what I said or you have deliberately omitted the second and more important half of my intervention. I said that this as nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of something.
I must have missed something. My only point is that empiricism is not a sufficient tool for understanding and dealing with reality.
My point is that empiricism is primordial for us to know if something really exists or not (i take the "or not" back... I'm wrong to say that). It's not because we empirically know that something exists that we understand it, I agree with you on that.
But saying that God exists without any empirical evidence is pulling a rabbit out of your hat. It comes out of nowhere for no reasons.
Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968