Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Do You Think Of This Quote?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:43:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I can dig it. I am a scientist, and when I first began to study my faith in god was shaken. After a while I figured out how to harmonize between to two, and now the more I learn the stronger my faith is.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr

You showed me this before and I agree. But try teach this to a world who believes what they see as reality.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:43:35 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I can dig it. I am a scientist, and when I first began to study my faith in god was shaken. After a while I figured out how to harmonize between to two, and now the more I learn the stronger my faith is.

That's awesome to hear this from a scientist. The scientists who believe we are God's invisible thoughts spoken into vibrations aren't common in this world.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:54:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:49:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:43:35 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I can dig it. I am a scientist, and when I first began to study my faith in god was shaken. After a while I figured out how to harmonize between to two, and now the more I learn the stronger my faith is.

That's awesome to hear this from a scientist. The scientists who believe we are God's invisible thoughts spoken into vibrations aren't common in this world.

Wat?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:56:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:54:01 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:49:42 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:43:35 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I can dig it. I am a scientist, and when I first began to study my faith in god was shaken. After a while I figured out how to harmonize between to two, and now the more I learn the stronger my faith is.

That's awesome to hear this from a scientist. The scientists who believe we are God's invisible thoughts spoken into vibrations aren't common in this world.

Wat?

I thought you said you have faith in God. If you had faith in God, He would have taught you who we are within His mind.

If you were made a believer, then you will keep reading my written testimonies from the faith in God that I have to be taught directly from His mind.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:04:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

In my opinion, if you are not a dualist, and believe your own mind exists, it is not hard to show that God exists (or, it is most reasonable based on what we know to believe God exists).
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:20:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr

That just questions what "real" and "illusion" actually mean in this sense.

To the original quote, it's interesting. Like when you're first introduced into science, you think that reason can explain everything, and do away with gods, but then you realise how deep it goes, and may eventually return to gods.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:25:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If God is just a label for all the mysteries yet to be solved, then yes.

As science digs deeper and deeper into the unknown and pushes the frontiers of our knowledge ever further away, we continue to find out how much less we know as we find out how much more we do not know.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:25:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:04:45 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

In my opinion, if you are not a dualist, and believe your own mind exists, it is not hard to show that God exists (or, it is most reasonable based on what we know to believe God exists).

I would say I tend towards being a non-dualist, and I do believe that my mind exists, depending on the definition.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:26:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:25:05 AM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
If God is just a label for all the mysteries yet to be solved, then yes.

No. God is the mind that grounds all contingent being.


As science digs deeper and deeper into the unknown and pushes the frontiers of our knowledge ever further away, we continue to find out how much less we know as we find out how much more we do not know.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:26:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.

If it turns out that God is not an intelligent being, but rather a natural process that gave rise to the universe, do you really call that God? I guess I would classify the traditional definition of God as one who gives objective moral standards and rules.

That is what Heisenberg believed. Moral standards are given to man by God, the big dude in the sky. I wonder if he supported the gender qualification of God being a man too?

I digressed on your thread though.

I do find the concept of those who reconcile with their religion very refreshing. There is flex there to enable a thoughtful evaluation rather than extreme dogma that begins to intrude on any reasonableness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:28:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:26:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.

If it turns out that God is not an intelligent being, but rather a natural process that gave rise to the universe, do you really call that God?

Natural processes occur within the universe. How exactly could natural processes give rise to the universe? The universe would have to exist prior to the universe, which seems like a contradiction.

I guess I would classify the traditional definition of God as one who gives objective moral standards and rules.

That is what Heisenberg believed. Moral standards are given to man by God, the big dude in the sky. I wonder if he supported the gender qualification of God being a man too?

I digressed on your thread though.

I do find the concept of those who reconcile with their religion very refreshing. There is flex there to enable a thoughtful evaluation rather than extreme dogma that begins to intrude on any reasonableness.
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:29:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr

What's amazing is that the Buddha said the same thing 2500+ years ago.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
Russian
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:32:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I like it, it makes sense, eventually if you trace everything back there has to be a creator.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:49:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:20:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr

That just questions what "real" and "illusion" actually mean in this sense.

To the original quote, it's interesting. Like when you're first introduced into science, you think that reason can explain everything, and do away with gods, but then you realise how deep it goes, and may eventually return to gods.

Before you again return to reason.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 9:53:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:26:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.

If it turns out that God is not an intelligent being, but rather a natural process that gave rise to the universe, do you really call that God?

Natural processes occur within the universe. How exactly could natural processes give rise to the universe? The universe would have to exist prior to the universe, which seems like a contradiction.

It would seem so, but that is because we don't know what it was before it came to be what it is today. In other words what we believe to be the beginning, really may not be the beginning. My beginning was 1970, but there was something before that.

Make an oscillating type electronic mirror. Make it so the oscillation is going back and forth as fast as can, somewhere around 1/3 speed of light. Put that in a vacuum where "nothing exists" It will start bouncing out photons. Supposed "virtual particles" that are flickering in and out of existence. They interact with the mirror, some of the kinetic energy is transferred to the particle and it becomes a particle that can be measured. This is a validated repeatable experiment that was executed a year or so back.

It appears the reality is that something is really there where we thought something did not exist, just as it was predicted. Some postulate that the universe arose from this fact that there is no such thing as a zero energy state in space time. I struggle with the concept of space time being infinitely small and what is outside of space time, but who the h knows.

Besides, the same contradiction exists with the concept of God. Can't just make an assumption that God had no beginning. What is the science that God can have no beginning? If that assumption is allowable, then I say the universe really had no true beginning. It had a period of growth from a very small point and continues to grow, but it was something before that, even if just a twinkle in a virtual particles eye that just happen to manifest itself at the right time and right place. Before that it was just potential, yet it always existed as a potential.

I guess I would classify the traditional definition of God as one who gives objective moral standards and rules.

That is what Heisenberg believed. Moral standards are given to man by God, the big dude in the sky. I wonder if he supported the gender qualification of God being a man too?

I digressed on your thread though.

I do find the concept of those who reconcile with their religion very refreshing. There is flex there to enable a thoughtful evaluation rather than extreme dogma that begins to intrude on any reasonableness.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 10:39:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:53:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:26:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.

If it turns out that God is not an intelligent being, but rather a natural process that gave rise to the universe, do you really call that God?

Natural processes occur within the universe. How exactly could natural processes give rise to the universe? The universe would have to exist prior to the universe, which seems like a contradiction.

It would seem so, but that is because we don't know what it was before it came to be what it is today. In other words what we believe to be the beginning, really may not be the beginning. My beginning was 1970, but there was something before that.

There was something before your beginning, and that is the universe. We can say that about every single thing accept the universe.


Make an oscillating type electronic mirror. Make it so the oscillation is going back and forth as fast as can, somewhere around 1/3 speed of light. Put that in a vacuum where "nothing exists" It will start bouncing out photons.

That's not "nothing". You still need spacetime. If you say the universe came from some pre-existing spacetime, then that implies another universe that needs explaining. You just push the question back.

Supposed "virtual particles" that are flickering in and out of existence. They interact with the mirror, some of the kinetic energy is transferred to the particle and it becomes a particle that can be measured. This is a validated repeatable experiment that was executed a year or so back.

You need spacetime or a quantum vacuum is impossible. All you are doing is explaining the universe, by positing another universe. This just leads to an illogical infinite regress.


It appears the reality is that something is really there where we thought something did not exist, just as it was predicted. Some postulate that the universe arose from this fact that there is no such thing as a zero energy state in space time. I struggle with the concept of space time being infinitely small and what is outside of space time, but who the h knows.

Besides, the same contradiction exists with the concept of God. Can't just make an assumption that God had no beginning.

Actually, yes we Can. God by definition is the necessary mind that grounds all contingent being.

What is the science that God can have no beginning?

You don't need science for that, just metaphysics.

If that assumption is allowable, then I say the universe really had no true beginning.

You can't though. There is actual evidence that the universe had a beginning, but there is no reason to think God does, and reasons to think he doesn't.

It had a period of growth from a very small point and continues to grow, but it was something before that

Then what is responsible for that?

, even if just a twinkle in a virtual particles eye that just happen to manifest itself at the right time and right place.

Yes, but you need spacetime for that. Otherwise, you can't have virtual particle fluctuations. What caused that spacetime?

Before that it was just potential, yet it always existed as a potential.

I guess I would classify the traditional definition of God as one who gives objective moral standards and rules.

That is what Heisenberg believed. Moral standards are given to man by God, the big dude in the sky. I wonder if he supported the gender qualification of God being a man too?

I digressed on your thread though.

I do find the concept of those who reconcile with their religion very refreshing. There is flex there to enable a thoughtful evaluation rather than extreme dogma that begins to intrude on any reasonableness.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 12:09:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

I would agree. I think that all truth points to God. It reminds me of Francis Bacon I believe...

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." (1)

What's your opinion?

(1) http://www.brainyquote.com...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 12:11:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 10:08:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
"Man who drop watch in toilet have shitty time".

--Confucius

LOL
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 12:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 10:39:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:53:15 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:28:23 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:26:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:14:22 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:08:48 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:02:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:56:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg did not believe in a literal translation of the bible, thus was a heretic by making stuff up. Typical Lutheran.

Ok, joking aside, not an atypical view point of 20th century geniuses. They know enough to know that science and empirical evidence disproves a literal translation and Christian fundamentalism, yet the culture of Christianity in Europe still has a deep grasp of the population. It is very unpopular to be an Atheist in the early 1900's especially when raised by ma and pa dragging one to church every Sunday.

His work in science is universally accepted and honored. His religious beliefs are shared by a minority and perceived to be heretical by a majority. Plus, it would have been better if he said, "at the bottom is more uncertainty." :)

Planck's ideas are also accepted by everyone, and he said the same thing. I suppose he is just in the minority as well then? Either way, this is just ad populum.

Of course his religious beliefs are in a minority. You act first like there is no religious belief in the world other than Christianity. Secondly, you fail to acknowledge that the Christian sects are not compatible. Both scientists you mention have beliefs not accepted in the fundamentalist sects. Methodists scoff at limp of faith Lutherans. Next thing you know we are all Universalists and able to believe anything that we want.

I'm not a Christian, and I am not talking about Christianity anyway. While I believe some sort of Idealistic Panentheism is probably correct at this point, I don't associate any religion to that.


I would be willing to bet that the incident rate of theoretical scientists who believe God is at the bottom of the cup is in a decline from the 20th century greats. That is a guess on my part. Could be wrong, but i would take that bet.

You could be right. This is because there is equivocation involved with the word "God". Before you make that bet, you would first have to define 'God". Perhaps there are views of God they would be more open to, and when they think of God they just think of a man in the sky or something.

If it turns out that God is not an intelligent being, but rather a natural process that gave rise to the universe, do you really call that God?

Natural processes occur within the universe. How exactly could natural processes give rise to the universe? The universe would have to exist prior to the universe, which seems like a contradiction.

It would seem so, but that is because we don't know what it was before it came to be what it is today. In other words what we believe to be the beginning, really may not be the beginning. My beginning was 1970, but there was something before that.

There was something before your beginning, and that is the universe. We can say that about every single thing accept the universe.


Make an oscillating type electronic mirror. Make it so the oscillation is going back and forth as fast as can, somewhere around 1/3 speed of light. Put that in a vacuum where "nothing exists" It will start bouncing out photons.

That's not "nothing". You still need spacetime. If you say the universe came from some pre-existing spacetime, then that implies another universe that needs explaining. You just push the question back.

Supposed "virtual particles" that are flickering in and out of existence. They interact with the mirror, some of the kinetic energy is transferred to the particle and it becomes a particle that can be measured. This is a validated repeatable experiment that was executed a year or so back.

You need spacetime or a quantum vacuum is impossible. All you are doing is explaining the universe, by positing another universe. This just leads to an illogical infinite regress.


It appears the reality is that something is really there where we thought something did not exist, just as it was predicted. Some postulate that the universe arose from this fact that there is no such thing as a zero energy state in space time. I struggle with the concept of space time being infinitely small and what is outside of space time, but who the h knows.

Besides, the same contradiction exists with the concept of God. Can't just make an assumption that God had no beginning.

Actually, yes we Can. God by definition is the necessary mind that grounds all contingent being.

What is the science that God can have no beginning?

You don't need science for that, just metaphysics.

If that assumption is allowable, then I say the universe really had no true beginning.

You can't though. There is actual evidence that the universe had a beginning, but there is no reason to think God does, and reasons to think he doesn't.

Just because the big bang is the beginning of space time does not mean that was THE beginning. The condition that allowed the big bang to happen always existed, it never needed a beginning just like God does not need a beginning. No infinite regression problem no something out of nothing. After all it is metaphyics, right?
It had a period of growth from a very small point and continues to grow, but it was something before that

Then what is responsible for that?

We don't know yet, hopefully one day we will know. One thing we do know, it always existed and had no beginning. Anything else such as intelligence or other qualifiers to what it is is just pure speculation.

, even if just a twinkle in a virtual particles eye that just happen to manifest itself at the right time and right place.

Yes, but you need spacetime for that. Otherwise, you can't have virtual particle fluctuations. What caused that spacetime?

You don't know that particles can't exist outside of space time. In fact many postulate that the appearance of non-locality of mater is exactly because they can exist outside of space time or something can exist outside of space time, which is how information can travel faster than the speed of light, which is bound by spacetime.


Before that it was just potential, yet it always existed as a potential.

I guess I would classify the traditional definition of God as one who gives objective moral standards and rules.

That is what Heisenberg believed. Moral standards are given to man by God, the big dude in the sky. I wonder if he supported the gender qualification of God being a man too?

I digressed on your thread though.

I do find the concept of those who reconcile with their religion very refreshing. There is flex there to enable a thoughtful evaluation rather than extreme dogma that begins to intrude on any reasonableness.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 2:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The quote fits my own personal experience. I was an atheist until age 35, coming from an anthropologist point of view that allowed religion in others but viewed it as "primitive superstition". That all changed for me at age 35 when "out of nowhere" I underwent a three day "Road to Damascus" life changing religious conversion experience. The experience destroyed my former atheist worldview. And now, 35 years later, nothing has changed except I have 35 years of periodic spiritual epiphany experience now that has produced a most remarkable new, yet quite old Christian theology, Celestial Torah Christianity.

Poor atheists. I was one and when you're one you really do look upon theists as deluded people, weak irrationally thinking minds, dependent on need of a father figure, so weak in fact, they have to invent invisible friends to comfort them, that was my atheist prejudice until God put me through a three day spiritual Boot Camp and I learned how wrong I had been before. But try telling an atheist they are missing a huge chunk of what's happening in our world and you get nowhere because they literally cannot "see" spiritual phenomena, cannot see synchronicity experiences bearing spiritual information, cannot see the Pattern of spiritual teaching being passed along the generations through the prophets and their visions, and so think the spiritual realm doesn't exist. Everyone's just fooling themselves. But that all gets blown away when you meet the Living God who is quite actively arranging yours and everyone's lives according to God's Plan whether we can see this or not. In spiritual consciousness episodes, epiphanies, sometimes you can see it.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 3:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/31/2014 9:49:37 AM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/31/2014 9:20:32 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:40:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:37:09 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/31/2014 8:34:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"The first drink from the cup of natural science brings atheism, but at the bottom of the cup waits God." - Werner Heisenberg

Don't worry, theists and atheists will soon learn that the illusions of this world aren't real.

Scientists have already known that the universe is an illusion for a long time:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." -Neils Bohr

That just questions what "real" and "illusion" actually mean in this sense.

To the original quote, it's interesting. Like when you're first introduced into science, you think that reason can explain everything, and do away with gods, but then you realise how deep it goes, and may eventually return to gods.

Before you again return to reason.

I'd just never believe in gods. lol
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!