How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[brunumb]

That is why I am on this site to dissimulate truth.

Are you sure of that?

dis·sim·u·late
/dəˈsimyəˌlāt/
verb: conceal or disguise (one's thoughts, feelings, or character).

EDIT: Oops! Beaten to the punch.

[JoeyKnothead]

That is why I am on this site to dissimulate truth.

Are you sure of that?

dis·sim·u·late
/dəˈsimyəˌlāt/
verb: conceal or disguise (one's thoughts, feelings, or character).

EDIT: Oops! Beaten to the punch.

We need to repost it on every new page

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

What? I've never tried to make any such case. I pointed out that the religious beliefs of Newton and other scientists had nothing to do with their scientific results. Atheist and agnostic scientists have produced results, as have scientists of all religions. And none of those results show the existence of gods, or assume that gods do exist. You seem very confused about all of this to the point of making up statements like the one above which is not derived from anything I actually said.

So you believe that starting with the presupposition that God exists and that the Bible is God's revealed truth would produce the reality that we observe. That works for me. In fact, it is the only presupposition that produces the reality that we observe.

Agnostics, atheists, and scientists of all religions rely on the assumption that there is a God that orders the world in which we exist. At least that is what Atheist David Hume thought.

• scientists proceed on a scientifically unfounded, yet critically essential belief in the uniformity of observable nature. Yet, he pointed out, there is no reason (beyond psychological habit) for the naturalistic scientist to expect the sun to come up tomorrow.

You believe this is true because you believe that there is an objective reality. You believe that you see the sun come up just like everyone else does.

• Science as an autonomous self-contained discipline has no honest answer to Hume.

In a strictly materialistic view, there is no reason why the brain should not be random chemical reactions.

Pick up a bowling ball and drop it on your big toe, and explain why F=ma isn't applicable. Try it a few times just to be sure it is reproducible.

Good, you believe in objective reality. But you have no answer on why there is an objective reality. That is what atheist Hume was saying. There are many in the physics community that do not believe in free will. They believe that everything is produced simply from chemical reactions in the brain. Because materialists have no answer for Hume's argument.

He might have been a real person, but in that case he could not have "risen from the dead" because real people who genuinely die stay that way. I'd put that fact against what "all scholars" believe any day.

Once again your belief is outside of what can be proved. You have no bases for this belief just like you have no bases for a belief in objective reality.

Again, try that bowling ball experiment and get back to us with how the big toe is holding up.

My presuppositions do produce an objective reality. It is the materialistic presupposition of the universe that does not produce an objective reality. So that would be you that would have to drop the bowling ball on your toe not me.

The Miller-Urey experiment was done 70 years ago. A Wipedia article on it also describes more recent experiments and theoretical models as people continue to investigate abiogenesis (and of course amino acids have been found in meteorites ... are you going to discard that because two guys 70 years ago made a wrong assumption?):

In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.

Yea, this only works in a reducing environment. Which the early earth did not have?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #109]

Great ... unfortunately you are not disseminating much of it which would be more useful. Oh the irony:

dissimulate
verb
transitive verb
: to hide under a false appearance

Yea well, It was going to be a great slam. But that happens sometimes. I believe I will be hearing about this one for quite some time.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #110]

Carroll, like other scientists who understand and believe in evolution are candid in saying they do not always understand the process fully in some cases, with statements like, "Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."
....
"Large-scale patterns of evolution cannot be fully explained by processes that are directly observable at the level of modern populations and species.
... the patterns, rates, and controlling forces of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by either Darwin or Simpson."

What does this have to do with the sudden appearance of phyla and other species that are not related and cannot be accounted for?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #111]

Are you sure of that?

dis·sim·u·late
/dəˈsimyəˌlāt/
verb: conceal or disguise (one's thoughts, feelings, or character).

EDIT: Oops! Beaten to the punch.

No I am not sure of that. How long am I going to here about this?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #110]

Carroll, like other scientists who understand and believe in evolution are candid in saying they do not always understand the process fully in some cases, with statements like, "Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."
....
"Large-scale patterns of evolution cannot be fully explained by processes that are directly observable at the level of modern populations and species.
... the patterns, rates, and controlling forces of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by either Darwin or Simpson."

What does this have to do with the sudden appearance of phyla and other species that are not related and cannot be accounted for?

"Sudden", being a relative term, is not quite accurate here. Considering the conditions required for fossilization, we're lucky to have a record at all.

Rabbits in the Cambrian, now that'd be an argument.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #110]

Carroll, like other scientists who understand and believe in evolution are candid in saying they do not always understand the process fully in some cases, with statements like, "Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."
....
"Large-scale patterns of evolution cannot be fully explained by processes that are directly observable at the level of modern populations and species.
... the patterns, rates, and controlling forces of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by either Darwin or Simpson."

What does this have to do with the sudden appearance of phyla and other species that are not related and cannot be accounted for?

The so called "sudden appearance" is misleading, a common [ahem] dissimulation. In addition to the relative rarity of fossils in the Cambrian, we have:

To suggest that, during the Cambrian explosion, "more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record" (Explore Evolution, p. 22) stretches the true state of affairs. A number of fossils discovered from that period of time possess traits characteristic of modern phyla. Other species found at that time cannot be clearly classified in any modern phyla at all. Fossils from the period following the Cambrian, an era known as the Ordovician, more clearly show the distinct groups possessing the traits associated with many modern phyla. Fossil deposits before the Cambrian are rarer, making it difficult to be sure how sudden any appearances were.

https://ncse.ngo/sudden-appearance

As to 'what the Carroll quote has to do with it' it should be self explanatory. Carroll the very expert you chose to cherry pick quotes from believes in evolution. You might understand this if you did not continue to redact the very quotes that answer your question:

Among Carroll's overall conclusions:

"Evolutionary forces that can be studied in modern populations are sufficiently powerful to account for the amount and rate of morphological change throughout the entire course of vertebrate history."
https://dannyreviews.com/h/Vertebrate_Evolution.html

You continue to show that your use of 'dissimulate truth' rather than 'disseminate truth' is at best a Freudian slip since you are doing your best to hide truth by quoting out of context. I reiterate, YOUR own source, the scientist Carroll, fully believes in evolution and has said so quite clearly. Your attempt to twist his words because of his candor about what he does not know is noted.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #91]

“No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.~ John Wheeler”

This means, that without consciousness to observe it, the universe is not a real phenomena.

Agreed?

When you're coming from within you've got to be for "real" no matter what you are

[Replying to Diogenes in post #118]

In addition to the relative rarity of fossils in the Cambrian, we have:

To suggest that, during the Cambrian explosion, "more than half of the major animal groups (called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record" (Explore Evolution, p. 22) stretches the true state of affairs. A number of fossils discovered from that period of time possess traits characteristic of modern phyla. Other species found at that time cannot be clearly classified in any modern phyla at all. Fossils from the period following the Cambrian, an era known as the Ordovician, more clearly show the distinct groups possessing the traits associated with many modern phyla. Fossil deposits before the Cambrian are rarer, making it difficult to be sure how sudden any appearances were.

See also;

Eocene layers of mysterious origin
and
The Silurian Hypothesis

I think that perhaps the main bear-bug Christians have re Evolution Theory is that they think it competes with Creation/Simulation Theory... It doesn't.
This may have something to do with the association with atheists that Darwin had, and how
atheists felt that Darwin's theories would kill the idea that we exist within a created thing = they thought the theory would 'kill god'... It didn't.

[Jose Fly]

You continue to show that your use of 'dissimulate truth' rather than 'disseminate truth' is at best a Freudian slip since you are doing your best to hide truth by quoting out of context. I reiterate, YOUR own source, the scientist Carroll, fully believes in evolution and has said so quite clearly. Your attempt to twist his words because of his candor about what he does not know is noted.[/size]

I don't think there's a better representation of the inherent dishonesty behind creationism than the common creationist practice of quote mining. At some point, some creationist had to sit down, read through the original source, and deliberately carve out the quote in a way specifically intended to mislead others about what the author said.

I suppose the creationists who later blindly copy the mined quotes could be characterized as having been duped, but so many times I've seen them just go right back to the same source even after they've been shown how it's dishonest.

I truly think it's impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.