Created???

[Physics Guy]

"Why there is something than nothing" is a different "why" than the efficient cause "why".

Right—or at least, it could be, and probably should be, because any efficient cause we find is just going to raise the question of what its efficient cause was, and so on, but there could maybe be some explanation for why the causal process itself even exists.

So whether the universe is a ray, starts at a point and then goes forever, or is a circle, the fact that there is something rather than nothing or why that something is the way it is and not some other way, is the perplexing question and there is not much of an advantage by saying "ray" or "circle". In terms of actual physics, as you point out, we have to say "ray" if we care about real physics, what there is actual evidence for.

Yes, this is the main thing I was trying to say in most of that long post: if we do still decide to focus on the efficient cause sense of "why", then there really is something that everyone has to explain in some way. Things just always having been as they are might still seem, as it seemed for most of history, like a reasonable default assumption that doesn't need much explanation, but it just turns out not to be true. Around fourteen billion years ago everything was incredibly hot and everywhere was incredibly close to everywhere else, and space expanded and everything cooled. Even if it wasn't creation, it wasn't far short of creation.

[Physics Guy]

Well. It's a bit more logical, at least to me, in that it isn't fully the product of someone's imagination the way gods, fairies and superheroes are.

But I'd say that the speculative theories that turn the Big Bang into an event in a larger eternal universe are also fully the product of someone's imagination, at least for now. They do try to start from a basis in quantum field theory and general relativity, which are empirically confirmed as fitting the real world quite well. Gods, fairies, and superheroes are generally based on real human nature as well, though. They look humanoid, they have moods, they think and talk. Imagination adds features and powers beyond these, for which we have no hard evidence. Speculative cosmology does the same, it seems to me.

[Marcus]

Well. It's a bit more logical, at least to me, in that it isn't fully the product of someone's imagination the way gods, fairies and superheroes are.

But I'd say that the speculative theories that turn the Big Bang into an event in a larger eternal universe are also fully the product of someone's imagination, at least for now. They do try to start from a basis in quantum field theory and general relativity, which are empirically confirmed as fitting the real world quite well. Gods, fairies, and superheroes are generally based on real human nature as well, though. They look humanoid, they have moods, they think and talk. Imagination adds features and powers beyond these, for which we have no hard evidence. Speculative cosmology does the same, it seems to me.

The part I bolded is what makes the difference, for me.

[MG 2.0]

If that's what you think then I can't disabuse you of that notion.

Regards,
MG

Well, is it not the case that most people who are Mormon have Mormon parents? Most people who are Catholics have Catholic parents? Most people who are <religious adjective> have <religious adjective> parents?

Given the extent to which the act of parenting often involves introducing one's children to family religious practices, it seems clear to me that there is not only a strong statistical correlation with parental religion, but an obvious causative mechanism. And that is how most people acquire whatever religion they may possess. Do you disagree?

[Edited once for typo]

On its surface what you say is true although it doesn't allow for free thinking human beings that experience the world. If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents. I went through the 'catechism' of indoctrination. But I live in the world. My eyes are wide open. I'm a human being.

I think you're looking at religious people as being robots that have been programmed and essentially don't have any free will.

I disagree.

I do think, however, that there are those that find it more comfortable and less stressful to look straight ahead and not look side to side. But that's what we find within all of humanity. I was listening to a discussion yesterday:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/commen ... nstein_on/

In which I learned that even those that think they are pretty dang smart can fall into the trap of 'over programming' and tunnel vision that is then difficult to overcome. I've mentioned Francis Collins. He is an example of one that was able to over come his atheistic programming. Sean Carroll is living within that atheistic space (gets reinforcement for doing so) and learned the catechism, and is now dogmatically committed to his point of view.

So, what you are describing is a human trait and it occurs in both the religious and the non religious.

Out of interest, what kind of upbringing did you have in regards to religious indoctrination?

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

OK. so MG finds himself unable to disagree with the point I made:

Well, is it not the case that most people who are Mormon have Mormon parents? Most people who are Catholics have Catholic parents? Most people who are <religious adjective> have <religious adjective> parents?

Given the extent to which the act of parenting often involves introducing one's children to family religious practices, it seems clear to me that there is not only a strong statistical correlation with parental religion, but an obvious causative mechanism. And that is how most people acquire whatever religion they may possess. Do you disagree?

He then says such things as

I think you're looking at religious people as being robots that have been programmed and essentially don't have any free will.

He's wrong about that. I don't look at religious people like that..

He tells us:

If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time.

But please note that it was the Mormon religion that he investigated seriously as he matured. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. The religion he at first treated superficially and only later committed to was ... Mormonism. the religion he got from his parents.

Your Honour, I rest my case.

[Rivendale]

Well, is it not the case that most people who are Mormon have Mormon parents? Most people who are Catholics have Catholic parents? Most people who are <religious adjective> have <religious adjective> parents?

Given the extent to which the act of parenting often involves introducing one's children to family religious practices, it seems clear to me that there is not only a strong statistical correlation with parental religion, but an obvious causative mechanism. And that is how most people acquire whatever religion they may possess. Do you disagree?

[Edited once for typo]

On its surface what you say is true although it doesn't allow for free thinking human beings that experience the world. If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents. I went through the 'catechism' of indoctrination. But I live in the world. My eyes are wide open. I'm a human being.

I think you're looking at religious people as being robots that have been programmed and essentially don't have any free will.

I disagree.

I do think, however, that there are those that find it more comfortable and less stressful to look straight ahead and not look side to side. But that's what we find within all of humanity. I was listening to a discussion yesterday:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/commen ... nstein_on/

In which I learned that even those that think they are pretty dang smart can fall into the trap of 'over programming' and tunnel vision that is then difficult to overcome. I've mentioned Francis Collins. He is an example of one that was able to over come his atheistic programming. Sean Carroll is living within that atheistic space (gets reinforcement for doing so) and learned the catechism, and is now dogmatically committed to his point of view.

So, what you are describing is a human trait and it occurs in both the religious and the non religious.

Out of interest, what kind of upbringing did you have in regards to religious indoctrination?

Regards,
MG

Sean Carroll isn't operating on the foundational claim that allows for people to rise from the dead. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world that allows words to appear on a piece of banded Jasper. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world where invisible beings tamper with mind processes. Big difference.

[MG 2.0]

OK. so MG finds himself unable to disagree with the point I made:

Well, is it not the case that most people who are Mormon have Mormon parents? Most people who are Catholics have Catholic parents? Most people who are <religious adjective> have <religious adjective> parents?

Given the extent to which the act of parenting often involves introducing one's children to family religious practices, it seems clear to me that there is not only a strong statistical correlation with parental religion, but an obvious causative mechanism. And that is how most people acquire whatever religion they may possess. Do you disagree?

He then says such things as

I think you're looking at religious people as being robots that have been programmed and essentially don't have any free will.

He's wrong about that. I don't look at religious people like that..

He tells us:

If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time.

But please note that it was the Mormon religion that he investigated seriously as he matured. Not Islam. Not Buddhism. The religion he at first treated superficially and only later committed to was ... Mormonism. the religion he got from his parents.

Your Honour, I rest my case.

If only it was so simple.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

On its surface what you say is true although it doesn't allow for free thinking human beings that experience the world. If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents. I went through the 'catechism' of indoctrination. But I live in the world. My eyes are wide open. I'm a human being.

I think you're looking at religious people as being robots that have been programmed and essentially don't have any free will.

I disagree.

I do think, however, that there are those that find it more comfortable and less stressful to look straight ahead and not look side to side. But that's what we find within all of humanity. I was listening to a discussion yesterday:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/commen ... nstein_on/

In which I learned that even those that think they are pretty dang smart can fall into the trap of 'over programming' and tunnel vision that is then difficult to overcome. I've mentioned Francis Collins. He is an example of one that was able to over come his atheistic programming. Sean Carroll is living within that atheistic space (gets reinforcement for doing so) and learned the catechism, and is now dogmatically committed to his point of view.

So, what you are describing is a human trait and it occurs in both the religious and the non religious.

Out of interest, what kind of upbringing did you have in regards to religious indoctrination?

Regards,
MG

Sean Carroll isn't operating on the foundational claim that allows for people to rise from the dead. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world that allows words to appear on a piece of banded Jasper. Sean Carroll isn't operating in a world where invisible beings tamper with mind processes. Big difference.

On the other hand he has some strong differences with Eric Weinstein. Differences about fundamental realities. Yet they're both physicists. Same tools and opportunities for learning and experimentation, different outcomes.

He is unwilling or unable to change his mind in regards to something so fundamental as the state of reality. Piers Morgan, a Christian, challenged him on his unwillingness to at least give some credence to the possibility of God and all he got was some chuckles.

Sean Carroll is unwilling to look at other possibilities beyond the dogma that he has inculcated as being the 'one and only truth'. Just as close minded in certain respects as you might accuse a religious person of being. My gosh, they're dealing with quantum stuff. And the math can take them to totally different places.

And we're to trust that they have 'the truth'?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If I'm any example, even though I was born into the LDS Church, I did NOT take its doctrines seriously until I went through a lengthy investigation process over a long period of time. I had Mormon parents.

MG,

What other religions (out of thousands) were also subjected to a rigorous, thorough and "lengthy investigation process over a long period of time" by you?

[Chap]

Some time ago I pointed to the indisputable fact that when people practice a religion, the religion they practise is, in the great majority of cases, the religion that their parents practised. Of course, I use the word 'practise' in a wide sense - thus many people who would tick the box 'Christian' if asked for their religion do little more than eat Christmas pudding and sing carols, or buy Easter eggs at the appropriate season. But what they overwhelmingly don't do is to light Hannukah candles or celebrate Eid. Overwhelmingly, religion comes from parents.

A recent post by me said:

Well, is it not the case that most people who are Mormon have Mormon parents? Most people who are Catholics have Catholic parents? Most people who are <religious adjective> have <religious adjective> parents?

Given the extent to which the act of parenting often involves introducing one's children to family religious practices, it seems clear to me that there is not only a strong statistical correlation with parental religion, but an obvious causative mechanism. And that is how most people acquire whatever religion they may possess. Do you disagree?

MG's latest reply is:

If only it was so simple.

Regards,
MG

And yet he does not dispute that my simple claim is true: for most people, any religion they have is there because that's what their parents did. That's all I claim. And it's true.