Whence Then is Evil?
Mohammad Gill July 4, 2007
#163 Posted by samar1982 on July 10, 2007 6:31:20 am
It appears match is going on between theists and atheists. Are the agnostics, the true believers, totally discarded?
Samar
Samar
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#162 Posted by khurram on July 10, 2007 5:40:18 am
Re #156. PM
Actually masadi is right about the Copenhagen interpretation. Only that it does not necessitate God in any way.
Regarding your example, it is meaningless to say that the fish has any state until an observation is made.
Actually masadi is right about the Copenhagen interpretation. Only that it does not necessitate God in any way.
Regarding your example, it is meaningless to say that the fish has any state until an observation is made.
#161 Posted by khurram on July 10, 2007 5:33:26 am
Re #152 PM.
This is a valid point and re-inforces what others have been saying that God is beyond good and evil. If God were good then that would imply that there is a standard to which God is held and that standard transcends God. That would violate His ultimacy.
This is a valid point and re-inforces what others have been saying that God is beyond good and evil. If God were good then that would imply that there is a standard to which God is held and that standard transcends God. That would violate His ultimacy.
#160 Posted by khurram on July 10, 2007 5:26:39 am
Re #149, masadi
If God is observing all the time, why do we have any uncollapsed wave functions at all?
Why does human observation collapse the wave function? Why isn`t it collapsed already due to God`s observation?
If God is observing all the time, why do we have any uncollapsed wave functions at all?
Why does human observation collapse the wave function? Why isn`t it collapsed already due to God`s observation?
#159 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2007 2:07:48 am
PM writes <<< Care should be taken to not make the mistake of assuming it is the ACT OF OBSERVATION itself, as opposed to the EXISTENCE OF NECESSARY CONDITIONS for making observations, that ``collapse the wave function`` of a system. Analogy? Say you`re trying to see a fish that exhibits >>>
Apparently you have no clue about the behavior at the subatomic levels, hence this analogy and the talk about ``necessary conditions`` There are no ``necessary condtions`` except that act of observation that collapses one out of the infinite quantum potentialities that exist at the subatomic level, comprendey? If you don`t know about something its best to shut up, (respectfully stated)
Apparently you have no clue about the behavior at the subatomic levels, hence this analogy and the talk about ``necessary conditions`` There are no ``necessary condtions`` except that act of observation that collapses one out of the infinite quantum potentialities that exist at the subatomic level, comprendey? If you don`t know about something its best to shut up, (respectfully stated)
#158 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2007 1:59:28 am
In addition to this, the thiests did not ``invent``, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, Neils Bohr was the father of this, together with Werner Heisenberg whom the Gill man is supporting even as he denies God...
#157 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2007 1:55:50 am
PM states <<< Of course, I can understand why theists would jump to and interpretation into which God, to them, is necessitated >>>
PM you don`t have a clue about the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, as is quite evident from you claim that it has been ``debunked``. In order to covert quantum potentials into their real states requires ``consciousness``, otherwise the wave function doesn`t collapse. If there were no observers the early universe couldn`t have evolved the way it did. The Quranic verse has complete relevance to this idea, especially the concept of observation, the ``BE`` that coverts quantum potentialities into a specific reality...
PM you don`t have a clue about the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, as is quite evident from you claim that it has been ``debunked``. In order to covert quantum potentials into their real states requires ``consciousness``, otherwise the wave function doesn`t collapse. If there were no observers the early universe couldn`t have evolved the way it did. The Quranic verse has complete relevance to this idea, especially the concept of observation, the ``BE`` that coverts quantum potentialities into a specific reality...
#156 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 1:51:24 am
masadi: it`s an itch at this point... :-)
re. ``..objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states...``
Care should be taken to not make the mistake of assuming it is the ACT OF OBSERVATION itself, as opposed to the EXISTENCE OF NECESSARY CONDITIONS for making observations, that ``collapse the wave function`` of a system. In other words, the wave function collapses with or without an observer once those conditions, necessary for obserrvation, are introduced.
Analogy? Say you`re trying to see a fish that exhibits a certain behaviour (or state) only in total darkness (and, to anticipate your retort, also in the absence of IR and UV ``light``). Now, you can see why observing this fish in that particular ``state`` is virtually impossible. But you would hardly say that it is the observer, or even the observing that causes this change of state, would you?
re. ``..objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states...``
Care should be taken to not make the mistake of assuming it is the ACT OF OBSERVATION itself, as opposed to the EXISTENCE OF NECESSARY CONDITIONS for making observations, that ``collapse the wave function`` of a system. In other words, the wave function collapses with or without an observer once those conditions, necessary for obserrvation, are introduced.
Analogy? Say you`re trying to see a fish that exhibits a certain behaviour (or state) only in total darkness (and, to anticipate your retort, also in the absence of IR and UV ``light``). Now, you can see why observing this fish in that particular ``state`` is virtually impossible. But you would hardly say that it is the observer, or even the observing that causes this change of state, would you?
#155 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 1:33:47 am
re. 151 samar:
Samar, does my #148 address the same issue as the one you seem to doing?
Samar, does my #148 address the same issue as the one you seem to doing?
#154 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 1:32:09 am
re. my previous post:
correction: `` ... why theists would jump to an interpretation in which God, to them, is necessitated.
khair.. I must leave now... Will be back to take up this issue later, hopefully tonight, after reading up on my high school Physcis litt. :-)
correction: `` ... why theists would jump to an interpretation in which God, to them, is necessitated.
khair.. I must leave now... Will be back to take up this issue later, hopefully tonight, after reading up on my high school Physcis litt. :-)
#153 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 1:27:42 am
re. masadi #149:
masadi sahib, I thought it was ages ago that the idea that human observation actually interferred with sub-atomic phenomena was debunked. Mian, let me explain in as simple language as is possible, where you-- and Ferris-- are woefully mistaken:
The statement``Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena...`` is a crude stating of the the principle that the ``Copenhagens`` treat only observable phenomena as coming under their scope. Of course, I can understand why theists would jump to and interpretation into which God, to them, is necessitated. At best, this is a bad hypothesis based on a ridiculous (mis)understanding of quantam physics.
Further, I haven`t a clue as to how the ayat you quote in #149 is supported by any understanding of the uncertainty principle or probabalistic causation. Every second or third two-bit deity and its followers claims absolute fiat over the physical universe, as I`m sure you know. You really need to do better, masadi sahib.
masadi sahib, I thought it was ages ago that the idea that human observation actually interferred with sub-atomic phenomena was debunked. Mian, let me explain in as simple language as is possible, where you-- and Ferris-- are woefully mistaken:
The statement``Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena...`` is a crude stating of the the principle that the ``Copenhagens`` treat only observable phenomena as coming under their scope. Of course, I can understand why theists would jump to and interpretation into which God, to them, is necessitated. At best, this is a bad hypothesis based on a ridiculous (mis)understanding of quantam physics.
Further, I haven`t a clue as to how the ayat you quote in #149 is supported by any understanding of the uncertainty principle or probabalistic causation. Every second or third two-bit deity and its followers claims absolute fiat over the physical universe, as I`m sure you know. You really need to do better, masadi sahib.
#152 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 1:04:37 am
Actually, just coz this game is so much fun, I`d like to introduce the idea that God cannot be both Eternal and Good. (And this may appeal to Zeemax, actually). It`s not original, of course...
If God is Good, it means he/she/it conforms to some antecedent ethical standards. This of course, isn`t possible if he/she/it is Eternal, the First Cause, or indeed, ``just`` the authority on the whole What`s Good and What`s Evil deal. An ORIGINAL rule-setter on good and evil, implies that such and entity be amoral. (Not immoral, of course.)
Conversely, to be good (or evil) means to conform to (or infringe on) certain ethical standards that already exist. If God indeed is good, then there is that something that precedes his/her/its existence.
No?
If God is Good, it means he/she/it conforms to some antecedent ethical standards. This of course, isn`t possible if he/she/it is Eternal, the First Cause, or indeed, ``just`` the authority on the whole What`s Good and What`s Evil deal. An ORIGINAL rule-setter on good and evil, implies that such and entity be amoral. (Not immoral, of course.)
Conversely, to be good (or evil) means to conform to (or infringe on) certain ethical standards that already exist. If God indeed is good, then there is that something that precedes his/her/its existence.
No?
#150 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2007 12:54:27 am
sorry missed part of the reference quotation in #149
Timothy Ferris states in his book, The Whole Shebang :
``...the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena, raising the riddle how the EARLY universe could have evolved in the absence of observers. The riddle may be ``solved`` by invoking God as the supreme observer, who by scrutinizing all particles converts their quantum potentials into actual states (Ferris, page 308).``
Timothy Ferris states in his book, The Whole Shebang :
``...the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats as real only observed phenomena, raising the riddle how the EARLY universe could have evolved in the absence of observers. The riddle may be ``solved`` by invoking God as the supreme observer, who by scrutinizing all particles converts their quantum potentials into actual states (Ferris, page 308).``
#149 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2007 12:53:03 am
In #146 read, << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can answer most questions remaining within their limits >>
as << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can`t answer most questions remaining within their limits >>
Re, #147
Let me quote the answer for you from my paper, God: The New Scientific Evidence:
(quote)According to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems (based upon which the singularity of the Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, because Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level), objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states (Ferris, Timothy 1997:255). The ``wave function`` of the universe could never have collapsed without the ``observation`` of an observer, i.e. God. The Koran states:
To God is due the starting point (primal origin, Badeeh in Arabic) of the skies and the earth. And Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says to it, ``Be`` and it is.``(Koran 2:117).
(end quote)
as << That human senses are limited in their perception does not mean that you can`t answer most questions remaining within their limits >>
Re, #147
Let me quote the answer for you from my paper, God: The New Scientific Evidence:
(quote)According to the ``Copenhagen`` approach to quantum systems (based upon which the singularity of the Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, because Classical physics breaks down at the quantum level), objects are ``real`` ONLY when an act of observation by an observer ``collapses the wave function`` granting the system into one or the other of its potential states (Ferris, Timothy 1997:255). The ``wave function`` of the universe could never have collapsed without the ``observation`` of an observer, i.e. God. The Koran states:
To God is due the starting point (primal origin, Badeeh in Arabic) of the skies and the earth. And Whenever He (God) decrees a matter, He says to it, ``Be`` and it is.``(Koran 2:117).
(end quote)
#148 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 12:51:32 am
re. Zeemax 136:
God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ...
Right... And what, pray tell, do or can we possibly know, which is NOT a direct result of human perception?
God is neither good nor evil. God is God. Good and evil are human perceptions ... while God is incomparable to any human perception ...
Right... And what, pray tell, do or can we possibly know, which is NOT a direct result of human perception?
#147 Posted by PM on July 10, 2007 12:48:00 am
re. masadi:
``Actually [Mr Gill] is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.``
Indeed it would seem that probabilistic causation and determnism are being incorrectly seen as opposites ( A commoon misunderstanding, I might add); but pray tell, masadi sahib, how is God necessitated by Bohr or Heisenberg being right?
``Actually [Mr Gill] is confusing between probabilistic causation at the subatomic level because of the consciousness factor (necessitating the God factor which he is denying wile affirming this) and the structure (that is quite deterministic I might add) that emerges on larger scale levels.``
Indeed it would seem that probabilistic causation and determnism are being incorrectly seen as opposites ( A commoon misunderstanding, I might add); but pray tell, masadi sahib, how is God necessitated by Bohr or Heisenberg being right?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: Sadna, I know MP... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #70 hamidm: you wrote... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 33 You... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- KaalChakra: DM ji, we will... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Do... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 102 Problem is... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 104 Quetta will... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 94 Jokingly... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
