4 ms·

Even if this does point to some higher being or reality, it isn't necessarily any conception of God. Also, true randomness in fluctuations in quantum fields cou

Even if this does point to some higher being or reality, it isn't necessarily any conception of God. Also, true randomness in fluctuations in quantum fields could refute 2, no? Also, trying to extend the notion of time to some point at infinity in the past, as if this is a proof by induction, is absurd. Mathematics are free for us to make statements about because we can start with whichever axioms we like. However, our realities (plural) are necessarily constrained by what we think and observe. There is no way to be certain of the nature of one's reality without somehow transcending it.

throw0101a 3y ago
For quantum-ness, see perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay": * https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio... The book Aristotle's Revenge has "§5.2 Aristotle and quantum mechanics" as well per the table of contents (been a few years since I read it): * https://www.editiones-scholasticae.de/artikel/aristotles-revenge/ https://www.editiones-scholasticae.de/artikel/aristotles-rev... * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43277412 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43277412
- vacuity 3y ago
  While that's an impressive article, it seems to only prove, if it indeed proves anything, that science can't disprove the existence of God. It must be said that nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God, so the fact that the article doesn't seem to try either way is adequate. There are various things in the Bible that could theoretically be proved or disproved, but God is necessarily beyond our capabilities to truly know. Only in maths are there proofs. We're glorified frogs in wells. Whether or not God exists, religious people see fit to mesh their moral axioms with their understanding of God's teachings. Atheists suppose no such being to base their moral axioms on. To each their own, but those who find others intolerable will be hostile. We are humans living in a world we have created for ourselves.

throw0101a 3y ago

For quantum-ness, see perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay": * https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio... The book Aristotle's Revenge has "§5.2 Aristotle and quantum mechanics" as well per the table of contents (been a few years since I read it): * https://www.editiones-scholasticae.de/artikel/aristotles-revenge/ https://www.editiones-scholasticae.de/artikel/aristotles-rev... * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43277412 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43277412

vacuity 3y ago
While that's an impressive article, it seems to only prove, if it indeed proves anything, that science can't disprove the existence of God. It must be said that nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God, so the fact that the article doesn't seem to try either way is adequate. There are various things in the Bible that could theoretically be proved or disproved, but God is necessarily beyond our capabilities to truly know. Only in maths are there proofs. We're glorified frogs in wells. Whether or not God exists, religious people see fit to mesh their moral axioms with their understanding of God's teachings. Atheists suppose no such being to base their moral axioms on. To each their own, but those who find others intolerable will be hostile. We are humans living in a world we have created for ourselves.