How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[ken]

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If you are very narrow-minded you would say that without a conscious being to hear, there is no sound. But if you are more open-minded you would agree that sound is just vibrations in the air and to be a sound doesn't need a conscious being to hear it.

In reply to the above question I ask why do human beings not just put a video camera and recorder in the forest to find out once and for all.

Because there would still be no living animal to hear the sound so people who hold a very narrow definition of sound would reject that data.

So, are you saying more or less that proof, evidence, and truth is depended solely upon people's own views on things?

[ken]

But what does happen at the quantum scale does translate perfectly up to the larger scales

So can you explain the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relatively

If I was to read up on this subject, then I could give either; an interpretation of why there is incompatibility or of why there is a perceived view of incompatibility.

Can you provide a short over-view of what you see is the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity? If so, then I could give some sort of an explanation.

[ken]

I can easily see and understand how infinity can be and is complete

That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction for that which is infinite cannot also be finite
Finite infinity is a paradox and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically

But I never used the word finite here, so why did you assume I did?

[ken]

ken wrote:

what is the new word or new label that you propose and that human beings are now going to use that satisfies the definition of ALL THAT IS

I still think that ALL THAT IS implies completion. So I wouldn't use that terminology myself, to me, infinity IS THIS SPACE right here and now, this open boundlessness in constant flux. So I would change ALL THAT IS.....to....... THIS IS IT

THIS IS IT ...sounds like an open gate.

ALL THAT IS ... sounds like a closed gate.

I see your point. It makes sense to Me.

[surreptitious57]

I can easily see and understand how infinity can be and is complete

That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction for that which is infinite cannot also be finite
Finite infinity is a paradox and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically

But I never used the word finite here, so why did you assume I did

I used it because it is the opposite of infinite and so is more appropriate
But what reason do you have for understanding that infinity is complete

[ken]

Human beings labeled some thing as quantum scale and propose some thing happens at that scale. Now I do not have any specific example besides absolutely every thing that can be experienced shows how what is happening at any scale translates perfectly. This experiencing of things shows that there is no actual limiter to these scales

What happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level as the laws of physics are different.

The human theorized laws are different at those levels.

And, according to "your logic", 'That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction. Two different or contradictory laws is a paradox and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically'. So, how could it be possible for one thing to happen at one level but not at another level, in regards to how the Universe works? What and where is the defining line between the different levels?

While there is no incompatibility
in actuality between them there is however with the theories namely General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics. And one of them is therefore
flawed [ probably the former ] but till a theory of Quantum Gravity is discovered it is the best approximation of observable reality that there is

The word "theory" gives away the clue about some thing there could be flawed. Both of them are theories. "Theories" are just human made speculations about what is the truth, but only what is IS the actual truth. If only what is is looked at and seen, then the truth is already known and understood. And, as I always ask, Why assume some thing BEFORE the truth is actually known already?

[ken]

Human beings labeled some thing as quantum scale and propose some thing happens at that scale.

Isn't it amazing that there is the ability for a pile of atoms - and their subatomic components to provide sensory perception at all?

The very fact that I can t.ouch c smell h.ear taste amazes me.

You forgot sight and seeing and with sight and seeing, knowing and understanding comes, and is also known by.

Personally, i found it very remarkable that sensory perception existed, (before I understood it and understood why it exists), but what i previously found to be most amazing was that only the human brain could make any real sense of what is sensory perceived. Although the perceptions of reality can and does get very easily mixed up, in a very confusing way, by each and all human beings, i still found it truly amazing how only the human brain can make some sort of logical and reasoned sense of the "world" that it lives in.

Once human beings are prepared to at themselves and thus look at, discover, learn, see, and understand how the Mind and the brain actually work, then all things are not so much remarkable and amazing as previously thought, but are actually just recognized, known, and accepted for what they truly are.

[surreptitious57]

But what does happen at the quantum scale does translate perfectly up to the larger scales

So can you explain the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relatively

If I was to read up on this subject then I could give either an interpretation
of why there is incompatibility or of why there is a perceived view of incompatibility

Can you provide a short over view of what you see is the incompatibility between
quantum mechanics and general relativity? If so then I could give some sort of an explanation

The incompatibility arises because the laws of physics are not uniform across the spectrum but instead fundamentally different at both levels. So
at the classical level space is flat. Something can only be in one place at any one time. The law of cause and effect applies. Absolute nothing can
not exist. Two particles cannot synchronise faster than information can travel between them. At the quantum level the reverse of all that is true Trying to unify them is the single greatest problem in physics today and has been unresolved for over a century. And so if you want to know more about this you should read up on it like you say. As you will understand it a lot better than from what I have said here which is the bare minimum

[ken]

However classical ( non quantum ) physics describes perfectly the process of navigating between the bodies in the solar system
without invoking quantum physics at all. According to quantum physics the flight of a spacecraft would be random and the
craft would only probably reach its target with classical physics there is much less doubt about the outcome

By the way if based on your logic that if I make a claim then it is up to Me to provide examples what happens if the
claim that I made was in direct relation to the claim that you made first? Do you not also have to provide examples

He has provided an example as you can see but you did not provide one with your claim and did not clarify the incompatibility between
GR and QM that exists between them. They are two entirely separate domains and so your claim of transferability is therefore false. As
what happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level and vice versa so there is no smooth transition between them

Is what humans propose happens at these supposed and alleged different levels or scales of the Universe 100% factually true and indisputable?

There is no supposed smooth transition between human beings and what was before them also. But, obviously there was a smooth transfer. Unless of course human beings were created completely different from all other animals and things in one instant random moment. Either ALL things are linked in a compatible fashion and that link is transitioned smoothly or random events and things occur, and come from nothing? If we look at what is, then what It is is clearly seen.

[thedoc]

In reply to the above question I ask why do human beings not just put a video camera and recorder in the forest to find out once and for all.

Because there would still be no living animal to hear the sound so people who hold a very narrow definition of sound would reject that data.

So, are you saying more or less that proof, evidence, and truth is depended solely upon people's own views on things?

I'm not saying that, I'm imagining what some others might say about it. There are some on this forum who claim that a consciousness must perceive the vibrations for them to be sound, I do not agree with that. I say that vibrations in the air are sound whether someone hears them or not.

[thedoc]

By the way if based on your logic that if I make a claim then it is up to Me to provide examples what happens if the
claim that I made was in direct relation to the claim that you made first? Do you not also have to provide examples

He has provided an example as you can see but you did not provide one with your claim and did not clarify the incompatibility between
GR and QM that exists between them. They are two entirely separate domains and so your claim of transferability is therefore false. As
what happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level and vice versa so there is no smooth transition between them

Is what humans propose happens at these supposed and alleged different levels or scales of the Universe 100% factually true and indisputable?

No, but so far there is a great deal of evidence that supports the idea that QM and classical physics do not coincide and no evidence against it.

[surreptitious57]

Human beings labeled some thing as quantum scale and propose some thing happens at that scale. Now I do not have any specific
example besides absolutely every thing that can be experienced shows how what is happening at any scale translates perfectly
This experiencing of things shows that there is no actual limiter to these scales

What happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level as the laws of physics are different for each

The human theorized laws are different at those levels

And according to your logic That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction. Two different or contradictory laws is a paradox
and an oxymoron and so is therefore impossible both logically and physically So how could it be possible for one thing to happen at one
level but not at another level in regards to how the Universe works? What and where is the defining line between the two different levels

One of the theories [ in all probability General Relatively ] is incomplete or inaccurate hence the incompatibility. And the solution to the
problem will be a theory of Quantum Gravity which will unite all four of the fundamental forces as at the moment only three of them are

[thedoc]

There is no supposed smooth transition between human beings and what was before them also. But, obviously there was a smooth transfer. Unless of course human beings were created completely different from all other animals and things in one instant random moment. Either ALL things are linked in a compatible fashion and that link is transitioned smoothly or random events and things occur, and come from nothing? If we look at what is, then what It is is clearly seen.

If you can show the smooth transition between QM and classical physics, then you should do so and potentially win a Nobel prize. The Human story doesn't apply as both present and former humans are both of the same kind of material and there was no translation from one scale to the other in either. One of the theories state that events do happen randomly and things do come from nothing.

[ken]

The word “universe” does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and should (IMO) be viewed more as a bubble-like entity, like one of these...



...of which there could be a near infinite number.

Now that (to me) seems more plausible as representing the “ALL-THAT-IS,” beyond which there is only nothingness.

Yes you are right in that the word 'Universe' does not necessarily mean 'ALL-THAT-IS'. I never said it did. I was just asking thedoc to clarify how they are defining 'Universe' here. But if human beings are going to say the word 'universe' is not 'ALL-THAT-IS' and propose It how you are proposing It here with a "beginning", happening within something much bigger, then what is the new word or new label that you propose and that human beings are now going to use that satisfies the definition of 'ALL-THAT-IS'? What is the name of THIS PLACE, where all universes exist?

The materialists would of course use the term “Multiverse” (as was pointed out by surreptitious57).

I, on the other hand, coming from a metaphysical (spiritual) perspective, have no specific name for it other than perhaps “True Reality.”

A similar problem of my inability to give a fitting name to the ineffable also arises when I attempt to reference God and end up using the unfortunate pronouns “he” or “him” (something that is quite irksome to our beloved Greta).

However, my true visualization of God sees “him” as a completely genderless entity.

In which case, if anyone can come up with a name for the genderless “wholeness of being” of God’s form (and indeed of our own ultimate form that I believe will be revealed to us at the moment of death), then let’s hear it.

What is wrong with just saying God, instead of "him", or any other word?

I have never used "him" or any thing else to describe God, and I have never had any trouble just saying God. I also usually ask people why they call God, "him"? Usually without a valid response?

The reason human beings use the word "him" in reference to God was because when books like the bible were written, usually by men, men were seen as the dominant ones. They described God as a "him", and sadly human beings just never got out of that bad habit.

The point is, if you do not like the term “ALL-THAT-IS” as a reference to the speculatively imagined context that encompasses literally everything that exists on the opposite side of absolute and utter nothingness, then I guess I'm just not certain of what a proper replacement for it would be.

I have NEVER said nor suggested that I do not like ALL-THAT-IS, at all.

What I have done is question those people who use the word Universe and who also speak of other universes at the same time, as to how do they actually define 'Universe'?

I have just suggested to people that you can not really use the term Universe and universes and also be clear about what it is that you are actually talking about.

I found that human beings once upon a time considered the 'Universe' to mean similar to ALL-THAT-IS. But this was when they were only looking at the Universe as having a beginning and being finite. But, when human beings started looking further afield and seeing that the Universe may in fact be much larger than they once thought, that is not actually having a beginning nor being finite at all, then they, confusingly, changed the word 'Universe' to not actually mean ALL-THAT-IS.

But sadly when they say other universes exist they are diminishing what the Universe once meant, and which makes more sense, and more sadly is that they only confusing themselves more and more by doing this.

(Continued in next post)
_______
[/quote]

[surreptitious57]

While there is no incompatibility in actuality between them there is however with the theories namely General Relatively
and Quantum Mechanics. And one of them is therefore flawed [ probably the former ] but till a theory of Quantum Gravity
is discovered it is the best approximation of observable reality that there is

The word theory gives away the clue about some thing there could be flawed. Both of them are theories. Theories are just human
made speculations about what is the truth but only what is IS the actual truth. If only what is is looked at and seen then the truth
is already known and understood. And as I always ask Why assume some thing BEFORE the truth is actually known already

A theory in science is more than mere speculation. It is a framework for a specific phenomenon that incorporates facts and hypotheses and laws
and is the highest classification possible. Nothing is above it. So the scientific definition is therefore the complete opposite of the lay definition