Events that Happen Non-deterministi...

Events that Happen Non-deterministically are Supernatural

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1 Mar 10, 2013
Events that happen non-deterministically are supernatural.

This is a matter of definition.

All mainstream physicists agree that quantum physics is bizarre and that all subatomic events happen non-deterministically.

In the quoted definition of the supernatural:

The World English Dictionary
supernatural
— adj
1. of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2. characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3. of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4. exceeding the ordinary; abnormal
everythingimportant.org/naturalism

I understand “natural laws” to mean physics according to the materialist view of forces and particles operating exclusively under a deterministic law of cause and effect.

World English Dictionary
natural
— adj
3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical: the natural course of events
4. not acquired; innate: a natural gift for sport
5. being so through innate qualities: a natural leader
6. not supernatural or strange: natural phenomena

nat•u•ral•ism
noun
Philosophy
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.

Obviously, I disagree with the philosophy of materialism.

ma·te·ri·al·ism
noun
the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#3 Mar 11, 2013
Sorry Shoob, you're in the wrong forum. The one you're looking for is here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#4 Mar 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
I understand “natural laws” to mean physics according to the materialist view of forces and particles operating exclusively under a deterministic law of cause and effect.
You understand wrongly
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Mar 11, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
You understand wrongly
So you would classify spontaneous quantum creationism, which is now accepted in the popular culture as a legitimate science, as being a natural law that belongs in the same category of science as the physics of levers and pulleys?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#6 Mar 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you would classify spontaneous quantum creationism, which is now accepted in the popular culture as a legitimate science, as being a natural law that belongs in the same category of science as the physics of levers and pulleys?
Non-causal science doth not make it magic. Not that you give a crud since you're just an apologist.(shrug)

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#7 Mar 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you would classify spontaneous quantum creationism, which is now accepted in the popular culture as a legitimate science, as being a natural law that belongs in the same category of science as the physics of levers and pulleys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSNpfeIuCyIXX
False dichotomy, or the logical error of the excluded middle. Once again Shoobie entertains us all with an epic fail on the logic front. Whodathunkit?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#8 Mar 12, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
False dichotomy, or the logical error of the excluded middle.
A law of physics is either deterministic or it isn't. Live with it.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Mar 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Non-causal science doth not make it magic.
No, it makes it supernatural.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#10 Mar 13, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you would classify spontaneous quantum creationism, which is now accepted in the popular culture as a legitimate science, as being a natural law that belongs in the same category of science as the physics of levers and pulleys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSNpfeIuCyIXX
By the "popular culture", you mean, of course, the five people who frequent your website.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11 Mar 13, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you would classify spontaneous quantum creationism, which is now accepted in the popular culture as a legitimate science, as being a natural law that belongs in the same category of science as the physics of levers and pulleys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSNpfeIuCyIXX
Apologies, i just watched your link and its funny.

Of course, it also exposes why your "quantum creationism" account for the appearance of species after species on Earth all in a sequence that is consistent with evolution, is so ridiculous.

I think we can all agree that the geekiest physicist's odds of attracting a real woman are inconceivably higher than such a woman spontaneously appearing in the chair beside him.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#12 Mar 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apologies, i just watched your link and its funny.
Of course, it also exposes why your "quantum creationism" account for the appearance of species after species on Earth all in a sequence that is consistent with evolution, is so ridiculous.
Actually, the fossil record is also quite mysterious. My favorite layer is the Carboniferous, since the overwhelming concentration of plant deposits in a single layer proves that plants existed primarily just for a limited time period in the ancient past.
everythingimportant.org/devolution

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#13 Mar 18, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> A law of physics is either deterministic or it isn't. Live with it.
*Shrug*

Laws of physics are simply short hand ways of describing real world observation using mathematics. Where a law of physics differs from reality, reality wins.

I assume, Shoob, you have made the usual fundy mistake of thinking that laws are superior to theories in physics, indeed in science generally. This is incorrect. Laws are just are just a way of describing observations, theories explain how and why those observation came about.

In the real world there are many things that are not fully deterministic and which can ultimately only be described in terms of probability. None of these things contradict the relevant theories nor even the laws used to describe them. We can use a law, for example Boyle's law, to describe the behaviour of a large number of gas molecules in various conditions. However, the individual interactions of the molecules becomes less and less predictable the smaller the scale we use. At the quantum level, we simply cannot fully describe both the position and the velocity of the constituent sub-atomic particles of the atoms making up the molecules. In other words we can use the probabilistic approach to describe the properties of a large number of molecules (Boyle's law) with a high degree of precision, giving us a very good approximation of determinism accurate for all practical purposes.

As we shrink our scale, we find that our accuracy becomes less and less. At the most basic level we lose any semblance of determinism as our scale approaches the quantum level.

Your childish statement that laws in physics are either deterministic or they are not is banal to the extreme. That you do not understand physics surprises me not. After all, you don't understand biology. Frankly, your cluelessness is so profound that I doubt you could find your own arse with both hands and a map. Please run away now child, you are beginning to annoy the grown ups.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 24 min Zog Has-fallen 73
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 43 min ChristineM 164,986
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Dogen 3,430
Time 1 hr Beagle 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Dogen 84,097
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr ChristineM 223,191
Alabama people are the Anunnaki Fri Mrs parker science 1
More from around the web