So, one last video, I'm still for you ...
unrealistic agnostics and atheists disprove God with the mind? Part 1 of 2
Today we learn why we are being unrealistic in need of enlightenment. Here the author makes use of the video the weapons of the enemy and will clarify with logic and reason, as it is with God. A major role takes on the sacred question mark - why we are in the course of the video seen.
In the first three to four minutes once the first agnostic it. We learn that their world view, logic and perception is very limited and at a point accessible to an end: the sacred question mark. What this means is not difficult to guess. The agnostic does not deny God, yes it might not. The underlying probably lies the principle of falsifiability of science sprung. This means that something is refuted only if its falsity has been proved. So the agnostic says "I see no evidence for God - but also no evidence to the contrary. Since its existence is not refutable, there is the possibility that it exists. ".
In a blunt question mark, like in the video, you should not reduce this group of people, however. Of course, the agnostic until his death do not know whether God exists or not. The collected but in rare cases, his thinking and life. At least not as much as God collected the lives of his followers.
After so with the poor, the holy question mark after rushing agnostics was completed, one turns to the atheists. This should answer a simple question: can there be an effect without a cause? The document versed audience will think is immediately to the quantum theory, but it will probably not be out here. Especially since I am not sufficiently versed in the field to eliminate a cause of quantum effects. What is meant here in any case the cause of life. But apparently they do not want the audience to demand more from obsolete and ...
After a further one, lasting several minutes and repeat the same question, the knowledge that the unknown causes using can determine their effect (as I have another opinion on this later) (wow believe both that there are causal links!) and an ostentatious alliance between theists and atheists is finally coming to the conclusion: THERE IS A REASON! But which is it ...?
first Coincidence
Here, interestingly, the identification of causes of action based on a further taken up again and illustrated with an example that I am not better could have come up. "When the phone rang, the caller happens to be the picture fell off the wall" For many believers certainly a sign of the video ... but the author knows better.: there is no causal link . What we learn from this? Seemingly related events do not necessarily have a cause-effect relationship! Then another interesting point is taken: the learned, helping us to distinguish apparent from real relationships. We know that it is very unlikely that the ringing of a telephone tears a picture off the wall. Presumably, it is dropped, because the nail has separated from the wall. Without our experience we have had no indication, however, not to believe in a connection between the call and dropped.
Now is the interesting line of thought, unfortunately, something absurd. From what happened derives from the author, that chance must have a cause. "The chance is itself an effect of a cause." It would be beneficial to the understanding, to delete the word "accident" from the line of argument and stated: "Every effect has a cause." But apparently, the web of Learned, chance and life still needed for future versions ...
Our experience tells us that a ringing phone does not fall off the wall pictures
And since we already have the basic and find the kink in the argument , which combines the atheist (which your actually all not to move out to God believing people to a like-minded group?) the ground under their feet. The atheist says clearly that we are "created by chance". However, since "random" is always an effect, but can never be a cause (and here we see why the hitherto undefined word "coincidence" of confusion), is the origin of the accident does not make sense, as a final cause is lacking. What remains for us atheists left so as to link the origin of the accident with a cause? And as we do, as logical as we are, we must also believe that the image has fallen by the call of the wall. Who but me is already having a headache? Do we cut out the clutter so ...
discoverable is surely that - who says that - to write out of everything learned to chance an intelligence must be "
That may be. Only I do not think has ever been any atheist anything of what is similar to that described above, even in the slightest. So it is not bad, that chance is intelligent, we do not believe in him at last.
Apparently the author is not able to break out of his thinking shaped by the faith while he attributed the accident to an intelligence and a will and intentional action. What is not should be taken as personal attack, after all, everyone thinks of us in his own subjective way of thinking and a long pursued, coupled with positive experiences, can be as good as not erase everything.
Thankfully we are after eight agonizing minutes but then offered a summary:
"Rational question ... Is there an effect without a cause? - Answer: NO. The next response from atheists: everything is somehow out of themselves. if we set this rationale is based, we would have to be able to demonstrate. If it is not just speculation, so we look at the possibilities of whether this speculation realistic ... we are on our own, everything is created out of itself. That is, the same effect for the same cause of collapse ... the action itself is its own cause ... we want to check this .. cause and effect can collapse like so ... ... just described? In our existence? Explainable by the mind? I have a headache ... [...] "
... of which I was hoping for much more. At least the author shares with us his headache. The rest of the summary, I hoped to bore you and suggest the end of the video to skip. What happened to the just quoted may be read: the author could the big bang have meant. There is a problem. causal relationships require a linear time . If there were no time, it would cause and effect is not distinguishable from each other. And now for the Big Bang. The processes in the universe can be made from today's date to the past and reconstruct simulate very well - to about 10 ^ -43 seconds after the Big Bang. This limit is called the Planck time and is regarded as a cognitive limit, because the time was not linear in front of her, yet had no continuity. Therefore, information on the time of the Big Bang to 10 ^ -43 seconds meaningless, just like this sentence, then there was before this Planck limit no Time in the true sense. Unfortunately, it is precisely this area that we could shed light on the very first processes in general and the initial conditions of the universe. In order to understand something is a comprehensive physical theory of physics necessary to an association of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetic interaction and gravitational) in a formula, known as the "world formula". In the right direction seems to be formed from various string theories M-theory to go, which requires, however, for eleven dimensions. Interesting field of research, the achievement of real world formula will probably still take a while ...
Continuing with part 2 in next post, let's see if we are enlightened ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment