I have a troll on my page and I can't really decipher his point. Can anyone who knows quantum theory say whether his argument holds any water? He's not one for punctuation, which makes it even harder to interpret. It's kind of long, but I wanted to give his whole argument. This was after he tried the painter/painting inference on me, so his skills in logic are suspect. His point seems to be that since a godless universe is a closed system, then space/time should not be able to sustain itself. Thanks for any help you can provide.


HIM - I think when it comes to the magnitude of God there never really is a complete corrollation other than illustrating god himself, but the painting and painter were simply to allude the some of it's parts are "greater" than the whole in a completely different sense than just simply making some "tangible" observation and if we get right down to it, this comes to a matter of sensory perception however distorted tha may be as for realism in itself is relative but as you have said let's take just our observations we have and argue semantics for a minute the second law of thermo dynamics that principally states everything, unless acted upon an outside force, proceeds to disorder, so logical fallacy one, if chance is our creator, then chaos is it's creation, and purely from a quantum level, we could not have time (which has no qualitative value on it's own, theory of relativitity states this) + space (which has no qualitative value on it's own, not only Heisenberg uncertaintity principle but quantum entanglement theory) + chance (which is simply mathematical probability) none of which is a cosmotic force perpetuating the universe so the argument here is not of observable laws but issues of the intagibillity and metaphysical and ethereal realities and until you are willing to address that, then we will continue to go in circles about something that was never designed to be exalted and will simply terminate on itself (I.e. Science)

But I think to ellaborate to help your understanding, it's a bit deeper than just a closed system, according to the scientific discoveries of quantum physics, the parts of the space time continuum in which we exist, have no qualitative value whatsoever, so not only can it not perpuate itself, it can't even exist on it's own


ME - Can you point to a peer reviewed publication that backs up your claim? I'm guessing there's more to the story if that is true. For example, what role do the four fundamental forces play? I'm quite confident the universe in its current state does not need god to make it work or to sustain it.



 I did in my big paragraph, this is quantum physics, time has no qualitative force due to the theory of relativity (time is relative) you can check either special relativity or general relativity. for the fundamentals of space having noqualitative quantity, you can not only check the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but also the quantum entanglement theory and M- theory which plays into the holographic universe theory

Also, this is Stephen hawkings point, that all there needed to be before our "known" universe is the law of gravity. but if law of gravity and chance (which is not a force just a term used to describe mathematical probability) were our creators, both of which are unconsciable entities, there can't be anything but the law of entropy (everything in the universe progresses to the lowest level of energy) but in science we don't observe this, we obseve to design (as evolution claims from design) for the laws of science indicate, by the second law of thermo dynamics that everything degenerates unless acted by an outside force

So we have a universe which if the laws of science were to reign supreme, would by chance have a 1/(1*10^40,000) that is a 1 with 40,000 zeros, and form together, (against it's own laws of entropy and essences of degeneration) not even a conscious human being, not even primordial slime, but one enzyme,

This is what is called not from design but to design, that the universe came from chaos into supreme order and let alone the idea of a supreme being came along

There is an atheistic physicist and philosopher who has written a book on the idea of a conscious energy progressing in the universe, I don't think this is the father but maybe an explanation of the holy spirit

Views: 100

Replies to This Discussion

I suspect your friend has indulged in some very potent ganja.  Quantum theory is complex enough however, this rambling makes it incomprehensible.  But to respond to your summary, "Since a godless universe is a closed system, then space/time should not be able to sustain itself,"  I'm not sure you can make that connection.  An infinite universe can also be (and is, IMHO) godless. 
Sounds to me like he hopes you will not realize that he has no idea what he is saying.

I agree with this - it's a huge word salad.  He's throwing out miscellaneous unrelated physics concepts in order to sound sophisticated. 



I agree with you both that he's not making any sense. I guess I was worried it might just be me because of the complexity of quantum mechanics.
He's recycling age old arguments. All of these have been addressed and debunked many times.
Get him to watch this... It might change his opinion somewhat.

Be carefull, some people like to take advantage of the mysteries of quantum physics, some play with the words of the quantum physicist to attempt to prove the existence of a god. Continue with caution when discussing quantum physics since some of it is still not well developed, and beware of the rambblers.
Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

He also triggered one of the moron detectors.  Anytime Creationists bring up the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as if it works in their favor in any way, you can immediately dismiss them.  It's an old, garbage argument that doesn't mean anything.


Apologists have been using the words 'quantum physics' for decades without ever actually using quantum physics ... if you know what I mean.  Tell this guy to give you a book by an actual quantum physicist that lays out his point, not an apologist's book.  Until he does that, tell him that he can use the words all he wants and it doesn't mean a damned thing.

Amen to that! i joke i joke, lol nice pwnge joseph.
I say 'Amen' all the time, myself.  I never was Catholic, but I was raised Catholic.  I still curse like a Catholic, because I enjoy the particular idiom.
Nice! That reminds me of this one guy, a theist he was who used to go to philosophy club with me and complain everytime i would sigh "oh god" or say "holy fucking jesus". He would tell me that as an atheist i have no right to do that, i would tell him that in a country like the u.s.a. it is almost unavoidable in day to day language. He never really got used to it.

Heh yeah, First Amendment, dude.  An atheist has every right to say that and any other sort of blasphemy.


I bet if you asked this guy if we should should be holding Draw Mohamed Day, he'd be all for it ... and he wouldn't understand the comparison.


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service