Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eugene Shubert

Eugene Shubert

Valued Senior Member
Eugene Shubert said:
I was, as a child, a God-did-it creationist. I am now a quantum creationist.
Click to expand...
James R said:
Sorry to say, but that's not a thing.
Click to expand...
Eugene Shubert said:
Mathematicians are very godlike. We bring things into existence by merely specifying proper definitions. Would you like to see the proper definition?
Click to expand...
Definition
A quantum creationist is a believer in quantum creationism. Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness.

Theorem 1
This definition is well-defined.

Proof:

Psalm 33:9
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Q.E.D.

As for this topic of debate, I propose that quantum creationism is a religion.

Theorem 2
Quantum creationists exist.

Proof:

Prof. Alexander Vilenkin, Director, Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, satisfies the definition of a quantum creationist.


Q.E.D.
 
That's not creationism in any sense. Shame on you for infecting legitimate scientific thought with your religious baggage.
 
spidergoat said:
That's not creationism in any sense. Shame on you for infecting legitimate scientific thought with your religious baggage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's a strawman, like equating building bridges to creationism. "Hey - I created a bridge; it didn't evolve! And it required intelligence! I guess all those evolutionists are looking pretty stupid now."
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Definition
Quantum creationism is any happenstance or intentional creation event where a highly ordered physical reality spontaneously materializes out of nothingness.
Click to expand...
Can you please give a few examples of "highly ordered physical realities" that have spontaneously materialised out of nothingness? I assume our entire universe as a whole is one, but are there any others? If the universe as a whole is the only one, then I suggest you modify your definition to read:

"Quantum creationist is where the universe spontaneously materialises out of nothingness."

Note that I have also deleted "any happenstance or intentional creation event", because those two things would cover all possible modes of something materialising out of nothingness, as far as I can tell. Therefore, the extra wording is redundant.

Now, you just need to establish that the universe spontaneously materialised out of nothingness, and you've established the correctness of "quantum creationism". That will be hard to do, IMO, because you'll need to show (1) there was an initial "nothingness", and (2) that there was a "spontaneous materialisation".
 
James R said:
Now, you just need to establish that the universe spontaneously materialised out of nothingness, and you've established the correctness of "quantum creationism".
Click to expand...
If I could establish the correctness of QC (quantum creationism), then I would be proving QC is a science. But I believe that QC is a religion. Indisputably, QC is a religion because the nothingness that quantum creationists talk about is so thoroughly undefinable that no workable definition or theorem about the nothingness is known to exist. By comparison, everyone acknowledges that belief in God is a religion yet there is a mathematically precise definition of God as well as a compelling uniqueness theorem.
 
I agree with dictionary.com on their definition of science and with their ordering of lesser meanings:

science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.
 
You know Eugene, it's perfectly acceptable to simply have it as a belief that a quantum event created the universe out of nothing. It doesn't have to be your religion; you can just have it as an unsubstantiated belief. No need to go full woo.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You know Eugene, it's perfectly acceptable to simply have it as a belief that a quantum event created the universe out of nothing. It doesn't have to be your religion; you can just have it as an unsubstantiated belief. No need to go full woo.
Click to expand...
You seem to not understand that there is greater woo in the belief that quantum creationism is a legitimate scientific theory and not a merely credible religious doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Eugene Shubert said:
If I could establish the correctness of QC (quantum creationism), then I would be proving QC is a science. But I believe that QC is a religion.
Click to expand...
And you're a believer?

By comparison, everyone acknowledges that belief in God is a religion yet there is a mathematically precise definition of God as well as a compelling uniqueness theorem.
Click to expand...
Really? Got a link, or a quick explanation?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
It's my religion. I believe that axiomatization is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.
http://everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
Click to expand...
I see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

You are using the term "religion" in an abstract context, i.e. an impersonal pseudo-intelligence, such as exists in pure mathematical forms (patterns). I don't doubt your applied searches with "religious zeal".
But it is worship of mathematics, and while I also worship a Tegmark's Mathematical universe, I don't pray to it.

personally, I am in favor of "Potential = God" as "That which may become reality" it would include mathematics. I like this all inclusive secular interpretation of God, which requires no worship of any kind.

Only if you ask the Potential (God) the correct question in the correct mathematical terms, you always will get a correct mathematical answer. It doesn't require worship, only respect.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
And you're a believer?
Click to expand...
Not only did I coin the term quantum creationism, but I formulated a thoughtful theology about it. It's true. I believe in my own theology.

James R said:
Really? Got a link, or a quick explanation?
Click to expand...
Article 1 of The Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Shubertians, Circa 2018, affirms:

1. God is the most thrilling thing in the universe. He is the greatest being that could exist without contradiction with maximally infinite divine attributes. Thus, it's inconceivable that God could be more wonderful, more holy, more righteous, more loving, more merciful, more gracious, more powerful, more knowledgeable, more infallible, etc. etc. than He already is.

The first line is what I learned from a vision. What follows is a definition of God.

As for my uniqueness theorem: When I was a child, I realized that there could only be one all-knowing God. My reasoning was as follows: If two Gods were all-powerful and all-knowing, then both Gods would know what each other would be thinking and Their minds would be intertwined with each other's deepest thoughts and emotions. If so, then They would be essentially just one mind in two different bodies. I have a left-hemisphere and a right-hemisphere but that doesn't make me two persons. Personhood is obviously the uniqueness of mind.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top