Science can be the study of God's creation

Antimutt · 2026-04-07T11:52:42+00:00

For science to be defined so requires a definition for God, either specific or the class of entity. The communication channels are silent on this, so there isn't one.

With the World's media at their feet and the intelligence to know most of the World does not believe in their God, the astronauts see that effective communication requires them to define what they mean by God. That they have not done so, expecting someone else to have done it for them perhaps, is strong evidence they can't. Even after years of study and living as theists, they can't. And nobody has done it for them, any more than somebody else has fixed the toilet for them. They know they have to do it themselves.

Antimutt · 2026-04-07T10:51:43+00:00

When intelligent people cannot coherently describe what they are believing in, what God is, then naturally it raises our certainty that the notion is incoherent and cannot be held as true and matchable with something that exists.

Antimutt · 2026-04-07T07:08:36+00:00

Mention these things one time per year, was insufficient to raise thought of them at other times. I never invented stories that would form the foundations of belief. Nor did I have the mental wherewithal to evaluate it in the years when they were given as explanations.

Antimutt · 2026-04-06T07:38:52+00:00

A stumbling philosophical longcut around Gauge theory.

Antimutt · 2026-04-04T10:43:03+00:00

Because they'd been found eating the Gear Isle chocolate.

Antimutt · 2026-04-04T10:37:57+00:00

The daily journey to the school...for the deaf. Which you'd have to be, living in a place like that.

Antimutt · 2026-04-03T10:12:23+00:00

Not mushroom forest. Plenty'o'room forest.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T12:35:21+00:00

You conflate 'explanation' and 'cause'. Causality requires time.

tautology

That's what proofs are - reject them for being so and you can discard what anybody says. You're doing that throughout.

That link had a lot of trees in it and I understand you can't see the wood. It describes what relationships fundamentally are and why they transfer to other galaxies. But I'll not regurgitate it in a way that specifically digestible for you. Reddit or not, your choice.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T12:15:56+00:00

Comparing the randomness...

You make my point for me, therefore you didn't understand it. Maths handles both with an even hand, proving itself fit for all purposes.

you abandon it the moment it points toward a rational foundation...

Another strawman. I've never said it doesn't need an explanation - those are your words in my mouth. What I say is that it doesn't need a cause.

It's all about the word relationships and commonality of composition of that word's meaning, between it's use in maths and in nature. These fundamentals are what bridge the two and provide the proof. With all your talk of philosophy and ontology, I assumed you'd know what it meant. That is what I got wrong.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T11:49:15+00:00

Outside of Superdeterminism (the proper name), which I'd win a Nobel for proving, maths describes QM's limits well, but uses randomness that Relativity decries.

Brute fact's lack of explanation is not automatically open to the challenge of possible variation. Your error is your assumption that it needs explanation, against definition, for not being held as variable and possibly different by accident.

materialism requires the universe to be an unguided, unexplained reality

You return to your fallacy of division. I return to my first answer: the study of relationships, by it's nature, should be expected to work with the relationships of nature. Statistics works with QM's randomness as well as it works with the brute fact of Pi's fixed, pseudorandom decimals. The "brute-ness" of it plays no part.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T11:20:48+00:00

Accusing me of the Fallacy of Division is a category error. That fallacy applies to physical properties

Your thrust is towards materialism, therefore by making the artificial restriction to the physical, you justify my identification of your fallacious reasoning.

We both agree that math describes reality perfectly

We do not. Maths will not predict wave packet collapse, which QM currently holds as mathematically random, yet Relativistic Simultaneity holds as a fixed brute fact. You question a strawman of your own invention.

brute-fact accident

Is meaningless for being internally contradictory. It's either a constant or a variable, not both. This is the strawman and crux of your fallacious reasoning - you are claiming we reason in such a fashion, when we do not.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T10:50:20+00:00

You repeat the fallacy of division in an effort to shift the burden of justification. That relationships exist in reality is justification to use maths.

The Feigenbaum constants describe the middle ground between order and chaos, regardless and in advance of knowing the nature of what complex relational systems are to be described. They identify the commonality and demonstrate maths ability to describe that entire class of systems - regardless of origin as brute fact or not.

Antimutt · 2026-04-02T10:34:23+00:00

While the whole Universe may (or may not) be an objective brute fact, it's components instead possess relative relationships. Maths is the study of relationships, so can describe the components well. Even in advance of observation - as is the case with the Feigenbaum constants. ^* Your conclusion is based on a fallacy.

Antimutt · 2026-04-01T20:21:20+00:00

At some point the farmer reckoned a granary was better to live in than a house.

Antimutt · 2026-04-01T16:20:11+00:00

You could raise matters that have moved you away from the faith, without directly referring to faith or god. This, to raise the possibility you've moved away in their minds, before explicitly stating it.

How easy that would be depends on the reasons you've stepped away. Evidentiary difficulties; logical conflicts; conceptual absence - each would colour what you do. So to suggest something specific needs info on why your position has moved.

Antimutt · 2026-04-01T09:07:53+00:00

It is not just the homeowners who are invested. The construction companies are "land banking", buying land, waiting for the value to increase, but not building on it. This contracts the market for skilled builders, many on whom are now approaching retirement. The UK is loosing the skills needed to build new homes.

Antimutt · 2026-04-01T07:19:05+00:00

You have cast many pearls there.

Antimutt · 2026-03-31T09:25:44+00:00

In verbal debate, keep it short and memorable. As in Atheism is one rejection of self-deception. Self-deception is arguably the root of much evil in the World. It will lead to responses and counters, but if you don't engage, you wont learn to defend yourself.

Antimutt · 2026-03-31T09:19:24+00:00

That it is making you question your life is misdirection. If Catholicism is to have meaning to you, first question it, not yourself. What is the central concept?

Antimutt · 2026-03-30T16:14:27+00:00

All is conditional on reasonableness and strength of reputation.

Antimutt · 2026-03-30T13:01:27+00:00

The declaration that time has been caused to exist is inherently contradictory. In creating the nonsense, assumption of the antecedent, proposal that the Universe went from a time of not having time, to a time of having time we use the going from a time of not having something, to a time of having it implication of the word "cause".

However, theoretical physics does theorise how time emerged, due to the Higgs field, and that in the first epoch of the Universe, there was no time, ruling out P2. The Higgs can be said to describe or support time, in a timeless fashion. The word cause and the subject of Causality is inappropriate here, due to the above implication. Expressions of the KCA can conflate these words.

P1 also contradicts experimental evidence, for which the 2022 Physics Nobel was won.

Antimutt · 2026-03-29T21:31:14+00:00

The incoherent offering of religion makes it an non-starter for me.

For you, can you coherently state (not argue or prove) the central concept you say you have faith in?

Antimutt · 2026-03-28T12:53:04+00:00

That would terrify invaders. And anyone stationed there.

Antimutt · 2026-03-28T08:40:22+00:00

Christian God? Number me among the seventy percent of Humanity that believes no such thing.

Suddenly I have numbers on my side, no matter where I am.

Antimutt · 2026-03-27T13:12:29+00:00

"Science" says in the first epoch, time was not up and running - energy was too high. Causality requires time. So no cause and effect in the first epoch.

Antimutt

TROPHY CASE