Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God?
By: Ethan Siegel (Big Think)
Science hubris is being presented as science literacy. The simple fact is our physics does not work without spacetime. Our physics always resolves to infinity because spacetime is prerequisite for our physics to work. The constraint of spacetime means our physics cannot describe, explain, prove, or disprove nonexistence. The speed of light is a limitation imposed on our physics by spacetime; the speed of light is a description depending upon only space and time. Causality is an intrinsic property of spacetime. There cannot be causality without spacetime.
The cosmology of cosmic inflation is built upon a requirement of spacetime for our physics to work. The example is that going backward in time by halves can never reach zero. But that is because our physics cannot work if there isn't spacetime; the prerequisite for spacetime means our physics always resolves to infinity.
Another troubling aspect of science hubris presented as science literacy is the tendency to claim correlation is a description of causality. Radioactive decay described by half life is a correlation and not explanation of causation. We do have a general understanding of the cause of radioactive decay: the atomic nucleus has absorbed particles and energy that results in instability. We have not discovered the means to observe or understand that process and, therefore, cannot make predictions. And we have no way to determine if radioactive decay is influenced by interactions between existence and nonexistence. Our physics doesn't allow us to observe or describe nonexistence; our physics must develop explanations based solely upon existence which is a constraint imposed by spacetime. What we observe as random may be due to interactions between what we can understand and what we cannot understand.
A lot of quantum physics is based upon correlations and statistical probability. The inanimate universe of matter, energy, and spacetime is so determinate and predictable that correlations are adequate substitutions for describing causality. Causality, itself, is a property of spacetime. Quantum physics requires spacetime for its correlative description of the universe to work.
Science hubris cannot prove or disprove God to any greater extent than theological hubris. First cause always requires spacetime and existence; causality is entirely dependent upon spacetime and existence. That's why the hubris of scientists and theologians always resolves to infinity. Our science and theology can never understand or describe a state of nonexistence because we are trapped in spacetime and a reality of causality. Spacetime imposes an inviolate limitation on proving or disproving God. And it is only human hubris to think that either science or theology will ever be capable of doing so.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We know that everything in the Universe, as it exists today, arose from some pre-existing state that was different from how it is at present. Billions of years ago, there were no humans and no planet Earth, as our solar system, along with the ingredients necessary for life, first needed to form. The atoms and molecules essential to Earth also needed a cosmic origin: from the lives and deaths of stars, stellar corpses, and their constituent particles. The very stars themselves needed to form from the primeval atoms left over from the Big Bang. At every step, as we trace our cosmic history back farther and farther, we find that everything that exists or existed had a cause that brought about its existence.
Can we apply this logical structure to the Universe itself? Since the late 1970s, philosophers and religious scholars — along with a few scientists who also dabble in those arenas — have asserted that we can. Known as the Kalam cosmological argument, it asserts that
- whatever begins to exist has a cause,
- the Universe began to exist,
- and therefore the Universe has a cause to its existence.
So what, then, is the cause of the Universe's existence? The answer must be God. That's the crux of the argument that modern cosmology proves the existence of God. But how well do the premises hold up to scientific scrutiny? Has science proved them, or are other options possible or even likely? The answer lies neither in logic nor theological philosophy, but in our scientific knowledge of the Universe itself.
Credit
Does everything that begins to exist, or comes into existence from a state of non-existence, have a cause?
If you think about it rationally, it makes intuitive sense that something cannot come from nothing. After all, the idea that anything can come from nothing sounds absurd; if it could, it would completely undercut the notion of cause and effect that we so thoroughly experience in our day-to-day lives. The idea of creation ex nihilo , or from nothing, violates our very ideas of common sense.
But our day-to-day experiences are not the sum total of all that there is to the Universe. There are plenty of physical, measurable phenomena that do appear to violate these notions of cause and effect, with the most famous examples occurring in the quantum Universe. As a simple example, we can look at a single radioactive atom. If you had a large number of these atoms, you could predict how much time would need to pass for half of them to decay: that's the definition of a half-life. For any single atom, however, if you ask, "When will this atom decay?" or, "What will cause this atom to finally decay?" there is no cause-and-effect answer.
Credit
There are ways you can force an atom to split apart: you can get the same effect with a cause. If you were to fire a particle at the atomic nucleus in question, for example, you could trigger its splitting apart and releasing energy. But radioactive decay forces us to reckon with this uncomfortable fact:
The same effect that we can achieve with an instigating cause can also be achieved, naturally, without any such instigating cause at all.
In other words, there is no cause for the phenomenon of when this atom will decay. It is as though the Universe has some sort of random, acausal nature to it that renders certain phenomena fundamentally indeterminate and unknowable. In fact, there are many other quantum phenomena that display this same type of randomness, including entangled spins, the rest masses of unstable particles, the position of a particle that's passed through a double slit, and so on. In fact, there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics — paramount among them the Copenhagen Interpretation — where acausality is a central feature, not a bug, of nature.
You might argue, and some do, that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't the only way to make sense of the Universe and that there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that are completely deterministic. While this is true, it's also not a compelling argument; the viable interpretations of quantum mechanics are all observationally indistinguishable from one another, meaning they all have an equal claim to validity.
There are also many phenomena in the Universe that cannot be explained without ideas like:
- virtual particles,
- fluctuations of (unmeasurable) quantum fields,
- and a measurement device that forces an "interaction" to occur.
We see evidence of this in deep inelastic scattering experiments that probe the internal structure of protons; we predict that it needs to occur in order to explain black hole decay and Hawking radiation. To assert that "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" ignores the many, many examples from our quantum reality where — to put it generously — such a statement has not been robustly established. It may be possible that this is the case, but it is anything but certain.
Credit
Did the Universe begin to exist?
This one is, believe it or not, even more dubious than the prior assertion. Whereas we can imagine that there is some fundamentally deterministic, non-random, cause-and-effect reality underlying what we observe as the bizarre and counterintuitive quantum world, it is very difficult to conclude that the Universe itself must have begun to exist at some point.
"But what about the Big Bang?"
That's what they all say, right? Isn't it true that our Universe began with a hot Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago?
Kind of. Yes, it is definitely true that we can trace the history of our Universe back to an early, hot, dense, uniform, rapidly expanding state. It is true that we call that state the hot Big Bang. But what's not true, and has been known to be not true for some 40+ years, is the notion that the Big Bang is the beginning of space, time, energy, the laws of physics, and everything that we know and experience. The Big Bang wasn't the beginning but was rather preceded by a completely different state known as cosmic inflation.
Credit Beyond the Galaxy
There is an overwhelming set of evidence for this, which includes:
- the spectrum of density imperfections that the Universe exhibited at the onset of the hot Big Bang,
- the existence of those overdense and underdense regions on super-horizon cosmic scales,
- the fact that the Universe exhibited completely adiabatic, and no isocurvature, fluctuations at the earliest times,
- and the fact that there is an upper limit to the temperatures achieved in the early Universe that is well below the scale where the laws of physics break down.
Cosmic inflation corresponds to a phase of the Universe where it was not filled with matter and radiation, but rather it had a large, positive energy inherent to the fabric of space itself. Instead of getting less dense as the Universe expands, an inflating Universe maintains a constant energy density for as long as inflation persists. That means instead of expanding and cooling and slowing in its expansion, which the Universe has been doing since the start of the hot Big Bang, the Universe was, prior to that, expanding exponentially: rapidly, relentlessly, and at an unchanging rate.
Credit Science
This represents a tremendous change to our picture of what the beginning of things looked like. Whereas a Universe filled with matter or radiation will lead back to a singularity, an inflating spacetime cannot. Not just "may not" but cannot lead to a singularity. Remember, fundamentally, what it means to be an exponential in mathematics: after a certain amount of time, whatever you have will double. Then, when that same amount of time passes again, it doubles again, and so on and so on, without bound.
That same logic can be applied to the past: that same amount of time ago, whatever we had was half of what we had now. Take another, equivalent timestep backward, and it is halved once again. But no matter how many times you halve and halve and halve whatever you had initially, it will never reach zero. That's what inflation teaches us: our Universe, for as long as inflation went on, can only get smaller but can never reach a size of zero or a time that can be identified as the beginning.
In the context of General Relativity and theoretical physics, we say that this means the Universe is past-timelike incomplete.
Unfortunately for us, in scientific terms, we can only measure and observe what the Universe gives us as measurable and observable quantities. For all the successes of cosmic inflation, it does something that we can only consider unfortunate: by its nature, it wipes out any information from the Universe that existed prior to inflation. Not only that, but it eliminates any such information that arose prior to the final tiny fraction-of-a-second just before the end of inflation, which preceded and set up the hot Big Bang. To assert that "the Universe began to exist" is completely unsupported, both observationally and theoretically.
It's true that, about 20 years ago, there was a theorem published — the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem — that demonstrated that a Universe that always expands cannot have done so infinitely to the past. (It's another way of expressing past-timelike incompleteness.) However, there is nothing that demands that the inflating Universe be preceded by a phase that was also expanding. There are numerous loopholes in this theorem as well: if you reverse the arrow of time, the theorem fails; if you replace the law of gravity with a specific set of quantum gravitational phenomena, the theorem fails; if you construct an eternally inflating steady-state Universe, the theorem fails.
Again, as before, a "Universe that came into existence from non-existence" is a possibility, but it is neither proven nor does it negate the other viable possibilities.
Credit
Therefore, the Universe has a cause, and that cause is God?
By now, we have certainly established that the first two premises of the Kalam cosmological argument are, at best, unproven. If we assume that they are, nevertheless, true, does that establish that God is the cause of our Universe's existence? That is only defensible if you define God as "that which caused the Universe to come into existence from a state of non-existence." Here are some examples that show why this is absurd.
- When we simulate a two-dimensional Universe on a computer, did we bring that Universe into existence, and are we, therefore, the God(s) of that Universe?
- If the Universe's inflationary state arose from a pre-existing state, then is the state that gave rise to inflation the God of our Universe?
- And if there is a random quantum fluctuation that caused inflation to end and the hot Big Bang — the Universe as we know it — to begin, is that random process equivalent to God?
Although there would likely be some who argue in the affirmative, that hardly sounds like the all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent being that we normally envision when we talk about God. If the first two premises are true, and they have not been established or proven to be true, then all we can say is that the Universe has a cause; not that that cause is God.
The most important takeaway, however, is this: in any scientific endeavor, you absolutely cannot begin from the conclusion you hope to reach and work backward from there. That is antithetical to any knowledge-seeking enterprise to assume the answer ahead of time. You have to formulate your assertions in such a way that they can be scrutinized, tested, and either validated or falsified. In particular, you cannot posit an unprovable assertion and then claim you have "proved" the existence of something by deductive reasoning. If you cannot prove the premise, all logical reasoning predicated upon that premise is unsubstantiated.
It remains possible that the Universe does, at all levels, obey the intuitive rule of cause-and-effect, although the possibility of a fundamentally acausal, indeterminate, random Universe remains in play (and, arguably, preferred) as well. It is possible that the Universe did have a beginning to its existence, although that has by no means been established beyond any sort of reasonable scientific doubt. And if both of those things are true, then the Universe's existence would have a cause, and that cause may be (but isn't necessarily) something we can identify with God. However, possible does not equate to proof. Unless we can firmly establish many things that have yet to be demonstrated, the Kalam cosmological argument will only convince those who already agree with its unproven conclusions.
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
Science hubris and theological hubris are not substitutes for literacy. Thinking that science or theology can prove or disprove God is an irrational expectation built upon science illiteracy and theological illiteracy.
Theology assumes there is a god. It starts with the conclusion of there being a god, and then utilizes "evidence" to fit the conclusion. Science does the exact opposite. It follows the evidence to wherever it leads to find a conclusion. But science doesn't doesn't deal with god/s or the supernatural, as there is no evidence to follow or support those notions to begin with.
And science assumes there has always been spacetime and existence. Science assumes that physics transcends the beginning of the inanimate universe of matter, energy, and spacetime.
Theology, at least, begins with an assumption that everything arose from a state that our physics cannot describe, explain, prove, or disprove. But theology is constrained by spacetime just as science is constrained. That's why theological descriptions of God always resolve to infinity just as our physics always resolves to infinity. An omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful God is theological infinity.
Theology isn't fact based though. Science is. That's why we don't have all the facts of the universe; because we don't know. Not knowing the answer to a scientific question doesn't mean it's only explainable by saying, "it must have been God". That's just lazy and it borders on being intellectually irresponsible.
Bingo.
Science makes no such assumptions or claims. Science does not know the circumstances of the universe before the Planck epoch.
An assumption is all it is. One can "assume" anything. It's just a "god of the gaps" answer to a question, regardless if that "answer" has any validity or not. It is little more than an emotionally appealing means to satisfy a desire for an answer to a mystery.
Except "God did it" is not an answer. It's an intellectual cop-out. See previous statement.
Really? Cosmology confirms the fact that our universe has a beginning. What is our reality has not always been, that's the fact upon which God is based. Physics tells us that our universe emerged from a state that our physics has been unable to describe. Physics has been trying to assume that spacetime is eternal and omnipresent to make the physics work in that prior state. Even physics is assuming a God state before the emergence of our universe.
The "beginning" of the universe is generally described as the Big Bang, which has empirical evidence to support it.
Just another way of using a "god of the gaps" argument. We don't know what "reality" was before the Big Bang. If that is the frame in which "god" is applied, then god became irrelevant the moment (or very briefly after) the Big Bang occurred, as that became what we define as reality.
Physics also does not make assumptions about what that state might have been.
Depending on how one defines "God," It does no such thing. That is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of physics (or science in general) and is intellectually dishonest.
Science is arguing in the gap of infinity. Science is extrapolating infinity into an eternal and omnipresent spacetime; a God state of existence that physics can describe.
That is false!
What a crock of shit Nerm. Why do you (constantly) make such ridiculous claims? If your objective is to prove to all readers that you do not comprehend science then I think you have long since achieved that objective.
Science provides explanations based on sound observations and reasoning. For those areas where one can only guess, science states: 'We do not (yet) know'. Sometimes, science will offer speculation on what might be happening but that is always qualified by '... but we do not (yet) know'.
Like I said, this is just another anti-science hit piece. The article is attempting to equate the origin of the universe with god. Kind of like how apologetics attempt to use science to support theistic points.
How can someone post such crap and not be embarrassed?
Perhaps they do not know well enough to be embarrassed? Or have no shame? I can think of others on NT who fit that description too.
The Big Bang has been accepted Judeo-Christian doctrine for 3500 years.
Modern scientists coined the term to mock the idea, which was not widely accepted until the 1960s.
Not quite. Religious doctrine says god created everything. Science does not need or use god as a cause.
So your singularity is valid but everybody else's somehow isn't?? Riiiight.
Scientists don't know the cause. Theology has a theory, which is frankly as plausible as any other.
A singularity is only speculation. We simply do not know precisely what happened before the Planck epoch.
That is correct. They will state as much too and speculate.
Theology is only a belief and does not fit the definition of a scientific theory. Theology simply states "God did it." That is neither a theory nor an explanation.
Where did Gordy say that?
Correct! And science is clear to declare: 'we do not know' what took place in the Planck epoch (and before, if that even makes sense).
Theology speculates. Not even close to theory (per science). And a sentient creator is indeed a possibility.
And when science speculates, it notes it as such. It does not declare speculation to be fact or theory.
The Big Bang does not state the cause (the trigger for the expansion). It speculates quantum fluctuations, etc. but this is speculation (albeit consistent with physics as we know it). The Big Bang theory does explain the expansion of the universe from the Planck epoch forward to the formation of modern celestial bodies.
Judeo-Christian doctrine claims as fact that the Christian God created everything from a void. That is not the Big Bang. The only similarity is that the Big Bang and Genesis both speak of the creation of the universe — they agree that the universe came into existence.
How can you declaratively state it is not the Big Bang after stating....
Since you (or anyone else) don't know what happened during or before those events, how can you state that it is not the Big Bang?
Because the Big Bang is a DEFINED theory of science that is based on physics that was not known 3,500 years ago. The biblical description of creation does not get into any of the details that correlate with the Big Bang (in fact, the details do not correlate with science such as the perception of the stars).
Note, Drakk, the 'Big Bang' is a theory of science. It is not some loose concept that translates into 'origin of the universe' ... I am talking DEFINED scientific theory here.
The Big Bang, the theory of science, does not speak to the Planck epoch (or before ...). Thus what took place in that tiny slice of time is outside of the Big Bang theory.
Ask clear questions if any of this is unclear. Note again: 'Big Bang' = the scientific theory about the development of the universe. Very specific, well-defined meaning.
Not exactly. As Jack_TX correctly pointed out, the term was first used mockingly, as before Hubble proved the universe is expanding it was thought to be pretty much static. As I understand it, there was reluctance to accept Hubble's findings due to the obvious Biblical account. I can't imagine scientists giving such a monumental discovery such a whimsical name if they had taken Hubble more seriously, initially. Once it couldn't be denied, they accepted it and were pretty much stuck with the name.
And while it is now a science, that doesn't invalidate Jack_TX's point.
You respond to this by saying theology speculates but even in science, it's all speculation. No matter how big or what kind of telescope we build, we will never be able to see the initial state. Our scientific tools couldn't study it if we did.
Seems Jack_TX was correct.
Please, TiG. That's only because there's no way to examine it and not because it isn't inherently related. Or, to be more precise, it is a part of it but we aren't able to actually examine it.
The difference is, science seeks and goes by evidence. Theology my speculate, but often makes claims as fact sans evidence.
And yet, theology tends to make the affirmative claim that "God did it."
You're missing the point. Again.
It is correct that we believe God is responsible for life, the universe and everything. Deal with it. Beyond that, you should really stop with the "God of the gaps" crap. It isn't true. There's a difference between saying God created everything, designed it and set its laws and understanding those things He made. That is, saying God created the conditions necessary for orbital mechanics to be a thing doesn't preclude someone from also understanding how orbital mechanics works.
In your case, you believe something like, it just is (orbital mechanics) and just does (work). There's no mysterious cause or causer. That's fine. Believe that if you want to, but don't think for a second science backs up your view. It doesn't. There's nothing in science that explains why orbital mechanics should exist at all. That is, there's no philosophy as to why it should exist in the first place in science.
So we see yet again that Jack_TX was right.
Deal with this. You are wrong.
Humanity is a failed species. They are like locusts destroying their own planet.
They alone among the mammals kill each other by the millions, cycle after cycle
for politics, resources and religion.
Human life is the antithesis of intelligent design.
Death is the end.
Science CANNOT accept a "philosophical" explanation for existence. Any philosophy at all implies a philosopher.
The necessary position of science is "it just is". Everything is as it is because it is. Why has there been eternal existence? We don't know , it just is. That is what science says about that.
Yep. It's their "god of the gaps" but they can't see it.
And here I thought that 'science' was simply a process and not a noun.
Funny you should mention that. That figures rather large in Christianity. You are mostly right but apply it completely wrong.
Think about it. How is it that everything in the universe does and acts as it is supposed to except us? Dogs do the dog thing well. Stars do the star thing well. Gravity does the gravity thing well. Electrons do the electron thing well. Everything appears to work in accordance with its nature. Why are we different? Why is it everything except us seems to do what it's supposed to do? Everything behaves in accordance with some law except us? Why do you think that is?
Whether you agree with it or not, Christianity provides an answer. It's a logical answer. God created us for a purpose. But that purpose went wrong when we believed the lie that we had the power to decide what is right and what is wrong without God. It's quite obvious we don't have that power. We absolutely suck at determining what is right and what is wrong, and even when we think we do, we can't follow through with doing what is right.
You are right. Death is the end. But it doesn't have to be. Even though we rebelled against God, He made a way back. It's never going to fix this world, even if you accept that. This world is done for. It can't be fixed. But there's another coming. Wouldn't you want to be a part of something that wasn't this? This world of death?
What, exactly, do you think is 'Jack's point'? Jack claimed that Gordy has his own definition of singularity and the Big Bang. That is not correct. Gordy is referring to the Big Bang as the current theory of science. I am too.
The Big Bang as a theory of science is well defined. There is no Gordy's version of it. And people can invent their own meaning for 'Big Bang' but that does not change the fact that Gordy was referring to the theory of science. And that is what should be taken as the default: 'Big Bang' = the theory of science by that name.
Why don't you just read what I write?:
I just used the biggest font available in the system. Do you see the critical word yet?
So, again, Drakk, you do not read what I write (or ignore it) and then engage in a strawman pretending you are telling me something I do not know ... yet I already made this clear.
It is an answer that is entirely speculation. Logical or not, it has no factual foundation. It is a story.
Why do you think we are different? Different in what way?
I said my piece, TiG. Not going to waste my time arguing with someone like you any further.
Calling a claim 'ridiculous' doesn't make it so. Attempting to appropriate a claim seems to be a measure of modern science literacy.
When the science doesn't know then the science substitutes a correlation for an explanation. Newton's laws of gravity do not explain gravity. Newton's laws correlates the influence of gravity with observations.
Some things are beyond the ability of physics to address. Science cannot answer every question. Science cannot explain every observation. The asymptote of infinity confines physics and prevents physics from understanding God.
Extrapolating correlations to explain what lies beyond the asymptote of infinity still requires miracles. Physics drifting into metaphysics doesn't avoid saying 'God did it'.
Someone like me? Nice Drakk.
Your 'piece' was to state that it is speculation for science to speak of what triggered the Big Bang after I had already clearly stated exactly that. In fact I used the exact same word: 'speculation' to describe the scientific musings of the Planck epoch and prior to that (if that even makes sense).
Instead of admitting that you yet again leaped at a perceived gotcha because you ignored or did not bother to read what I wrote, you pretend that your comment was perfectly sound and that I am the problem.
True. And your statement does not make your claim any less ridiculous.
But science does not put forth speculation as fact or theory. It notes speculation and that 'it does not know'.
Yes, Nerm, because it is a law, not a theory. Again you demonstrate that you do not understand the basics of science. Laws are not explanations (theories are explanations). Laws summarize well-founded observations and suggest phenomena that are expected to always be true.
Correct. Who claims that it can?
Correct. Who claims that it can?
Gish Galloping.
That is not the function of science, John. Science seeks to explain observed phenomena grounded in evidence, reason, falsifiability and predictablity. Philosophical musings are fine when engaging in scientific speculation, but such musings are entirely the opposite of the work to produce theories of science.
Science says: 'we do not know' when it does not know. Honesty. In quantum dynamics, science can explain the behavior of particles to an amazing level of accuracy, but science does not know what causes the behavior that it can so accurately predict. Instead of admitting ignorance would you prefer science to invent some speculative story and pass it off as truth?
To wit, how can you possibly complain that science admits when it does not know something?
That is just profoundly stupid Drakk. When science does not know it admits its ignorance. It does not invent an explanation and pass it off as truth. There is no god of the gaps in science because science does not fill gaps with a claim of truth; that is the game of religions, not science.
My claim was that physics (and science) argues in the gap of infinity. You call that claim ridiculous and then proceed to agree with my claim.
Gish galloping is a common method used by the various sciences. The seeded article is a Gish gallop that avoids the fundamental issues of God as source, God as creator.
The tired, trite argument is that something cannot come from nothing. But our scientific understanding of existence depends entirely upon spacetime. Without spacetime what does the state of existence of 'nothing' mean? That's a scientific argument in the gap of infinity.
Physics is not a noun? Chemistry is not a noun? Mathematics is not a noun? Evolution is not a noun? Science is not a noun?
Science will never explain things that are inherently unexplainable. Such as "why?"
Science explains the "how".
Science's explanation for "why" is "it just is". That is sufficient for you but not sufficient for many other people.
You state the obvious as if this is contested.
It is 'we do not know'. I think you misrepresent science by using the phrase 'it just is' because that connotes some declaration by science. That is simply not the case. When science does not have an explanation it admits that it does not know.
When faced with 'we do not know', we will naturally resort to speculation. Speculation, in itself, is a fine endeavor. Speculation is part of a creative process and helps expand our knowledge by giving us avenues to pursue.
But speculation that is taken as truth is bad. Inventing something and declaring it true perpetuates ignorance and inhibits advancement of knowledge.
Science speculates about a multiverse. This speculation is grounded (substantially) in modern physics, but since it is unevidenced it is simply speculation. Basically this is theoretical physicists following the mathematics. This speculation is helpful and it is not taken as truth (or even factual).
Religious speculation does not stop at sentient creator. It goes well beyond that and offers its musings as truth. And since much of the religious storyline is comforting, it appeals to people and they tend to accept it as truth. But, ultimately, this 'truth' came from the imaginations of human beings (substantial supporting evidence here) and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise.
I would suggest that when people hit questions that science cannot reasonable explain, that we do indeed speculate on potential answers. But always remember that this is simply speculation and the musings involved do not generate truth.
You toss around phrases such as 'gap of infinity' as if that has some specific meaning.
Not even an argument. By definition, 'nothing' is simply a conceptual reference to the absence of everything. By definition, something cannot come from nothing.
See above.
Using such obscure phrases is not persuasive. Sounds like the title for SciFi novel. One could ascribe all sorts of meaning to the phrase 'gap of infinity'. It is pedantic language that, I expect, is intended to give an illusion of high intelligence.
Much better to use common English words and stick with the most common usages of same.
Then what is the point?
You can believe whatever you like. But belief does not equal fact! So when you use god as an explanation for life and such, that is merely a belief and also a god of the gaps argument. Passing it off as fact is also dishonest!
The difference is saying it as belief or saying it as fact.
No one ever said it did. But saying god created the conditions and such is still just an empty assumption, based on nothing more than mere belief.
Don't presume to know what my "beliefs" are Drak. I try not to go by belief, unlike some.
Again, I don't go by belief. I go by evidence. There could be a causer or something. But There is no evidence for any "mysterious cause or causer."
On the contrary, science doesn't back up your view. Science does not claim there's a "causer" nor that "god did it." Science simply says "we do not know."
Philosophy is not science. You can wax philosophical about how and why and such. But that is little more than a thought experiment. It doesn't actually answer anything, much less provide any definitive answer.
No, he's not. He tries to equate theology with a theory. They are 2 completely separate things.
What makes you think we are different? In what way?
No, it doesn't and it's not. It makes an assumption based on belief.
Again, just mere belief.
Don't flatter yourself! You haven't provided any meaningful argument to begin with. Just mere beliefs, speculation, and lack of any supporting facts or evidence. Arguing for the sake of arguing.
No matter how many times one makes a clear statement, the same basic strawman arguments are posed. It is a perpetual game of changing the position from what the interlocutor wrote into something that allows a rebuttal. And then when one spends time explaining what one wrote (to ridiculous levels of detail, with quotes, etc.) the claim is then that the interlocutor is changing their position when 'caught'.
Seems to me that if one finds oneself engaging in such tricks that one would recognize that maybe their positions are not nearly as strong as they think they are. And I suspect that happens to a degree, but faith demands that this not be the case ... one's faith simply cannot be wrong ... if it looks as though the faith is wrong then there MUST BE some other explanation even if one cannot figure out what that explanation is.
Human beings are very good at believing what they wish to believe no matter what.
You and Gordy go over the same things hundreds of times. There is nothing new at all in any of these "God" discussions on NT.
Philosophy is not science. Philosophy is a way of thought and thought experiments. But unlike science, it neither seeks nor offers any evidence for its "explanations." It essentially boils down to "what ifs" and "could be" and the like. While it may be intellectually stimulating, it's far from a definitive explanation.
Here's a philosophical question for you: what if everything really is "just is because it is?" No more, no less.
I agree nothing new happens. Most of my time is spent addressing claims that people make such as: science, when it hits an area for which it has no answers, simply asserts 'it just is' as if that is some sort of answer. That is a misrepresentation of science as I explained.
If the religious side did not constantly make claims / spin like this then there would not be much need for rebuttal from individuals such as Gordy and myself.
ok
I disagree that noting that science's position is that "it just is" represents "spinning". You believe that science's inability to explain "why" doesnt mean anything because that is not science's role. Yet you are not averse to using science to try and knockdown philosophy or religions role in explaining "why".
Just admit that science and religion work different sides of the street and leave it at that.
What it states plainly.
He does. Stated in his previous comment.
While this is to vague to precisely state what Gordy actually thinks about the Big Bang, it certainly can be said it doesn't include God as an explanation. Which leads to Jack_TX's next statement.
And that matters how? Jack_TX certainly wasn't, It's pretty clear from the context he was simply speaking of the beginning of the universe and nothing else. Since he made the statement, he sets the context in which we are speaking of the beginning of the universe, not you or Gordy. Hence, my first post (question) to you.
So, rather than answer the question you do what you always do and misdirect. It's simply referring to the beginning of the universe. This idea I don't understand science speculates when any intelligent person can see it is that very speculation that is the basis of my question. Since science doesn't know what happened, and therefore can only speculate, how can you state what religion believes is not the Big Bang? You just respond by saying the Judeo-Christian claims are not the Big Bang and then misdirect as if we are talking about the scientific theory of it, rather than taking what Jack_TX as what it plainly meant. Typical you.
This is why I say "someone like you" and that there's no point in actually discussing anything further. No matter what anyone says, you take it and put it in the context of your choosing and then complain endlessly when people object. Waste of time.
Yes, I have noticed. Many many times now.
Perhaps that's why they engage in such tricks?
Which is a disingenuous position to hold.
Yes, they are quite emotional and irrational at times.
If theists didn't make claims for god or misrepresent science all the time, then these discussions likely would not occur.
You have to be specific John. I object to religion contradicting well-established science such as evolution. So when people claim that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy, etc. I will indeed object.
And, as I have stated repeatedly, I do not object to people filling in the gaps in our knowledge with speculation. I noted that science does this too (see: string 'theory' as an example of this kind of speculation ... albeit grounded in physics). The problem is when one holds mere speculation as truth. That is what religion does: it portrays speculation by human beings as truth.
Far too simple. First, I have never suggested that science and religion operate in the same domains. They are clearly different. Science seeks to explain observations in a way that is repeatable, predictable, falsifiable, etc. Religion seeks to provide answers where there is no answer but differs from science in that the answers have no formal underpinnings and are presented as TRUTH.
And it's still erroneous.
What definition of the Big Bang did I make up Drak?
What's not clear about it? I accept the scientific definition of the Big Bang. I do not make up my own definition. Neither did I ever say god could not be an explanation. Only that there is no evidence of that being the case.
Yes, the Big Bang is widely considered to be the "beginning of the universe." So what is the problem?
Yes, science can only speculate what happened before the Bang. It doesn't know. Religion automatically assumes "god did it." See the difference?
So God is the Big Bang, is that what you're saying?
And you engage in these silly tactics when your argument gets called out and falls flat. TiG certainly isn't the problem here!
I agree with you on that.
All it ever boils down to anyways is "Prove it".
Who said that it could? Science seeks to answer questions and provide explanations. That doesn't mean it will find an answer or explanation. But at least it tries.
Meaningless rhetoric.
How in hell do you not see me directly answering your question? Is it a mental block on your part where you simply ignore answers and declare they were not given? This is just outright bizarre Drakk.
You asked: " How can you declaratively state it is not the Big Bang after stating...."
My direct and absurdly over-explained answer was:
Apparently you cannot or will not understand what I wrote.
I can declaratively state that the Judeo-Christian doctine that God created everything for a void is NOT the Big Bang by the DEFINITION OF THE BIG BANG. It is by definition that that Big Bang does not deal with that which triggered the expansion of the universe . It is strictly a theory of expansion, cooling and formation. By definition , Drakk.
Now that is completely consistent with my statement: " Correct! And science is clear to declare: 'we do not know' what took place in the Planck epoch (and before, if that even makes sense)."
Science does not know what triggered the Big Bang. It has no theory, just speculation. When you speak of events in (or before) the Planck epoch you are speaking outside of the scope of the Big Bang.
Now read these words Drakk because they are crystal clear and you can corroborate them with a simple Google search:
The Big Bang theory does not apply to the Planck Epoch and thus does not deal with the question of what triggered the Big Bang expansion.
Because the Judeo-Christian beliefs hold that God created the Earth, moon, sun and the stars, et. al. The beliefs even get the order of expansion wrong (among other things). The beliefs do not correlate with the Big Bang and, importantly, precede the Big Bang by inserting God as the initiator of all creation.
Again. the Big Bang does not address the initiating event of the chain reaction. It does not deal with what pushed the first domino only the expansion, cooling and formation that naturally followed according to known physics.
If someone states 'Big Bang' in reference to the beginning of our universe, you think it is misdirection to take that to mean a reference to the established scientific theory we call the 'Big Bang'???
Oh yeah, Drakk, such a horrible thing for me to take the words 'Big Bang' used in a context of religion and science and hold that to mean the scientific theory known as the Big Bang.
Yeah, that is such trickery.
Give me a fucking break Drakk, you are going beyond ridiculous and I hope people can see that.
I agree with one thing; that is all you seem to have grasped. You clearly boil everything down into that uber-simplistic phrase. And you constantly repeating your simplistic summary is such an incredible contribution to the conversation.
It's pretty simple. The context of Jack_TX's comment is pretty clearly about the universe having a beginning, not what you think constitutes Big Bang theory. To reword what Jack_TX obviously meant, what makes one person's view of the cause over another's?
This is clear from the comment...
... which is true. Scientists at first did not want to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. What Jack_TX is talking about, quite clearly, is that the Judeo-Christian belief that the universe had a beginning and God is the explanation is just as valid an explanation as anything science comes up with since that, too, is as speculative as you claim the other view is.
So, since you've wasted so much time trying to misdirect about what the theory of the Big Bang is, how about answering the question. Given that science can only speculate on that, how was Jack_TX wrong? How is the Judeo-Christian understanding of the explanation less valid than a speculative scientific one?
Not that this is relevant to anything, but this is simply ridiculous. The Big Bang theory deals with everything except the Bang? And you actually think that makes sense? Why not call it "After the Big Bang Theory?"
I really don't care if you agree or not.
I am simply going by what I read here.
My contribution is every bit as "valuable" as yours, despite your inflated self-worth.
This is not about what I (or Gordy) thinks constitutes the Big Bang Theory. That theory is DEFINED. There is no debating the fact that the theory does not include the scope of the Planck epoch.
So this is clearly not one person's view over another. The theory is DEFINED, Drakk. Look it up. The Planck Epoch cannot be part of a theory of science because it has no supporting evidence, is not falsifiable, etc. It is a dark area the precedes the theory known as the Big Bang.
And, again, you fail to read what I wrote. I have stated numerous times that, per science, what took place in the Planck Epoch is pure speculation . So here you go telling me what I have stated repeatedly here (and elsewhere for more than a decade in forums like this).
The difference between scientific speculation about the Planck epoch (and before, if that is even possible) and religious speculation is that the scientific speculation extrapolates from well-founded understanding of physics. It is not as though scientists sat around dreaming up anything that pops into their head. But, even with the grounding, science readily admits that it does not know what took place in the Planck epoch and offer educated guesses (speculation).
Above I noted why one could argue the JC explanation is less valid than the scientific speculation (scientific speculation is grounded in well-founded physics). But, importantly, I never stated that the JC explanation was less valid in my reply to Jack; read my reply to Jack @ 1.1.17 and show me where I stated the religious speculation was less valid. I noted that the religious stories are not even close to scientific theories and the context was the Big Bang. Thus the story of God poofing the universe into existence (the Earth and then later adding stars to light the night sky - and yeah I know apologists have been all over finding ways to make the Bible read correctly ...
), etc. has zero supporting evidence whereas the Big Bang theory has an abundance of supporting evidence. When making that comparison, the religious story does not compare. I also stated that the scientific explanation of creation is NOT the Big Bang Theory. The reason is because the Bible, et. al. does not articulate that theory of science and the explanation it provides does not correlate with the theory. Thus, really super simple, the two explanations do not correlate well.
Now, again, let's focus on the speculation part and compare that. Nobody knows what initiated the formation of the universe. The religious explanation is that God did it. That is speculation. The scientific explanation (at least the most popular one) is that quantum fluctuations triggered a chain reaction resulting in a rapid expansion (all in the Planck Epoch) and then from that point (all time after the first 1 -43 of a second) science offers the Big Bang theory as an explanation (not speculation) for the expansion, cooling and formation of the universe.
The Planck Epoch has a religious speculation and a scientific speculation. Both are speculations. Either (even both) could be true. Both could be false. Any of this sinking in yet or will I have to repeat this a dozen more times?
Drakk, I suggest you research a topic before engaging in debate. You just demonstrated that you do not know what you are talking about. Worse, you know that the Big Bang was coined derisively yet you still ask such a profoundly stupid question.
Read about the Planck Epoch. That should be enough to answer you question. I have mentioned the Planck Epoch probably a dozen times now yet you have failed to even take step one to find out what it means.
Yeah you merely repeating for the 100th time that 'it all boils down to prove it' was a stimulating contribution.
gee, I am so fucking sorry the truth is not "stimulating" you enough.
oh.../s
Tried to read your response but when it was clear you're just continuing the same crap my eyes sort of glossed over and I lost interest.
Uh, yeah. I already knew what it was so it wasn't necessary to research. Now, how is it not part of the theory?
So, you were saying something about needing to do research before engaging in debate? I can hardly wait to see how you attempt to spin this one.
Is that a problem? Whenever someone makes an affirmative claim, the appropriate reply (and rightfully so) is the challenge to prove the claim.
Yes, it is a problem. You are well aware of the fact that the question of God is not a scientific question, nor can it be proven or even examined by science. You know this, yet you keep falling back on the idiotic "Prove it" meme every time. So, essentially, you are asking someone to do something that can't be done and think you've made some sort of point. It would be as if I asked you to prove unicorns exist and you have to use compound interest to do it.
Yes, I am constantly explaining the same thing to you. Gets pretty damn boring for me too.
Then perhaps one should not make affirmative claims of god. Then there wouldn't be a challenge. It seems the problem lies with you or those making such claims.
If they can't do it, then they shouldn't make the claim as matter of fact to begin with. They're just being dishonest!
I never made any claim of unicorns existing. So you have no basis for a challenge. But as soon as I say "Unicorns absolutely do exist," then feel free to challenge me to prove it!
Of course. If science can't examine it, it doesn't exist. Got it.
Yep. There certainly isn't any other method other than science to come to a conclusion. You're so right, Gordy.
Wow. Brilliant. You're a master at avoiding the point, Gordy. Nicely done. I'm sure none of the other rubes here will notice what you've done. You're just too clever for them.
It's like you said TiG, no matter how many times one makes a clear statement..., right?
Noticed. Ad nauseum.
Well, for a change of pace, how about giving the actual subject a try rather than taking us down rabbit holes? You might find it refreshing.
Oh! And what were you saying about the Planck Epoch again? Something about it not being a part of the Big Bang theory or something?
No, you clearly don't get it.
Nothing as good as the scientific method.
Glad you realize that.
Maybe you should actually try to make a valid point rather than your juvenile debate tactics.
LOL. As if you could recognize one in the first place.
Like I said, make one. Your childish antics only makes you look irrational and foolish.
As a greater man than I once said, "For a believer , no proof is needed. To a non believer, no proof is possible."
I did. Your response was nonsense.
In other words, you just double down. Since it can't be examined by science, your solution is that no one should make the claim. In other words, as I said later, if science can't examine it, it doesn't exist. According to your argument, it must be so, because you're stupid "Prove it" schtick necessarily means that the only acceptable way to "prove it" is through science. Since it can't, either it doesn't exist, or no one should be allowed to address the issue of God in the first place because it can't be examined by science.
So, either you can't recognize a valid point when you see one or you are just ignoring it like an eight year old would rather than admit error.
Then it perfectly suits your so-called "point."
You still don't get it. Affirmative claims bear the burden of proof. If one calls it a belief (or opinion), then no burden exists. But once an affirmative claim is made, then that garners the burden of proof. If science cannot examine something, then it will not make a claim either way. It will simply say "we don't know." That has been explained to you before, so I'm not sure why you continue to not understand it.
That statement demonstrates your continual inability to understand.
Your "point," such as it is, is flawed from the get go. You talk of doubling down, and your statement proceeds to do just that with childish tactics!
Talk about setting the bar low.
Proof (or even evidence) must first be presented. That has yet to happen.
I gave you the answer multiple times. Simply stated (again):
Speculation / hypothesis ≠ scientific theory
Apparently in your ' research ' you did not recognize that speculation / hypothesis is not part of a theory of science.
Your research should have shown you that all science can do is speculate on what happened in the Planck Epoch (and before, if that makes sense). The Planck Epoch is a period of time where the laws of physics as we know them do not apply; this period of time is a mystery.
In direct contrast to speculation, a scientific theory is the highest level of knowledge provided by science. A theory of science necessarily explains observed phenomena, is falsifiable, is predictable, etc. The period of time known as the Planck Epoch is a hypothetical placeholder for the first 10 -43 seconds wherein physics, as we understand it, does not apply. It is unknown to science what actually took place. All that science can do is speculate (intelligently).
Science does not put forth ' we do not know; but here is a guess ' as a theory of science.
Since the Planck Epoch is acknowledged by science to be a mystery , it cannot qualify as or part of a theory of science. It can serve as a hypothetical bookend for a scientific theory but no more ( ):
Now lets go back to what you wrote:
It makes excellent sense! Because speculation is not part of a scientific theory , the actual science —the actual scientific theory— starts after the Planck Epoch. And there is no way it can be otherwise because the Planck Epoch is a period where physics as we understand it breaks down. The Big Bang scientific theory does not explain what initiated the expansion of the universe . The initiating event is NOT party of the scientific theory labeled 'the Big Bang'; it is simply a placeholder that might be resolved when a unification theory emerges that can explain both quantum mechanics and Relativity (especially gravity).
In short:
Planck Epoch = scientific speculation / hypothesis
> Planck Epoch = scientific theory (essentially: the science of cosmology)
And now returning to Jack's comment and my reply:
Do not claim: My God exists and you will not be meet with 'prove it'. If someone makes a claim of truth they bear the burden of proof (or at least some persuasive evidence). When making (likely) the grandest possible claim, some very persuasive evidence in in order.
I am responding to your comments. If you do not like the focus then that is on you. You are now simply trolling Drakk. How low do you plan to stoop?
See @1.1.79. I predict that you will ignore it and continue to think that speculation / hypothesis qualifies as scientific theory. And you will continue to be wrong.
No, Gordy, they don't. Not concerning the subject of God, since there can be no proof unless He Himself provides it. It's not in the realm of science, where if I claimed the moon was made of swiss cheese, I would indeed have a burden of proof. Since God and swiss cheese are in completely separate categories, burden of proof is not an issue. You either believe or don't. That simple.
Same thing. If I am asked how this universe came to be I would answer God created it. Only someone who doesn't understand the issue being discussed is going to claim I have a burden of proof.
Science won't make a claim about anything at all. That is because science is a method, not a person. It is people who make claims based on data obtained through the scientific method. When someone says "the science says" what they really mean is "we interpret the data gathered through rigorous scientific testing to mean X."
So, really, what you're saying is there's no scientific data on the subject so you don't have an opinion either way, not science.
I understand it perfectly. What you don't understand is that it only applies to subjects that can be examined by the scientific method and nothing else. God is outside of science so your whole point is irrelevant.
There's nothing to respond to in the rest of your post so it is dismissed.
Yes, they do. That's a simple rule of debate.
That's a cop out and just disingenuous.
Belief does not equal fact. So when one tries to pass belief as fact, they incur the burden of proof. It's that simple.
Answering a question does not incur the burden. That's just a belief and you can state it as such. Making the claim "God created it" does incur the burden.
"Claims" are based on gathered evidence. Science does not make declarations of certainty without evidence. At best, it can only speculate without evidence, which it acknowledges.
My opinion is irrelevant. It's what the evidence shows. If there is no evidence, there is no reason to accept something as factual or true. Doing so would just be wishful thinking.
Your attempt to move the goalposts is both transparent and disingenuous.
It's already been explained to you enough. I can't make it any simpler.
Yes they do and you damn well know it Drakk. It does not matter that the subject matter is religious, the laws of logic still apply. If you assert a conclusion, your premises must be true. So when you assert a truth (conclusion): 'My God exists', the underlying argument needs to be sound. If not, you are expressing bullshit.
In contrast, if you assert: 'I believe my God exists' you are not stating a truth but rather a belief. No burden of proof.
Did they ask you to opine or to state a truth? Did you opine in your answer or did you declare a truth? Makes a big difference.
Why don't you just read what the man wrote? It was crystal clear: "If science cannot examine something, then it will not make a claim either way.". So, for example, science does not weigh in on the concept of a sentient creator because it has nothing upon which to base even an hypothesis.
That is merely a claim of truth by you. You cannot even evidence this as true (much less prove it) so all you have offered is your belief.
Note: you can define God this way, but that definition will not show that God exists.
Your sound position would be something like: "I believe God exists but is outside of science. " Okay, fine, you believe that.
Oh, no, no, no, TiG. Nope. Nu uh! This does not at all address it. Not even a little bit.
So, again, what were you saying about the Planck Epoch again? Something about it not being a part of the Big Bang theory or something?
Didn't need to do the research, since I already knew that. That I did was reflected in the very first question I asked you.
So, what we have is you endlessly going on about what we all already knew and about what constitutes Big Bang theory from a scientific perspective and what speculation is for no apparent reason other than to, I don't know, obfuscate the issue?
That works as your personal opinion but it doesn't mean the singularity and the Epoch are not a part of the theory. It is ridiculous to claim they are not. Every place I've looked include them in the theory. Not one left them out. Sorry, but there it is. Maybe you could market it as "Tig's Big Bang Theory Lite." All the cosmology we understand and none of the stuff we don't! What do you think? Will anyone buy it?
Actually, science can explain everything given time.
Do you hold that a speculation can be part of a theory of science?
The Planck Epoch is scientific speculation. Your own sources should have made this clear to you. So since when did science promote speculation to the level of theory?
Explain how one falsifies speculation on an area where science claims to "not know" what took place? If you cannot do that then you surely should be able to comprehend why the Planck Epoch cannot be raised to the level of scientific theory.
You are just dying to make what is declared by science to be speculation to be considered scientific theory. That is a losing proposition because you cannot change the criteria for scientific theory to meet your desperate needs. Thus, all I expect to see from you is continued theatrics.
Whatever, TiG. You're going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of how much evidence gets shoved in front of your face. It doesn't even matter to you that the actual event the theory refers to, you know, the Big Bang, would necessarily include the instant the singularity or whatever was or wasn't there went Bang. Hence the Bang in Big Bang???
But hey, why listen to me, right? All that is just theatrics. It certainly isn't common sense and it certainly isn't backed up by any search you might do concerning what the Big Bang theory consists of.
So, congrats! You've devolved this discussion into stupid.
This has nothing to do with belief. It, as per my first post, has everything to do with the meaning of scientific theory.
You will be unable to show that science holds: "We do not know because our understanding of physics breaks down into meaningless infinities" is a scientific theory. The Planck Epoch speculation cannot hope to be a theory of science until science unifies quantum mechanics and gravity so that the physics within the Planck Epoch can be understood (and thus begin the process of potentially securing a bona fide theory of science for this period of time).
I consistently describe scientific theory per science and you put forth the above "this speculation is actually scientific theory" nonsense and then label my responses 'stupid'. Theatrics.
Certainly not MY problem.
Ya'll have fun arguing endlessly over the same old thing week after week after week, changing no one's mind and proving absolutely nothing.
Seems really, really productive to me!
But hey, you got to challenge someone's beliefs! Yay!!!!!
I don't challenge someone's beliefs. I challenge their claims.
Parsing words doesn't change what is done.
As if that were ever a part of anything I said. You're just arguing your own argument.
Yep. Keep playing your fiddle and see if anyone dances for you. Big Bang theory still includes the singularity and the Planck Epoch. All you have to do, TiG, is do a search on what the Big Bang theory is and it's right there. Not my fault. Not my interpretation. So, rationalize to your heart's content. It won't change it. Your rationalization will still be stupid because it doesn't match the facts that are there for anyone who cares to look.
That's their stock in trade, though. It's how they avoid points people make. Like TiG is currently trying to do with me.
Not parsing anything. Just stating a simple fact.
Okie-dokie then.
I understand that well.
Pity, isn't it?
Frustrating, actually. Try to have an honest conversation and they constantly either play word games or pretend the subject is other than what it actually is. Don't really know why I bother.
Science states that it does not know what took place in the Planck Epoch yet you, Drakk, some poster in a forum, declares that the scientific speculation about what might have taken place during the first 10-43 seconds of the universe is a scientific theory (explains empirical observations, predictable, falsifiable, etc.).
Are you not aware that even Relativity was not granted the status of scientific theory until a prediction of the theory was empirically tested? Yet here, in an area where science admits that it does not know, you, inexplicably claim that science has elevated "we do not know but have some guesses" into a theory of science.
Incredible.
How, Drakk, can you possibly reason that science has a theory for a point where all known physics breaks down? For you to actually hold that view you would need to not comprehend the meaning of the term 'scientific theory'.
Just cannot imagine what drives you to stubbornly stick to the ridiculous.
Does science state that it does not know what took place in the Planck Epoch? (Answer = yes)
Does science define theories to explain that which science declares "we do not know but have some guesses"? (Answer = no)
So explain how one can honestly conclude that the Planck Epoch is a theory of science?
Trolls the guy who claims that " we do not know but have some guesses " is a theory of science. Who claims that an area where known physics breaks down and science can only speculate somehow is viewed as the highest accomplishment of science.
The Planck Epoch is recognized by Big Bang theory as the period of time in which the expansion of the universe was triggered. It does not know what happened and it has no scientific theory that explains this period of time. All that science can deliver at this point is speculation and science is quite open about the fact that it simply does not know.
Project much?
Look, you can try to repaint it any color you want to. Claim whatever bullshit about what I've said you wish to, but it doesn't change the fact that the singularity and the Planck Epoch are part of the Big Bang theory. That isn't me insisting. That isn't me being stubborn. I didn't come up with the theory. It isn't me taking something out of context. This would be easily settled by you providing a citation that states that the singularity or the Epoch is not a part of the Big Bang theory, but you never do. That would be because it doesn't exist. It's just you trying to insist they aren't.
This is plain to anyone who looks. Yet you continue to pretend my argument is other than what it actually is. Like this bullshit.
Never said anything like that. Even remotely. Typical of trying to argue with you, though.
You're having a one sided argument, TiG. For it to be two sided, I'd have needed to have said something contrary to this. I haven't, so what's your point?
Your desperation to turn this into something where you're not wrong is a bit sad.
Think much?
That is not a fact. That is you stubbornly pushing the nonsense that the Planck Epoch is a theory of science. The Planck Epoch is part of the Big Bang narrative (it is the placeholder for the beginning); that does not make it a theory of science.
Coincidentally, I actually did include one @1.1.100. You ignored it. But finding a very specific citation is difficult. Besides a citation is not the core. The core is the meaning of the term 'scientific theory' and the criteria required for an explanation to be elevated to that level. See, you have to actually use your mind and think about these concepts. You refuse to even acknowledge the facts I have presented.
Bullshit. You claim that the Planck Epoch is a theory of science. The Planck Epoch is declared to be an area where physics as we know it breaks down and we can only speculate. You thus claim that"we do not know but have some guesses" is a theory of science.
At least, though, you recognize how stupid that claim is. Now you need to just be honest and acknowledge that the Planck Epoch = "we do not know but have some guesses". Had you honestly engaged in research as I suggested you would know this about the Planck Epoch.
Hello? When you claim the Planck Epoch is a theory of science you are saying something contrary to: "The Planck Epoch is recognized by Big Bang theory as the period of time in which the expansion of the universe was triggered. It does not know what happened and it has no scientific theory that explains this period of time. All that science can deliver at this point is speculation and science is quite open about the fact that it simply does not know.".
Buy a vowel.
Obtuse denials and theatrics. Your posts have devolved into nothing but trolling.
No, that's you trying to characterize what I say as saying something I'm not. What I am saying is that the Big Bang theory includes the singularity and the Planck Epoch. I'm saying it because everything I've read on the subject says it is a part of the theory. I've never claimed the Planck Epoch was a theory in and of itself. I've never said anything that even suggests it.
Perhaps because there's nothing there that says it isn't part of the Big Bang theory?
Because it doesn't exist? That would be difficult, alrighty.
Nope. Just you doing your TiG thing. Trying to make it about something you think you can be right on. What this has been about is your claim that the singularity and the Planck Epoch are not part of the Big Bang theory.
That would be because they are misdirection and have nothing to do with the point.
Nope. I said the Planck Epoch was part of the Big Bang theory but feel free to quote me where you feel I've done otherwise. I'm sure you'll discover it about the same time you find your specific citation that doesn't exist.
Nope again. What I claimed was that because we don't know, Jack_TX was correct that the Judeo-Christian explanation for the universe beginning to exist is as valid an explanation as any other. How you turn that into making the Epoch a theory would be something only you could explain, somehow, anyway.
Now you're just desperately grasping at straws.
Well, I can see there's no shaking you from your fantasy. You can't point to anywhere where I've said anything like the Epoch was a theory of science by itself. You will only ever find that I have said it is part of the theory of the Big Bang. Not because I believe it to be so but because all you have to do is do a search on what constitutes the Big Bang theory and it says it is. It's that simple.
Sad. You continue to make an argument against an argument no one is making and call me the troll.
[deleted]
Yes, that is the crux. Christians have faith that our universe, our reality, was intentionally created for a divine purpose. We are here for a reason; we are not here just to be here.
Religion (not only Christian religion) attempts to understand the purpose of our existence. Science attempts to understand the causality of our existence.
The problem is that humans have the ability to establish a purpose that transcends generations. The original sin of humans was to establish self serving purpose. A purpose established by humans is not divine. And appropriating the authority of God through a church will not impart divinity onto self serving purpose. A self serving purpose will require a self serving morality. Humans do not suck at determining right or wrong; humans have the audacity to establish a self serving purpose without regard for divine purpose.
A false god serves a false purpose.
Physics cannot describe or understand a singularity. The asymptote of infinity gets in the way. Physics cannot get to the zero point.
Our physics is entirely dependent upon spacetime. Physics doesn't work without spacetime. And a singularity cannot be described by space or time; there is no spacetime in a singularity. A singularity is a zero point that physics cannot reach.
The only valid answer by physics about a singularity is 'we don't know'. Trying to understand a singularity requires a leap of faith without evidence.
I know what you are saying. I have been explaining to you why you are wrong. In detail, repeatedly.
Okay, I am going to break this down step by step. Note that the singularity (predicted by the equations of Relativity) is what is believed to exist at t=0 (and earlier if that makes sense) that is why I focus on the Planck Epoch since it includes the singularity.
So here are your words transformed step by step.
The collection of theories populate the scientific domain of Cosmology.
Finally, rearranging to make this super clear:
And thus:
No, speculation can never be a theory of science. The speculation of what happened in the Planck Epoch is absolutely NOT a theory of science.
What you have found in your readings is that when the Big Bang is discussed, the narrative naturally starts at the beginning with the Planck Epoch. What you refuse to even acknowledge is that it is incorrect to deem the speculation about the Planck Epoch to be scientific theory because speculation in science is NEVER elevated to the highest product of scientific research — scientific theory.
Speculation does not come close to meeting the criteria to be a scientific theory.
So how can you resolve this in your mind? Easy, stop trying to play a childish gotcha game and think about this. Recognize that the literature you typically read (and for obvious reasons) describes the Big Bang as a narrative that necessarily has a beginning. Just mentally recognize that the Planck Epoch is the first domino but that first domino is a mystery to science and thus is not —by definition— a scientific theory. Recognize that if science produced 'theories' that were nothing more than educated guesses (speculation), science would have very low credibility.
So, as I have repeatedly suggested, acknowledge the criteria required for an hypothesis to achieve the level of scientific theory. Note (as I have already brought to your attention) that even Einstein's very detailed and popular theory of General Relativity replete with field equations was not recognized as a bona fide theory of science until one of the key predictions of the theory was validated (curvature of light via gravity). Certainly you understand that if the criteria to achieve the highest possible level in science (scientific theory) is this demanding, mere speculation cannot cut it.
Finally, disregarding all this word nonsense, my point remains:
And thus:
"God created from the void ..." is theological speculation that corresponds to the scientific speculation of the Planck Epoch. In both cases, we do not actually know what took place. However, with the Planck Epoch we do have some guidelines based on modern physics but, in effect, science admits that 'we do not know' what happened in the Planck Epoch.
"God willing the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, etc. into existence" corresponds to the actual theory under the label 'Big Bang' which explains rapid expansion, cooling and formation of celestial bodies. This "God willing celestial bodies into existence" contradicts Big Bang Cosmology (theories of science).
And now returning to Jack's comment and my reply (which bizarrely you used to start all this):
My responses to Jack remain correct because I hold true to the distinction, by science, between speculation and scientific theory.
Correct. The singularity is basically the result of a limit function applied to General Relativity (working backwards in time). It is a notion extrapolated by going past the point where the mathematics cease to be coherent.
Correct.
If the Planck Epoch explanation is part of a scientific theory then (see @1.1.109) it necessarily meets the criteria of scientific theory.
Science admits that it can only speculate about the Planck Epoch. That speculation does not meet the criteria for scientific theory.
The Planck Epoch is described as part of the Big Bang narrative (for obvious reasons) but the explanation of what took place in this period of time is not a theory of science. It is speculation. Speculation is not scientific theory.
The Planck Epoch itself is true by definition (the first 10-43 seconds of the universe) if the universe actually had a beginning (and we believe it did). The explanation of what took place during (and before if that makes sense) the Planck Epoch is speculation — speculation is never scientific theory by definition.
What a waste of effort on your part.
Nope. Not what I said at all. You are correct in that you did 'transform' what I said into what you want it to mean, though.
Why you think this is a valid thing to do is beyond me, but I'm used to it by now.
Love the way this sentence presupposes that my argument is that the Planck Epoch is a theory in its own right rather than my actual argument that the singularity and the Planck Epoch are both a part of the Big Bang theory, whether we can actually examine the singularity or Planck Epoch or not.
Further, it's amusing that you seem to think that it is a part of that theory because of what I think. Nope. I didn't hand out a memo to cosmologists telling them to include it. They seem to have decided it amongst themselves. Sorry.
Let me suggest something that will be more productive than trying to convince me of your view. Some sort of campaign where you contact the actual scientists working on the Big Bang theory and either a) get them to drop the singularity and the Planck Epoch from it or b) get them to stop referring to the Big Bang theory as a theory.
Of course, if they choose option a. they'll have to change the name of the theory. Not much point in calling it the Big Bang theory but leave out the bang, am I right?
Waddaya think?
Jack_TX was obviously not using "Theory" in the scientific sense, TiG.
So your rebuttal is "nuh'uh".
Is the explanation of the Planck Epoch scientific speculation? (Answer: yes)
Is scientific speculation ever elevated to the level of scientific theory? (Answer: no)
Thus the explanation of what took place in the Planck Epoch is not scientific theory.
The Big Bang theory includes recognition of the Planck Epoch (because, after all, it exists by definition) but the explanation of what took place in that period of time is pure speculation and thus cannot be scientific theory.
Okay, so you hold that this statement: "Theology has a theory, which is frankly as plausible as any other." is really just stating that the beliefs of theology are just as plausible as any other beliefs.
If so, I would like to see justification as to why the belief of a sentient entity willing the formation of the cosmos is as plausible as the theories of science in cosmology starting after the Planck Epoch.
The former is pure speculation. The latter consists of bona fide theories of science (Cosmology), each of which is supported by evidence, is falsifiable, predictable, etc. and all work together in a consistent fashion based on physics as we understand it.
If you recognize that speculation is substantially weaker than the explanations provided by bona fide scientific theories then you should recognize that the speculation of theology is not as plausible as the scientific theories underlying Cosmology in the areas where they correspond. (And that last qualification excludes the Planck Epoch because in that period of time the scientific explanation is arguably no better (or at least not substantially better) than the religious explanation).
I'll restate.
Judeo-Christian theology has a hypothesis, which is frankly as plausible as any other.
As is absolutely every idea about why and how the Big Bang occurred.
It is worth noting that the theory was developed by a Catholic Priest and the Catholic Church embraced it long before most scientists. Pius XII believed it was scientific validation of the Catholic faith, in which the universe starts with a big bang....as originally described by a Jewish shepherd 3500 years ago.
"Occurred"; EXACTLY! I am thus confident that you recognize that the explanation of what took place within the Planck Epoch is scientific speculation and that scientific speculation would never be considered a scientific theory (not 'theory' but 'scientific theory').
Thus when we speak of the theological explanation for that which triggered the formation of the universe, the theological explanation is speculation. And when we speak of the scientific explanation for that which triggered the formation of the universe (what occurred at t=0 in the Planck Epoch), we are speaking of speculation.
Speculation on both parts. And since both are speculation then both are arguably par.
That said, I would argue that the scientific speculation is grounded in physics (quantum physics and General Relativity) and is largely an extrapolation of what should be the case working backwards in time. So while it is still speculation, it is working within a very well established framework of formal, challenged, etc. scientific theory. I find that more plausible given the supporting evidence than an unevidenced sentient entity willing the formation of the cosmological bodies. There has been no need, as of yet, to introduce a god factor to explain the rapid expansion, cooling and formation of the known universe.
Now, on this part:
If we are talking about that which triggered the formation of the universe then my qualified agreement is above. If your hypothesis extends beyond triggering and into formation and we are thus comparing the theological hypothesis on how the cosmos actually formed then I disagree. Science has a very strong, formal explanation for the formation of the cosmos from the first 1-30 of a second up to the present. I see no comparison in terms of plausibility between that highly evidenced, challenged, etc. formal and consistent explanation with the biblical accounts of Genesis. That does not imply a sentient creator is impossible.
So trigger compared to trigger, qualified agreement.
Formation compared to formation, I disagree.
You speak as if they are opposing views. They aren't. Essentially, you're asking which is more valid, the engineer who made the car or how the car operates.
Incorrect, and has been every time you state something like this. Pure speculation would be saying something like, "I bet there's a planet out there made of pure sapphire!" When one takes things into account such as the apparent fine tuning of the universe, the monumentally complex workings of the human body, the existence of morality, it can't honestly be described as pure speculation, no matter how much you wish it were true.
Which really only relates to the operation of physical objects of this universe but doesn't address anything else. It describes the car, how it works, what it is made of and so on but says nothing of the engineer that created which can be empirically proven.
What I recognize is you attempting to insist mayonnaise is substantially weaker as an explanation than the color blue. They aren't really related, are they? There is nothing in the scientific theory that suggests why an electron should exist at all. Nothing that explains its purpose. It only explains how it behaves through its inherent properties, should it actually have any. What it absolutely doesn't do is explain why? Why are we here? What are we here for? Other such questions. You are attempting to say one is superior to the the other when they don't really address the same things. Mayonnaise and the color blue.
Still talking to yourself?
You do not see the difference between our universe forming by the direct effort of a sentient creator versus the undirected interaction of particles and the emergent forms resulting from a net increasing entropy?
There is not a shred of evidence identifying a sentient creator. Without evidence, a sentient creator is pure speculation. A sentient creator might exist, it is possible, but its existence at this point is pure speculation.
That is an argument from incredulity. You cannot imagine how our universe could possibly happen without a sentient creator thus you find our existence and the complexity and perceived 'fine-tuning' to be evidence. It is not. See, Drakk, if the awesome complexity and sophistication of our universe requires a sentient creator then something even more awesome and more complex — the sentient creator itself — would likewise require a (meta) sentient creator. Your logic is flawed.
Wrong. Cosmological theory describes, in great detail, the natural progression of the universe from super hot plasma through the formation of H, the formation of heavier elements, the formation of stars, planets, etc. There is no engineer required to explain this progression.
You continue to try to make an argument by substituting ridiculous analogies. Try to argue on the facts rather than engage in smoke screens.
Where do you see me suggesting otherwise? Hello? We are now talking about 'why' an electron should exist?? You are clearly off base and I am noting that this is the point where you entered your tangent.
Yeah, Drakk, that is what science does. Science explains how things work and that includes how things form, undergo change and deform to be repurposed.
And, again, here you go off into why. I understand why you want to move to a different topic because your argument thus far is not happening. But the problem is that I have never stated that science explains why we are here, what our purpose is, etc. So your strawman has no legs.
Philosophy is used to try to figure out the whys (and religion falls within this category). (And yes science is technical a form of philosophy but skip that). So if someone wants to read up on what other human beings have mused about why we are here, they should turn to philosophy.
I am watching you continue to ignore my direct probative questions. You ignore them because you cannot admit that the explanation of the Planck Epoch is scientific speculation and that it therefore cannot possibly be a theory of science.
Still ignoring what is explained to you and trolling ad nauseum now?
No, it's asking which is more valid, a natural origin of a spark (aka trigger) that ignited a known explosion or a supernatural unproven man in the sky with a match that triggered the explosion. Clearly the speculation based on scientific speculation would be more plausible than just a made up fantasy man in the sky no one has ever been able to prove exists and has zero scientific basis.
Well that's a load of horse shit. Each thing you mention can be explained by completely natural universe and the results of completely explainable physics, none demand a creator. In fact the flawed God theories based on the complexity of humans basically disproves God if you keep following the line of logic that human complexity would require a more complex being to create it and that being would then require an even more complex being to create it and on and on until you either throw your hands up and just declare your imagined God simply breaks the rules and thus doesn't need a creator. Of course there is no difference between that and simply accepting that human complexity doesn't require a creator either.
There are all sorts of patterns within nature that humans, at first glance, would assume are manmade but have perfectly explainable natural origins. Just because the universe exists and obeys laws of physics doesn't directly imply a creator/engineer/designer. Yes, science focuses on observation and testing of things that can be seen and or measured, that's the only way we've learned so much about our universe and yet it's only been able to scratch the surface. But to jump ahead of the science and just proclaim divine origins for everything and anything that science hasn't explained yet is scientifically dishonest and only goes to stroke the ego's of slimy self-absorbed ignorant pricks who want to proclaim that only they know who and what made our universe and what that God wants from humans so that they can use those claims to control others. By proclaiming their 'authority' they have supposedly been granted through belief they empower themselves to be the arbiters of right and wrong, all without ever having to prove their deity even exists.
While science is really only concerned with what is here, not why, that still doesn't excuse the flippant speculation of faith and religion. Science and faith really aren't related as you've said, and science isn't out there trying to disprove any faith, it's merely trying to explain what exists and has tracked back existence to a singularity. It's not trying to claim that some ancient scientist named Dan created all things and thus all scientists are actively seeking evidence of Dan in contradiction to all other imagined Gods. It's merely collecting facts, observing the universe and using scientific theory to confirm those facts which humans now use in every day life, almost like magic.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Humans from just a few decades ago would consider much of our current technology 'magic' by their standards. I've no doubt that people would have worshipped Alexa as a Goddess if the technology existed a few hundred or thousand years ago. And they would have been just as wrong to assume that such abilities could only come from a God or Goddess as those today who speculate on the universes origins without a speck of actual evidence. All they can do is marvel at the abilities displayed when they don't understand how it works. And there is nothing wrong with marveling at the universe, just don't bother inventing a God with a specific name, personality, desires and emotions and then trying to push those beliefs on others without actual evidence of that God.
What makes you think it's undirected? I've asked you a number of times, how could we tell the difference between an electron with certain behaviors because of its inherent properties and an electron that just does what it does because God directs it to from moment to moment? The answer would be, you couldn't tell the difference.
But more, if electrons have inherent properties that don't require someone like God to direct it from moment to moment, what is to say it wasn't designed by God to behave the way it does? I've also asked you what you would expect to see from a God directed universe but you never have an answer. The obvious question, then, is what reason can you come up with that this universe could not have been created by God? What about what you observe through science means that God could not be responsible? Answer: nothing.
Of course, that in itself doesn't mean God created the universe, but that wasn't the point. The point is that a) you can't demonstrate that it is undirected and b) there's no logical barrier to God being responsible for the universe existing.
That isn't correct. We have the Bible, for starters. The Gospels record the actions of a man who could be no one other than the Son of God. While you may not consider that evidence, many others do. The universe, by all appearances, appears to be fined tuned for life. You may not consider that evidence but many others do. You see, or perhaps you don't, every person gets to take the information available to them and make their own decisions. Just because you don't think it constitutes evidence doesn't mean it isn't. It only means you don't accept it.
Okay. Suppose I agree. What counter can you offer that is evidenced based? You don't have one. All you can do is describe the physical interactions of our universe and nothing more. You can't prove they are undirected. About all you can do is present a philosophy which insists that something can't be credible unless science can dissect it, categorize it, explain it. But there's no scientific basis for such a philosophy. It's simply a personal decision on and individual's part. Nothing more.
According to what? The way this universe works? Fine, show me the evidence that the only existence that is possible under any circumstances must conform to the rules of this universe and we can talk. If you can't do that you are simply making an unsubstantiated claim. You see, the real flaw lies with your thinking. If existence in this universe consists of X, therefore any possible existence anywhere must also consist of X. Do I really need to explain why that reasoning is faulty?
Not wrong. You're just repeating what I said. Cosmological theory describes the car, in great detail. I didn't say the Engineer was necessary for describing the car or how it works. What I said was the car wouldn't exist without the Engineer.
It isn't a ridiculous analogy. It does what it is supposed to do. The subject of God and Him being responsible for the existence of the universe is a fundamentally different subject than explaining the manner in which the universe works.
No tangent exists. We, or at least I, am on the same subject as from the beginning of 1.1.116 and my response to it. It is a continuation of what I have been saying all along. You present the subject of God being responsible for the universe's existence as an either/or situation between that belief and what you believe science tells you. The point was that knowing the properties of an electron is not the same subject as knowing why it exists or what it exists for. They aren't the same thing.
Glad you agree.
Believe what you wish, but the point remains. You speak as if Creator God and science are opposing views when they are not. Being able to describe the decay of uranium does nothing for or against the discussion about God. Whether He is more or less likely to be responsible for creating the universe. The only thing science is good for is describing the universe. That's all.
So, it's not that I want to go off into "why". I don't want to move to a different topic. I presented no strawman because I wasn't rewording or mistaking anything you said. I simply made the point "You speak as if they are opposing views. They aren't. Essentially, you're asking which is more valid, the engineer who made the car or how the car operates."
This was said in response to your question "which is more valid". Such a question can't be answered because they are different subjects. May as well ask which is more valid, mayonnaise or the color blue.
I am ignoring it because it is irrelevant to the actual subject. Is the singularity and the Planck Epoch a part of the Big Bang theory. It is not whether or not the Planck Epoch, by itself, has an associated theory attached to it.
If I explained that sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes, wouldn't you be likely to ignore me? Or are you saying that I'm just supposed to believe or even consider something relevant simply because it's been "explained" to me? I guess you're still not thinking much, huh?
It might not be undirected in reality. A sentient entity might be directing all the behavior of physics from the quantum level on up (maybe even below). But I was speaking of reality as we know it based on the evidence. And the point I made (which you just ignored to go on this tangent) is that there is a profound difference between a direct effort of a sentient creator versus the undirected interaction of particles and the emergent forms resulting from a net increasing entropy.
So where do I claim that no sentient entity is possible? Show me where you pulled this crap from so that I can clear up your confusion. And if this is yet another one of your strawman arguments, what makes you think I will not call you out? Do better Drakk, your posts in this thread have already been beyond dishonest.
I might not see anything different from what we have. Or I might see the hand of God appear in some manner. Hard to say really since this is so absurdly hypothetical.
Again, I have never, in all the time you have known me, ever once claimed that a sentient creator is impossible. So, again, more intellectual dishonesty. You are stooping to a very low level now Drakk.
Again, never suggested otherwise ... ever. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.
Well that is just a super point Drakk. You should be so proud of yourself for stating the obvious on points that I have never suggested otherwise. See, if you are not being woefully intellectual dishonest at this point then my only other conclusion is that you truly do not comprehend what I have written all these years. For you to actually believe that I have ever stated or even implied that our universe is necessarily undirected or that there is no way a sentient creator could be responsible for creating the universe would mean that you truly have no clue as to my position.
The Bible is evidence of human beings writing stories.
Today we have amassed a remarkable understanding of reality. This is demonstrated by our technology and accomplishments. So, in a phrase, science works. Our knowledge demonstrably works. And with all this knowledge ... which takes us from quantum dynamics to galaxies millions of light-years away, we have never had to insert the 'god did it' assumption. The evidence, the accumulated observations that comprise our current level of knowledge, have not yet required god. Your insertion of god is premature at best and wrong at worst.
In short, until there is evidence of a sentient creator there is no point in presuming its agency. Thus far, there has been no evidence of a sentient creator.
LOL, faux obtuseness. According to your own principle. DP also explained this to you @1.1.124. If awesome complexity is, to you, evidence that there must be a sentient creator (oh let's just call it an intelligent designer to show your point in clarity) then the awesome complexity and sophistication of the sentient creator is evidence that there must be a meta sentient creator.
So what? You create an example of a human creation (which, of course, means there was a human creator) and suggest that this example scales to the grandest scale of the cosmos. As noted, the progression of the Cosmos is explained in substantial, predictive detail without the need of a god hypothesis. Until that need arises, you trying to insert god is a bit silly.
I have never once made a comment in this thread about science providing the 'why' of reality such as 'why should an electron exist', 'why we exist', etc. I have though stated that this is not a function of science. You going to why is a tangent. And I am sick of constantly telling you the obvious only to have you nuh'uh. Your games are offensive, Drakk, and I will be in your face as long as you continue to play them.
No shit Drakk. Water is wet too. Another strawman attempt by you.
I have told you that a sentient creator is a possibility. I have stated this probably hundreds of times in this forum alone. How does it not sink in? I have even, many times, encouraged people to go to the BioLogos websites to learn how they see Christianity coexisting with science.
This is beyond pathetic Drakk, it is as if you cannot comprehend even my most basic positions.
The ability for a sentient entity to coexist with our understanding of physics is entirely different then the question of plausibility. When you broach the subject of plausibility with the assumption of a sentient creator you necessarily include the plausibility of that entity as well. Depending upon how you define that sentient entity determines the plausibility. If you stick with the abstract sentient creator you are on decent footing. If you instead move all the way to the highly attributed, absurdly empowered, heavily storied, etc. definition of the Christian God then your plausibility suffers heavily.
No, Drakk, it is not about attaching a theory to explain the Planck Epoch, it is whether the explanation of what took place in that period of time meets the criteria of scientific theory.
If it does then that explanation can indeed be part of a greater theory.
If it does not then the Planck Epoch itself (as a period of time) can be described as part of the theory because that period of time absolutely exists by definition. But the explanation, which is speculation, cannot be part of a greater theory. Scientific theories explain and those explanations do not have parts that are speculation. It kind of fucks up the entire concept of falsifiability, predictability, etc. when there is an operable "we do not know" element of the theory's explanation.
Which is irrelevant since you can't demonstrate which is true and which isn't. So, point?
In any case, this is about as boring as it can get so, bye
Excellent. Since you are doing nothing more than creating strawman arguments, pretending to not comprehend even the most basic elements of the points I have made for years, and ignoring my probative questions, I am pleased to see you depart.
Belief is irrelevant. I would expect you to have at least a basic understanding of what has been explained to you. Alas that is clearly not the case here. So instead, your response is to troll.
Really? Only about 43% of our planet is habitable, let alone the universe. The universe clearly doesn't care about human life considering that without some sort of advanced technology to build self contained life bubbles, either space suits, submarines etc., we would be killed in seconds if we tried to venture into places that are deadly to humans. And even in the 43% of habitable zones we regularly get environmental phenomenon that kills thousands each year, from storms, fires ignited by lightning, draughts, floods, tsunamis, tornados, plagues and even just simple exposure to the elements. To claim our universe is "fine tuned" for life is to be woefully ignorant of reality. Life as we know it is constantly having to evolve and adapt to survive even in the miniscule corner of the universe humans call home.
Some try to claim that because life on our planet wouldn't exist without our planet being in just the right spot in our solar system, the so-called "Goldilocks" zone, that means it's "fine tuned" or that our planet is special. For a long time the assumption from these 'fine tuned' theorists, most often coming from religious backgrounds and affiliations, was that our planet was the only one like this in the universe and thus we must be super special and thus their assumption "God did it".
The fact is there are likely to be close to 40 billion planets within the habitable zones of their stars. Our planet is not special in that regard, there are literally billions of other planets that could allow for carbon based life to evolve.
And there are ancient documents that tell the tales of many other Gods and supposed children of Gods. Even the ancient historian Josephus talks about Hercules meeting with some soldiers, and claims that he could be none other than the son of Zeus. Claiming an unverified compilation of bronze age shepherds and fishermen's letters, that include tales of talking snakes and donkeys and the sun standing still, conclusively prove a bronze age carpenter is the true son of God is just sad. I'm not saying that the millions of Christians who believe shouldn't, I'm just saying that they should rely on their faith instead of trying to pretend they have some actual verifiable terrestrial proof of the divine. Christians have the same exact amount of evidence to support their faith as any other faith on the planet. There is no difference in provable veracity between the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Liturgy to Nintud, the Book of the Dead or even the Epic of Gilgamesh. To claim one should be taken as fact while the others should be discarded as ancient fantasy is truly dishonest.
I haven't seen anyone here claiming God and science are opposing views. Tig, Gordy and myself regularly point out that science isn't about trying to disprove God. It's simply observation and testing of our known universe. If it can't be seen, felt, weighed or measured in some quantifiable way then science doesn't get involved. Since the religious theory of "God" cannot be seen, felt, weighed or measured then it must by definition rely on faith and feelings, not objective evidence. So believe all you want, just don't bother trying to use science to prove your brand of God exists when the science is clearly impartial and isn't interested in taking sides.
Here is one general observation: irreligious interlocutors typically do not make claims of truth when such claims are irrational or unsupported. We do not, as one example, claim that a sentient creator of the universe is impossible (because we have no basis on which to claim impossible). That frustrates the religious interlocutors (who do make claims of truth) because they bear the burden of proof / evidence and their irreligious interlocutors do not. The frustration causes some of them to desperately try to cram claims of truth into the mouths of their interlocutors.
This, I think, is why incredibly dishonest claims are made such as: 'you claim the universe could not be created by God'. What is maddeningly dishonest about such claims is that the statement: 'a sentient creator might indeed exist' has been written well over a hundred times in this forum and that is just counting my contribution. So no chance that this is a misunderstanding; it is deliberate, blatant dishonesty. And it is but one of many examples.
What's both funny & very telling is when those making religious based claims of certainty try to deny or turn around and say they do not bear the burden of proof or reverse challenge to us to prove the negative. It's an intellectually dishonest and cowardly tactic.
When you think about it, the universe is quite hostile to human life, and possibly higher life forms in general. Look at all the different ways the universe has to kill us, especially if we leave earth. Even on Earth, we're not entirely safe. After all, the universe deep impacted the dinosaurs and could do the same to us. We have had some near misses.
Yes, really. You're not actually addressing the fine tuning argument with what you wrote here. Regardless of how hostile you may find the universe to be life nevertheless exists. Fine tuning refers not to the amount of habitable real estate the universe has but, rather, to constants that govern the physical existence of our universe, such as the nature and values of particles, gravity, speed of light and so on necessarily being what they are for life, as we know it, to exist. If I recall correctly, there's something like 37 different values that have to be what they are for our universe to exist as we know it. Likely they will find more.
That is correct. Since we are unlikely to ever have actual evidence of the sort science prefers concerning such claims then one must necessarily use other means to determine the truth of the claim.
The question was, which was the more viable view. That would mean choosing one over the other when such a choice is not necessary at all. That is, God created the universe and we still observe, scientifically, what we observe. One does not need to choose one over the other concerning viability.
This was the point. It should be noted, though, that the question TiG asked implies an opposition. It essentially asks, which is more likely to be true. Answer, both. At least as far as I am concerned.
The hypocrisy in this statement is about max. Let's see. All of you have stated that science doesn't address the subject of God, nor can it. In spite of that you still go right on insisting we have some burden of proof to prove our claims scientifically. And when we try to point out how ludicrous this is by asking you to prove God doesn't exist, scientifically, you retreat to a bullshit burden of proof defense. Completely circular reasoning.
That, Gordy, is "an intellectually dishonest and cowardly tactic."
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It's that simple. We (including science) makes no claims regarding God. So there's no claim to prove. If you can't prove your claims, then perhaps you shouldn't make them, lest you come across as dishonest or not credible. If one wants to opine about God, then that does not carry the burden of proof. It seems you fail to make, much less understand the distinction.
So there it is in a nutshell.
"PROVE IT".
As always and forever.
That's right! Make a claim, get challenged to prove it. Plain and simple.
So I am right--every single one of these arguments boil down to nothing--and I do mean NOTHING---more than a childish "Prove it!".
How exciting.
How game-changing.
/s
How moronic.
God exists.
The universe is extremely complex and science has identified many characteristic factors that can be measured which serve, collectively, as the signature for a universe. The fine-tuning argument muses about this signature. It argues that the universe appears fine-tuned (implying a sentient creator) because many of the factors of the signature (e.g. the strong nuclear force) could not vary by much from their current 'settings' without making our particular universe impossible.
Decrease the strong nuclear force by a tiny amount and quarks will not bind together to produce protons and neutrons and thus atoms could not even exist. If gravity were increased a tiny amount, the universe would not have expanded to form cosmological bodies but would have compressed onto itself. If gravity were to weaken, stars and planets could not form.
There are an extremely large number of alternate universes one could produce by varying the factors of the signature. Because so many universes are possible —but the one in which we exist is the one that happened (for us)— some view this to mean that our universe was hand crafted just for us. This arrogant, anthropocentric view also ignores the fact that a tiny change in signature could have produced a universe where silicon (vs. carbon) based creatures might exist. These silicon creatures might also observe the many factors that must be true for their universe to exist and also presume that their universe was hand crafted for them.
Our universe is the only universe (to our knowledge) where we could exist to presume it was made just for us. Consider the possibility that we are the byproduct of the universe that unfolded and a different universe would have a different byproduct of creatures who thinks they are special.
The universe might have been hand-crafted by a sentient creator just so that one of its 700 quintillion planets could host human life. This of course requires the existence of an incredibly complex and powerful entity capable of creating an enormously over-engineered universe to provide a tiny speck where its 'special' humans can exist. On the other hand, our universe may simply be a result of undirected interactions of energy (for lack of a better word) and on a tiny planet out of 700 quintillion planets, we just happen to have evolved.
Oh, but you say it is extraordinary for that to happen. Well, Drakk, if you think an argument from incredulity has logical grounds, then you should be freaking out at what would be required for the aforementioned sentient entity to exist to make a 'fine-tuned' universe.
To wit, since nobody knows, I go with parsimony. The evidence thus far has enabled science to explain our universe without having to insert a sentient creator. Until such time that the evidence leads us to such an extraordinarily complex and powerful sentient force, I go with parsimony ... the more direct line from the evidence ... the easiest path to follow.
Ironic how a guy whose sole contribution in this article has been to whine: "it is always just prove it" and thus completely misses the very nuanced contributions of all others (both sides) would declare someone else's contribution as moronic.
Read my recent comment @1.1.143 and show me how it is nothing more than "prove it" or that I even ask for proof. I predict that you will fail to produce any intelligent contribution on that comment and will simply deliver snark and/or run away.
"I believe my God exists" bears no burden of proof.
"My God exists" declared as truth bears the burden of proof.
Buy a vowel Drakk, this is basic stuff.
Has Gordy claimed as truth that a sentient creator does not exist? Show me where.
Meaningless jabber doesn't particularly interest me.
If that's how want to take it, that's on you then. It doesn't change anything, nor do I care. I've maintained the same position all along. It's just funny how you complain of childishness and then proceed to whine like a child about a challenge to a claim to "prove it."
The same can be said of your meaningless (and trollish) jabber.
I take it as it is.
"Prove it" is all you end up with.
Do you have Pee Wee Herman's permission to use his defense?
Make an affirmative claim, get challenged to prove it. The burden rests on the one making the claim.
Just another childishly trollish comment. Not surprising.
God exists.
That's nice. Prove it!
Not necessary.
That just means your claim is FOS then.
No, it just means you personally don't believe it.
Oh well.................not my problem.
He exists whether you believe it or not.
Belief doesn't equal fact. Just because you believe he does doesn't make it so. It just means your claim is FOS. Not my problem either.
God exists, and no amount of "Prove it" will change that.
No amount of denial will change that.
No amount of doubt or disbelief will change that.
You're overdoing it, TiG. The apparent fine tuning of the universe is just one piece of data, one instance of evidence that some use to consider whether there is a basis for believing in God. And notice the word "apparent." Most of the time, when I read about the subject, that's how it is mentioned. The apparent fine tuning of the universe. There's nothing about the idea that proves God exists. It's simply a consideration.
Further, it is extraordinary. As far as we know, this is the only universe. That, even had it been simply random chance of whatever forces, it turned out the way it did is pretty amazing. But more than that, the universe has to operate by the laws that govern its constituent parts, but there's nothing about those requirements that necessarily demands that life should exist. The universe would happily go right on doing its universe thing without it, yet life still exists. That's pretty amazing, too.
As to what would be required for God to exist I do "freak out" about that, in a way. It's impossible to grasp the entirety of such a being. To think that God never had a beginning, never had a cause is beyond comprehension, for instance.
It's your life, your choice.
And I can explain the workings of a car without having to insert an engineer. You're not really saying much here.
Good for you.
There's no evidence to support your claim. So it's BS. No amount if belief, delusion, or wishful thinking will change that.
My God exists! I'm not going to try to prove it to you. Now what? Are you going to call the FBI? Are you going to track me down and put me on trial? Do you think that because you aren't convinced that God doesn't exist?
Have you forgotten that I don't live my life by the standards you live yours? Go ahead and claim my statement is invalid. See what it affects. See if anyone cares other than those who think as you do.
You can't prove it so your claim is BS! But you can believe whatever you like.
None that YOU find acceptable. Your loss, not mine. No proof is necessary.
He exists with or without your belief in Him.
That is what certainly appears to be the case.
None that any rational mind would find acceptable. But if you want to with wishful thinking, go right ahead. Makes no difference to me. It's still a BS claim!
So you can prove God doesn't exist? Because you need to in order to make the declarative statement that my claim is BS. Logically, this would be because God's existence wouldn't be dependent on whether or not I can prove His existence. He would, or wouldn't, exist regardless of anything I do or don't do. Therefore, while I can't prove God exists, He may still, in fact, exist. My claim would not be BS even if I couldn't prove it.
Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting that no one could possibly be as smart as you based on a belief or not in God.
I had no idea you were smarter than Einstein. and a host of other well-respected and internationally renowned scientists.
With that intellect, I would have expected more to be done with it. Have we ever heard of any of your scientific research or papers?
25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Curious that you call these minds irrational , based solely on what they believe about God.
God is still going to exist long after you shuffle off.
And there's the logical fallacy.
Since I never claimed to be smarter than anyone, you're just making a strawman argument. And still making BS claims too.
Exactly. And the fine-tuning argument does not even provide evidence for a sentient creator. The science underlying the fine-tuning argument establishes that our universe could easily not exist and that some other universe would exist in its place (or none at all, for that matter). It is only incredulity and anthropocentric arrogance that leads one to view this as evidence of a sentient creator.
Yes, that notion (if true) is extraordinary. Quantum entanglement is also extraordinary. Quasars are extraordinary. The uniqueness of fingerprints is extraordinary.
If it turned out differently, why would that not be ' amazing '? If you buy a lottery ticket and wind up winning, you would find that amazing. If someone else won, would you find that amazing too (I am sure they would)? Somebody is going to win the lottery and some universe signature is going to manifest.
We agree on this. Now, what if energy (for lack of a better word) never had a beginning and that all that exists is nothing more than energy interacting with itself in perpetuity ... that everything is just an emergent form of this 'energy'? Seems to me that the grandest possible sentient entity just existing in full form is more of a stretch than a primitive substance of existence interacting with itself with emerging forms. Especially since we can observe this happening at that quantum through cosmological levels with no hint of a guiding hand.
You are not trying to understand.
Well, you just DID call anyone believing in God to possess an irrational mind. Are you smarter than irrational people or not?
God still exists!!
Wrong. An unsubstantiated claim of truth is bullshit unless the burden of proof / evidence is met. If I claim as truth that intelligent exolife exists in Andromeda and refuse to back that up with sufficient evidence, then my claim of truth is bullshit. It is not up to you to prove that no such intelligent exolife exists in Andromeda. I have the burden of proof.
Irrational is not the same as unintelligent. Duh! BS claim is still BS.
Simple, your claim has no value. If you use your claim of truth as a premise in an argument, your argument will be unsound. That is all.
Better to make a rational statement such as 'I believe my God exists' rather than a claim of truth that bears the burden of proof. You get that, right?
See, 'I believe my God exists' is a true statement that can be used as a premise in an argument and have the argument be sound.
And here we go again with the theatrics (and, of course, the endless strawman assertions).
No fucking shit. No one claimed such crap, so why are you bringing it up?
So why do you think people who believe in God are not logical or reasonable?
Do you HONESTLY believe an illogical mind or an unreasonable mind could have found the Theory of Relativity, discovered the elementary charge of an atom, a theory for quantum mechanics, or the discovery of energy quanta?
Dr. Francis Collins is one of my all time favorite scientists. Dr. Collins led the National Human Genome Research Institute and was instrumental in sequencing our DNA in 2003. He is a rock star who has had a very honorable and distinguished career. And he strikes me as an honest / good person. Oh, by the way, I consider him to be quite intelligent.
Dr. Collins is also a devout Christian.
Now, can you wrap your brain around the concept that religious beliefs are routinely held by intelligent people? Do you comprehend that even intelligent people can hold irrational beliefs as truth and not be irrational people (as a whole)?
By the way, Einstein (Relativity) was an atheist; so was Neils Bohr (quantum theory). Max Planck (quantum theory) was a Christian; so was Robert Millikan (atomic charge). Richard Feynman (QED) was an atheist.
Your concern over religious beliefs of scientists is silly, but for future reference you should at least know what you are talking about with your examples.
So because of physics being what they are, you believe this universe was built for us, even though we can only survive on 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it?(I'm sure it's actually even a smaller percentage than that but you get my point).
Working back from our existence and noting all the amazing aspects of physics that life has adapted to and has been effected by in our evolution doesn't mean the physics we rely on now for survival was specifically built for us, we adapted to it. I believe we are a product of physics, not a creation that physics were designed around and/or for.
Which is exactly what one should expect from life that adapted, evolved and survived in this universe as we know it.
Apparently where you were born and to whom is the most determinate factor in choosing ones faith. Seems like an awfully haphazard way of choosing followers and determining truth for an all-powerful all-knowing God.
Science isn't claiming there is no God so the question has never been "which is the more viable view" God or science. A scientific theory (like the long discussion of Planck) is based on science we've observed, tested and studied which is then built on to draw logical conclusions. It's nothing like religious theory which is pure speculation. Scientific theory is more like an equation where you're trying to find the value of 'X' whereas religious theory is trying to find an equation that fits with the value of 'X' always being God.
A religious theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has never been tested or verified in accordance with any repeatable method , uses no accepted protocols of observation , measurement or evaluation and is at best speculation often based on unverified ancient written belief systems.
If the question is which is more viable, a scientific theory or a religious theory, then its clear the theory based on science is far more "viable" as it stands on what we "scientifically observe" and test. There is no need to compare the two since one doesn't have to choose a 'scientific theory' over their personal religious theories because there are no scientific theories that rule God out. The only ones who seem desperate to compare the two are those who want their religious theories elevated to the same status of scientific theory and given the same weight. Religious theory weight comes from the faith of the one who wants to believe, scientific theory weight comes from actual observable and verifiable tests and measurements. The old saying "Wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up first" comes to mind, faith and wishes carry no weight for anyone other than the one doing the wishing whereas scientific theory weight comes from the multitude of scientific experiments, observations and verifications scientists have been building on for centuries.
The answer is the hand you're shitting in fills up first, not both. So far there is no evidence of the other hand ever filling up with actual empirical evidence of a God no matter how much faith you dump in it.
My view as well. Seems to be a rational conclusion based on the evidence (and sound reasoning).
That is incorrect. You are making a conclusion based on your preconceptions. The apparent fine tuning of the universe recognizes the likelihood of this universe existing due to chance, not that some other universe could easily have existed. That is, it doesn't speculate on what might have been but, rather, what is the likelihood of this one existing were chance the deciding factor.
Because, based on what we believe we know, we wouldn't be here to be amazed.
You make an allusion to the many worlds hypothesis, something that is only speculative and unprovable.
Before getting to the meat of this, I'd like to point out that you have not the least idea what a guiding hand would look like. For all you know, a guiding hand looks exactly like what we observe in science. An electron has the properties it does because it was designed to have those properties. Alternately, electrons have no properties whatsoever but they seem to because the guiding hand makes them behave as if they did. Or, some other definition we aren't equipped to comprehend. Doesn't matter. The only definitive thing we can say is that electrons behave in a certain way because they apparently have certain properties. The only way a guiding had could reveal itself is if the electron behaves in a manner impossible to explain otherwise. That it doesn't is not proof against a guiding hand, however as it could mean the guiding hand has no compelling reason to make the electron behave in such a fashion.
Now for the meat. I'll accept your use of the word "energy." I understand the way you are using it and it serves well enough for the discussion. So, let's also agree that what we're really talking about here is first cause or, rather, the suspension of it as a logical explanation of how one thing comes from another. My position is that God is eternal, meaning there was never a time when He did not exist, nor did He have a cause. You're suggesting the same thing concerning energy. The important point is neither view had a first cause.
From my perspective, either one seems fantastical. It is as hard for me to comprehend energy that has simply eternally existed in the same manner I claim my God has existed. Every last thing, without exception, in the universe we have observed so far says that one thing precedes another. Logically, though, there has to be a first cause, yet at the same time, there can't be because something, as we understand things from what we observe, must have caused the first cause. It is a seeming paradox.
Your perspective on this seems to be that eternal energy is more plausible than God, which I find hard to understand. No, understand isn't the right word. Accept. The reason is that there's no rationale for accepting it. It would be impossible to prove, scientifically. It also requires a suspension of logic in preference of faith. If our universe is simply one iteration of eternal energy and our universe operates according to discernable laws, it stands to reason that what came before also operates according to some set of laws as well which would account for why our universe is as it is. This brings us back to cause and effect. As such, there must have been a first cause for the existence of energy. To believe otherwise requires faith, not logic, evidence or science. At some point one would have to abandon those concepts and "just believe."
God, on the other hand, would be outside of all of that. God is unexplainable in the manner energy is, since He is Himself not a part of energy. As such, He seems, to me, less of a stretch than attempting to claim energy is eternal, which can't be scientifically supported.
Put another way, the eternal energy theory requires that one doesn't ask questions of how that could be, it just has to be taken on faith, in spite of the fact that everything we know about energy argues against it. While God has none of those issues as long as one doesn't equate God with energy. God is unique in that He would not be dependent or derive from anything at all. He is simply "I Am that I Am."
I would, and have, argued otherwise. Being able to scientifically explain why the moon has the orbit it does is not an indication that God isn't necessary for the moon to orbit the earth. It is nothing more or less than a description of why it does. This is why I keep on using the car and engineer analogy. Because I can explain how a car works doesn't mean engineers aren't necessary for the existence of cars.
If only 1 out of a million lottery tickets will win the grand prize, what does winning the prize evidence? It does not evidence anything other than the fact that there were many possible winners and only won got the 'W'. The fact that our universe emerged out of 10 10 16 other possible manifestations only evidences that there were many possible universes but ours is the one that emerged.
It does not, in any way, provide evidence of a sentient presence causing our particular signature to emerge. If any one of the other possible universes had emerged that would not be evidence of a sentient presence so why would our universe be any different other than arrogant anthropocentric beliefs?
Why did you dodge my question: " If it turned out differently, why would that not be 'amazing'? " ? Probably because it was probative.
No I did not. I purposely did not. Do not put words in my mouth. Also, if you think my example ties to the many worlds hypothesis then you do not understand that hypothesis. I did not even hint at the simultaneous existence of multiple universes. I stuck strictly with the fine-tuning argument.
Good start. Refreshing. Reminds me of Drakk of old.
Eternal existence is likely impossible for a human mind to comprehend.
Yes. And that paradox is resolved by simply stating that there must be something that has always existed from which everything else is an effect. The first cause.
Why? 'Energy' could be the most primitive substance of existence. So you have a hard time imagining the most primitive substance with no complexity (to speak of) interacting over endless time to produce endless forms, some of which eventually persist as cosmological bodies, etc?
Well accepting it is very different. And science does not prove anything; it explains with levels of confidence. But at least energy (the conventional usage) does indeed exist and appears to be eternal. That is not trivial.
'Laws' are simply observations of well-established patterns. I think you are saying that what we perceive as laws in our universe necessarily are laws outside of our universe. I think it is fair to assume that the laws of existence itself hold true within our universe. But it is also fair to assume that our universe, by its form, manifests laws that are not necessarily true outside of the universe (in the realm of existence itself). For example, gravity may be an emergent property of our universe but not exist outside of its bounds. That is, prior to our universe existing, the eternal existence of which we speak does not necessarily have gravity (or any of our fundamental forces).
You do not have to believe. You can speculate and recognize that you are speculating. One can find something to be sensible without believing it is true. I think it is very plausible that sentient exolife exists but I do not believe that it does exist. I would not be surprised if we discovered such an existence but until I have something to go on I am not going to literally believe it so.
You write that as if those words are self-evident. You carve out a special place for God that is actually beyond existence itself. On what grounds? After all, one could keep popping up levels of meta ad nauseum. What do these mental gyrations accomplish other than to find a place for God to exist no matter how convoluted the thought?
You sure of that? Seems to me God would be extremely complex and sophisticated. Having such complexity and sophistication just be there certainly is profoundly counterintuitive. What better matches all knowledge is that God is an emergent property of existence. That God evolved (formed) over time and eventually grew so powerful that God could create our universe.
What a strange sentence. First of all, energy (literally) seems (according to scientific knowledge) to be eternal. We do not know that it is, but thus far we have no indication that energy is created or destroyed. It seems eternal. But what is so strange is that you think that God, for which we have zero evidence, seems more likely to be eternal than that which seems eternal to modern science.
We cannot perceive the lowest substance of existence (which I labeled 'energy' but likely is more primitive than our concept of energy) but we can perceive energy proper. We have overwhelming evidence of its existence and thus far it appears to be eternal. But to you, something that is not evidenced, that you simply believe to exist, is more likely to be eternal than what is right before our eyes.
Eternal energy is not a theory (in the sense of scientific theory). It is simply speculation.
Again, nobody has asked anyone to accept eternal energy on faith. It is an idea. It is speculation that some of us find to be consistent with known physics, logical and reasonable. That does not make it true, just reasonable.
What? God must be accepted on faith since there is nothing else. God must be simply held to be eternal and be beyond existence itself. The work one must do to shore up the concept of God as the first cause is replete with issues.
I understand your belief, but your belief does not offer what I would consider a more reasonable speculation than everything that we perceive is a form of the most primitive substance of existence and that existence is the only thing that is eternal.
So, in short, what is eternal might be the most primitive substance of existence and everything else then would be an emergent property (a form) of that substance. Thus the first cause would be the primitive substance of existence itself.
God is not necessary for us to explain the moon's orbit and the balance of our scientific knowledge. That does not mean that there is no sentient entity directing every quantum fluctuation; it simply means that we have yet to need a sentient director to explain all that is known as science.
Why are you bringing up a list of scientists who believe in god (as if it's somehow relevant) or mention intellect based on belief in god or not?
A strawman. I never said that! Maybe you should pay closer attention. I said rational. Again, not the same as intellectual or pertaining to intellectual feats like the scientific theories you subsequently mention.
Your point is irrelevant to the issue. Fine tuning addresses the likelihood of a universe existing that can support life as we know it, regardless of the difficulties that life might face.
I'm not going to attempt to dissuade you. You will believe what you believe.
Really? Why?
That would be incorrect. left to my own devices, I would have preferred a different god. One more like the Norse gods. And I was raised, initially, as a Catholic.
Agreed. Never the less, that is the way the question was presented. I didn't ask the question.
No, it isn't. A religious "theory", as you put it, isn't an attempt to explain what we observe in the natural world concerning physical phenomenon. It is an explanation of why we are the way we are and what can be done about it.
The point is that the question is flawed in that it assumes both are addressing the same thing. The materialist would have you believe that the reason the moon orbits the sun, theologically, is because God. While that is true in one sense, it doesn't mean one has to believe in God to understand the rules by which God ordained orbital mechanics. I do not need to know Einstein ever existed to understand special relativity. I neither need to believe God exists, doesn't exist or is even a concept to understand orbital mechanics. But there is nothing about the ability to understand orbital mechanics that precludes the necessity of God. No more so than understanding how a car works precludes the necessity for the engineer who designed it.
Um, yeah. That's pretty much the point I've been making. Right?
Odd, since my experience has been the opposite. That is, because we can explain how a car words, there's no need of an engineer.
Again, incorrect. Why would someone want to believe what goes against their nature? Put another way, why would one want to put faith in something that their nature wants to reject?
Which is an entirely different subject. What about orbital mechanics or the nature of an electron has any relevance to the nature of a human being? What does the half life of uranium have to do with the morality of a decision you make? Of how you live your life? How does scientific theory justify your decision whether to save the lives of five strangers on one train track and the life of your wife on another, depending on which switch you choose?
The rest of your post is unintelligible.
You are assuming that this universe is simply chance from the get go. That is, you are assuming that the way this universe turned out is the result of random chance and therefore cannot be evidence of god. The fact is, you have no evidence that this universe is the result of random chance.
Again, this presumes that the multiverse is a fact, or at least. that the formation of this universe has been proven to be the result of random chance, neither of which can be proven. If otherwise, explain how other universes were possible by providing scientific fact.
It was not a dodge, unless you are claiming that, no matter what the universe turned out to be, we would still exist. Our existence would be a necessary condition for us to be "amazed." Since current thinking is that, if any of the values that make our universe possible being different means that we would not exist, it is a valid answer to your question.
Actually, you did.
The lottery is not a one off sort of event. That is, we know numbers are drawn repeatedly until a winner claims the prize. Using the lottery as an analogy means that, eventually, we'd end up with a universe such as this one.
Using the lottery as an analogy, it would not be amazing that our universe exists because, eventually, it had to happen.
You say it appears to be eternal. I assume this has something to do with the conservation of energy. Yet it speaks nothing of first cause. From my perspective, I don't see anything about energy being eternal. I only see it as an aspect of this universe. According to the rules of this universe, energy must be preserved. There's nothing about hat which suggests it applies outside this universe.
I am out of time for anything further.
I made no such assumption. What I am doing, and you are apparently not doing, is accepting the possibility that our universe was the result of undirected dynamics. That our universe could have emerged as 'chance' rather than a product of a sentient creator. And since I am merely accepting this possibility coupled with the fact that I have stated that this is speculation, we are again in a situation where you either are not paying attention to what I write or are purposely misrepresenting my position.
[ Note: This is how it always goes. We start off fine and then you do what you just did. If this is not intentional then you really need to pay closer attention to what people write. ]
To wit, there is no need for me to provide evidence that the universe is the result of random chance because I have not stated that it necessarily was. See? Even so, I have noted that all of science has yet to require a sentient creator hypothesis so I am not persuaded to insert one at this point.
I am stopping here for the moment because I am busy elsewhere and have purposely only glanced at the balance of your comment.
Okay, here you go again. Not only do I not assume the multiverse is a fact or that the universe is proven to be the result of random chance, I have not even mentioned the multiverse concept.
I am not going to respond further to what you wrote until we get this clear up front. I have no intention of spending endless posts constantly correcting your blatant misrepresentation of what I write.
I've decided not to go into work tomorrow so I have the time.
Of course you did. The moment you brought the lottery in as an analogy.
(sigh) No, what I am doing is considering the likelihood of the only universe we are aware of and can definitively prove exists, existing in the manner it does due to random chance. From my point of view, the only way to credibly consider our universe being the result of of undirected dynamics is to have other universes to compare the likelihood of ours to. You can claim our universe could have turned out differently due to random chance, but you can't provide evidence for it.
Fine. It's speculation on your part. What about that means I need to conform to your speculation? From my perspective, we are again in a situation that, because you state a particular view, that is the view we need to address. The reality is that I don't accept your speculation and, instead, present my own ideas. If you can't handle that, why are you here?
Fine, then I should ignore your lottery analogy then? Because there can be no other meaning behind it than random chance.
Okay with me. All you need to do to clear this up is to explain your analogy with the lottery having nothing to do with random chance.
No. You just refuse to accept the possibility that humans evolved. Can you explain why all humans have a vestigial coccyx or why some humans are born with tails? Or is it your belief that they must be demons or devils?
Do I really need to walk you through evolution, adaptation and survival of the fittest?
Because of your anecdotal experience? Name a country and i can tell you which faith you're most likely to have accepted. You were apparently raised where Christianity was most popular as you admit to being raised Catholic. Are you no longer Christian? Moving from one Christian faith to another in a country dominated by Christianity doesn't seem to debunk my fact based claim in any way.
I must assume your forgot just writing "Fine tuning refers not to the amount of habitable real estate the universe has but, rather, to constants that govern the physical existence of our universe, such as the nature and values of particles, gravity, speed of light and so on necessarily being what they are for life, as we know it, to exist." Is that not an attempt to explain what we observe in the natural world concerning physical phenomenon that you are attributing to your brand of deity? It certainly doesn't sound like you're just giving an "explanation of why we are the way we are and what can be done about it".
Rational educated humans would have you believe the moon orbits the earth.
There is nothing about orbital mechanics that requires the necessity of God. The fact that laws of physics exist and celestial bodies obey them does not require an engineer or designer. While science has not proven why or what may have sparked the singularities expansion, that does not mean that we should all just accept religious speculation or give it the same kind of credence as scientific theories built on actual observation, testing and verification.
It's what the rest of us have been saying over and over again but you don't seem to be listening and keep trying to inject your faith based beliefs as logical, rational conclusions to be drawn from the existing science which of course does not support your claims.
So you've been admitting that your faith based beliefs aren't on the same level of veracity as scientific theories? So what are we debating then? I totally agree with you if that's your position.
Ah, there you go again, trying to inject layman understanding of science and the universe by likening it to a car. Does this car you keep describing only provide 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it's space for its intended passengers? That would be a very strange car design and one would seriously have to question the engineer who built it's sanity.
It's human nature to want to understand how things work, being given answers to questions that we don't actually understand yet gives people comfort, it makes them feel good. Humans put faith in a whole variety of religious beliefs because virtually every faith gives answers to the unknown, the scary dark water that most humans peer into at some point in their life, gives them answers to why are we here and where they or their loved ones go after death. It doesn't matter what faith it is or what beliefs they have for why we are here or where we go after death, just accepting one brand of belief or another fills the same hole. And the fact that the many differing religious beliefs all seem to give their believers the same thing even though they often contradict each other shows that it's really more about them simply adopting a belief system than adopting a faith that actually gets it right.
I'd say they are very relevant. All life on this planet had to adapt and evolve under those orbital mechanics and we're all made up of those atoms and electrons. The nature of all life on this planet would likely be completely different if electrons didn't behave the way they do.
What you're now you're getting into psychology, though I would have to point out that humans preference to save the life of someone they know or love over the lives of those they don't is very likely an evolved trait that helped close nit groups of our common ancestors to survive and pass on their DNA to future generations.
And someone who doesn't speak or read any foreign languages might believe books written in a language they don't understand to be "unintelligible" but that has more to do with the reader, not the writer. The same goes for those who don't want to hear anything that might contradict their closely held beliefs or are unable to come up with a rational contradiction to what's been said.
I did not assume (as in hold as truth to the exclusion of other possibilities) that the only way our universe could have come into existence is by undirected actions (which you call 'random chance'). I stated my scenario (as you stated yours).
You think that the universe was created just for us and that is your 'evidence' of a sentient creator. My lottery example illustrated that 'special' is an illusion. The winner views winning as special because of how extraordinarily unlikely it would be to win. But everyone else realizes that someone was going to win so the fact that somebody won is not special. Somebody would win and that somebody will be in awe that they were the 1 in a million winner.
Same with the arrogant anthropocentric view that our universe was created for us because it just happens to have the conditions which enable human beings to exist on one of the 700 quintillion planets in the universe.
I am not going to spend any more time tonight yet again dealing with your inability to honestly read what I wrote.
ADDENDUM:
The concept of fine-tuning is based on the idea that the signature parameters of our universe must be true within very tight ranges in order for our universe to exist. That a significant change to even a single parameter would result in a universe with very different properties that likely could not sustain life as we know it.
Do you understand that?
Assuming you do, then speaking of the other possible universes is perfectly consistent with the fine-tuning notion. Even with your 'God did it' presumption you should imagine God tweaking the dials to fine-tune to our universe rather than one of the countless other possibilities.
My lottery example illustrates that just because an extraordinary event happened from our perspective that was 1 in a million or even 1 in 101016 does not mean that the event was directed (and does not exclude that possibility either). To the winner the results are extraordinary (just as picking the specific winner would be extraordinary). To everyone else the fact that there was a winner is not extraordinary (just as predicting that someone will win is not extraordinary).
You either understand the concept of fine-tuning and the necessary consequence of many possible alternate universes (and this is NOT the multiverse concept) that goes with it or you do not. I am done explaining this to you.
No, actually, it doesn't. It only illustrates your view. Regardless, using the lottery as an analogy is using it as an analogy for the many worlds hypothesis. This is because the lottery is a recurring event, meaning, if an individual lived long enough, eventually they would win it. In the same way, this universe would be inevitable. Problem is, you have no evidence for such a view. The only evidence we have available is this universe.
Um, yeah. Same thing again. For this to be true you have to assume multiple universes or that, if this is the only one, it is a product of random chance. Can you prove either? No? Then you're not really making a point but, rather, simply stating your opinion.
Translation. I'm not going to play if you don't simply accept what I say as fact.
There is no point attempting to engage you since you nuh'uh everything and stubbornly stick to your strawmen. Even when I correct your (intentional) misunderstanding of my words you pretend that you know my meaning better than I do. That is one of the critical indicators that one's interlocutor is simply trolling.
You again demonstrate that you have no concept of what you are talking about. I have explained why and you still pretend that I was referring to multiple simultaneously existing (aka parallel) universes when I was clearly speaking of alternate possible universes which would result from a different fine-tuning. Worse, the fine-tuning argument is based on that concept (alternate, not parallel universes) and is NOT based on the many worlds hypothesis. So you must contradict the fine-tuning scenario to misrepresent my words. Yeah, I know: "nuh'uh".
Sure. That you don't actually address what I say is the primary evidence for your claim that I'm trolling. And you think that makes sense. Very intellectual of you, TiG.
Um, yeah. If anything, I'm demonstrating you don't understand your own analogy. The lottery isn't a one off event. It is something repeated. It keeps pooping out winners. If you're going to use that as an analogy, it means that, among whatever other universes are created, ours would eventually come to pass if the lottery was continued long enough. In the mean time, whatever universe won a particular iteration of the lottery would exist, although probably not like ours.
If that isn't clear enough for you then let me explain further. If you are going to associate the lotter with the existence of this particular universe, then you necessarily have to take the concept of the lottery in its entirety. That means, universes are being pooped out on a regular basis, since the lottery is a regular occurrence. That means, speaking in terms of a lottery, there must be other universes out there.
The fine tuning argument has nothing to do with the concept of a lottery. What it actually addresses is the issue that, given the properties of our universe, it would be extremely unlikely to be due to chance. Everything is too precise for chance to account for it without involving a many worlds explanation.
What you are attempting to illustrate is that, given that the universe could have potentially turned out differently, the fine tuned argument suggests that it was designed. Problem with that is you have no evidence or reasoning that the universe could actually have turned out to have been something else. For that to be true, you'd need to demonstrate that a universe was going to be created, guiding hand or not, and that this universe only turned out the way it did due to the influence of that guiding hand.
Hmmm. Another thing that must be true because the great TiG proclaimed it to be true.
Funny how you engage me anyway and how my argument is always a strawman in your eyes. Like, anyone who dares to offer a counter to what you say must therefore be presenting a strawman. Your hubris is Brobdingnagian in proportion.
The fine-tuning concept states that it is extraordinary that our particular universe exists since a significant change in even one of the signature factors would have easily produced a universe that could not sustain life as we know it.
It is a concept that assumes one and only one universe exists at a time. It does not entertain the notion of multiple parallel universes. Look it up. Your refusal to acknowledge that simple fact illustrates that you continue to play pointless trolling games and thus your comments are not worth a response.
What a ridiculous mental contortion; you are clearly trying your best to avoid even acknowledging the relatively simple concept that it would be extraordinary to pick the winner of a lottery but it is not extraordinary that the lottery has a winner.
Unbelievably stupid demand. You demand that I cannot use the concept of a lottery to illustrate that picking a particular winner is extraordinary but that predicting that someone will win is not extraordinary without somehow factoring in the idea that lotteries are often repeated? Do I have to also incorporate colored balls, prizes for 2nd and 3rd tier winners, fraud, lost tickets? Do I have to account for the lottery ticket purchase process, a concept of scratching off to reveal the actual content, etc.? What a stupid demand, you should be embarrassed.
Look, genius, the fine tuning argument is the opposite of a suggested lottery. It isn't an argument that, out of all the possible universes that could have existed... it is an argument that this one was intentionally designed for a purpose. There was no randomness involved, such as in a lottery. The only part randomness has to do with the idea is to show why randomness should be dismissed as a factor. It's that simple.
There is no winner to pick, TiG. That's what you don't get. It implies other candidates could have also been a winner. That isn't what fine tuning is about. It is about something intentionally creating this universe, not pulling it out of a box of universes at random. Is this too complex for you to understand? If so, I'll try my best to help you understand it.
Ah, right. Like when you have a virus that thrives in an environment filled with antibiotics. It's almost like that environment was intentionally designed for them, right? Oh, wait, no, the environment was designed to kill the virus but because some had mutations that allowed them to resist the antibiotics they survived and thrived in a once deadly environment. It's called evolution.
Life didn't have to have the perfect environment for it to survive, it just needed to adapt to the environment it found itself.
Using the flawed idea of 'fine-tuning' to try and prove there must be a God or grand creator is just fucking stupid.
The argument is that the probability of our particular universe existing without a sentient creator is very small because the probability of our universe's signature arriving by chance (sans a sentient creator) is very small (based on Bayesian probability).
To even formulate this argument one must recognize that a different signature would be a different universe and that with all the factors of the signature taken into consideration the number of potential alternate† universes is astronomical. It is that astronomical number that is the crux of the fine-tuning argument since that is what lowers the probability of our specific universe existing without a sentient creator (in the mathematical formulation).
You do not know what you are talking about.
Yeah other universes could have manifested instead of ours. That is the whole idea. If our universe is the only one possible then there would be no fine-tuning argument. There would be no reason to speak of fine-tuning factors. And, importantly, if our universe was the only one possible then why would you presume a need for a sentient creator in the first place since there would be no choices to make? There would be no need to fine-tune anything.
My argument in this thread, by the way, is based on the Anthropic Objection (in essence it notes the arrogant anthropocentric bias of the fine-tuning argument) as I noted upfront:
Maybe you should look it up.
You do not know what you are talking about.
†☞ Note again that alternate does not mean parallel. This is not a concept of parallel universes but of different potential universes each of which has a different signature (a different tuning).
No, that isn't the idea. The idea is that a fine tuned universe suggests a fine tuner, not that other universes could have manifested. There's nothing about it that suggests it is the only one possible, either. That would be up to the fine tuner. That would be like saying a carpenter has only one possible thing he could make. Not how it works. The carpenter can make many different things.
But by all means, keep on insisting I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
It is both, Drakk. The suggestion of a fine tuner is predicated on the fact that slight changes in the signature factors would mean that our universe would not exist and the universe that holds those signatures would likely not support life as we know it. Also, (repeating myself again), if our universe was the only one possible then there would be no need for a fine-tuner 'fine-tuning the dials'. See how that works?
You illustrate this yourself with every post.
Nope again. What you speak of here isn't the point, it's the argument to support the point. Or, if you prefer, it's a premise, not the conclusion.
Except there's nothing in the FTA that speaks to the universe being the only one possible. It simply states that this universe is extremely unlikely to be due to chance, therefore it suggests a designer. See how that works?
This is so basic and so obviously true concerning what the FTA actually is that I can only assume you're just trying to find some way not to be wrong. Get's tiring. Believe what you want about FTA. No point in trying to get you to see what you don't want to see.
Indeed the FTA does not hold that only one universe is possible. If that were the case then the very notion of fine-tuning would be unnecessary ... it would make no sense. Again: if your dials have only one setting there is no need for a fine-tuner.
The fine-tuning argument holds that a universe that can support life as we know it is so unlikely that its very existence indicates a fine-tuner. To wit, without a fine-tuner, the argument suggests some other universe would almost certainly be in effect and that universe would most likely not support life as we know it.
In short: the FTA necessarily holds that if the signature factors vary by slight amounts the universe in effect would be some other universe. And it recognizes — and uses as a foundation of the argument — that the number of potential universes based upon the enumeration of changes to the signature factors is astronomically large .
Words from someone else (and these guys are biased in favor of the argument) to help you comprehend this:
In case you do not see this. What would happen if the dart hit a spot outside of the one-foot wide target? The resulting universe would have different initial conditions and different fundamental parameters of physics. That is, the 'tuning' would be different. It would not be our universe, it would be one of countless other potential universes represented in the analogy.
So if you believe there must be a designer because the odds of our universe being fit for life is supposedly astronomically small, what are the odds that an all-powerful all-knowing astronomically more complex creator being just popped into existence or has always existed, a being without a beginning or end? Have you done that math? You don't have to bother answering, of course you've never done the math and it's clear you don't care, you've already made up your mind. The fact remains, the entire premise of 'fine tuning' being some sort of valid argument is inherently flawed and the only way half-wit believers can fill in the galactic sized logic hole is to just arbitrarily claim their God is magic and can do anything.
Just face it, you can't use logic to prove there is a God. Again, I'm not saying there can't be a God, I'm just saying your useless flailing attempts to make it seem like coming to the God conclusion is logical in any way is a laughable failure.
I brought this up before all the deflections miraculously began. Ultimately the fine-tuning argument is persuasive IFF one presumes the existence of a sentient creator. That is, if a sentient creator's own existence is excluded from the plausibility consideration. Given the existence of a sentient creator is it more likely that the very specific conditions of our universe were the result of design or chance? Of course this yields the obvious 'design' as the answer. But a sentient creator is not a given because that yields a circular argument.
Thing is, if one can leap to the notion that the most complex, powerful sentient entity has always existed, one should be able to make a much easier leap to imagine the undirected emergence of a universe whose conditions enabled life as we know it.
Those who cannot even fathom the possibility that a sentient creator might not actually exist are likely incapable of objectively thinking through the fine-tuning scenario in this manner. They cannot (I think they refuse to) comprehend that maybe the reason we are here to arrogantly hold the anthropocentric view that our universe was created just for us is because our universe is the one that emerged. If another universe had emerged instead, there might be silicon-based creatures arrogantly holding the view that their universe was created just for them.
To wit, the likelihood of a particular universe emerging by chance is indeed absurdly low. But the likelihood of a universe emerging by chance is high. And if life emerges from the 'lucky' universe, its life forms might hold an arrogant view that the universe was created just for them.
Exactly. Occam's razor. "The simplest explanation is usually the best one", and while many religious persons think saying "God did it" is the simplest answer, anyone with more than half a brain and actually considers what they are saying knows it's obviously the far more complicated and complex conclusion.
And the odds of "God did it" are so much lower than a universe emerging by chance it's like comparing the odds of a virus mutating into a antibiotic resistant super-virus after being exposed to antibiotics designed to kill it vs you or I mutating into a flying unicorn that farts rainbows after eating rainbow sherbet. I know which bet I'd be putting my money on.
This is one of the most fascinating things about faith; the ability to ignore / downplay inconvenient facts / logic.
I don't think it's fascinating so much as it is sad. Or delusional
Sure, some are delusional, but others strike me as utterly driven to defend their god no matter what. It is a curiosity (to say the least) of mine when I observe smart people making and clinging to (no matter how many times shown clearly to be wrong) utterly ridiculous arguments to avoid (as in: deflect from) honestly dealing with probative questions that question the existence of a god.
For example: refusing to even acknowledge that the reason the fine-tuning argument finds life unlikely sans a fine-tuning designer is because of the astronomically large domain of potential universes (enumerating all the signature factors) in comparison to the few which are not entirely hostile to life (as we know it).
Or refusing to even acknowledge that we necessarily had to have a universe that supports life (indeed our kind of life) to even come up with the arrogant anthropocentric view that the universe was created just for us. In the grand scheme of things, human life might be no more special than an asteroid. It is just that we hold ourselves special. After all, our universe seems more concerned with producing stars and galaxies, black holes and quasars and except for very tiny exceptions is hostile to life. Yet some cannot even entertain the thought that life (as we know it) may not be the raison d'être of the universe.
They are looking to confirm/retain their beliefs and no facts or reason to the contrary will be acknowledged, much less honestly considered.
The line between the two seems quite thin to me.
Sometimes, it's quite mind boggling.
I tend to agree.
This is true.
I've spoken to many believers who are quite open about the fact that they know they have no evidence of their God. They are almost always the ones who believe Genesis, the flood, Adam and Eve, and many other parts of the bible to be allegorical and not to be taken literally. More like a divinely inspired Aesop's fables with good moral tales that ancient people relied on to pass on certain moral traditions and teachings.
These religious folk admit that all they have to connect them to their perceived creator is their faith and they don't bother trying to use science, logic or any other empirical rational means to prove their God exists. They believe because they want to believe and feel its almost a heritage or traditional faith passed down to them by their parents and their parents parents and they never try to push their beliefs on others. Ever have a Jewish person knock on your door and try to convert you? I haven't. I have no problem with these types of believers.
It's the other side of the line, the delusional, what I consider religious zealots, who I believe are simply weak in their faith which is why they are so desperate to attain some physical proof of their faith. They're the ones waiting on baited breath as the explorers search the ice for Noah's ark. They're the ones trying to twist and spin science and cosmology to somehow support their beliefs. They are most likely to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and Adam and Eve and thus no matter how much evidence you show them of evolution they denounce it as heresy. These are also the same folk who continue to whine and complain about their religion being 'under attack' from anyone who doesn't kneel down and validate their beliefs. To them saying "Happy Holidays" is a war on Christmas. Asking them to treat others the way they want to be treated even if they're gay, atheist or Muslim is denying them their religious freedom to hate and discriminate.
This describes the majority of Christians in my circle of friends and family. Most seem, really, to just believe in an abstract God (divine creator) and an afterlife. Much of the religious teachings (mostly Catholic) do not seem to be taken very seriously and the Bible is viewed as a holy book but only very specific parts are known and recognized.
It is very much as though they learned through indoctrination and continue almost by habit but their faith is indeed more than just a habit because I am confident that they do genuinely believe in God (at least in the abstract). They certainly believe in the good things like being rejoined with loved ones in a much better place.
I do not know many who are as honest about it like that. Most I encountered view their beliefs as fact, regardless of evidence.
I suspect that's how most religious indoctrination begins and persists.
If only all believers were like that.
Neither have I . I have had Jehova Witnesses knock on my door though.
Neither do I. It's when they try to push their beliefs onto others or try t pass of their beliefs as fact is when I take issue.
It's the other side of the line, the delusional, what I consider religious zealots, who I believe are simply weak in their faith which is why they are so desperate to attain some physical proof of their faith.
I don't think they're weak in faith. Just the opposite, they cannot see or consider anything else. They are truly closed minded to anything which remotely challenges or contradicts their beliefs. They will twist anything as "proof" to support their assertions.
As I see things, even the best will 'adjust' circumstances (e.g. facts and logic) to defend / maintain their beliefs.
Uh, do you guys need a medic? I mean, you guys are slapping each other on the back so hard you're likely doing harm to yourselves. I mean, it's clownish, but even clowns need help, I suppose.
I tend to agree.
Yeah, the inanity is intended to elicit facetious sarcasm to claim some sort of self righteous victory.
The fine tuning argument is direct, concrete evidence that the various sciences have not been able to explain away. Fine tuning is a result; therefore, there is a cause. And scientific endeavor devoted to understanding causality suddenly dismisses and ignores a cause/result relationship. One problem with the fine tuning argument is we can only see the result. And the limitation of the scientific method constrains the process to explaining a very specific, directly observed result. What happened has happened and could not have happened any other way. Unless, of course, reconstructing the chain of causality leads to God being a cause, then there are a multitude of possibilities that ignores the constriction of causality that what happened could not have happened any other way. Understanding causality isn't a 'what if' exercise. Many things could possibly have happened but the observed result means the chain of causality could not have happened any other way.
Why do astronomers speak about the birth of stars or the birth of our solar system? Why do evolutionary biologists speak of evolution as an experiment by nature? There is more God language embedded in science than advocates wish to admit. Scientists are making their own 'God did it' arguments; they just avoid using the label 'God'.
Where does science dismiss/ignore a cause/effect relationship per the fine-tuning scenario?
Science does not know what took place in the Planck Epoch. Thus the definitive cause question is answered with: "we do not (yet) know". There is no evidence of an uber-powerful sentient entity fine-tuning our universe; there is only evidence that our universe can only exist under very specific conditions. There are countless other potential universes that are also incredibly unlikely due to the same very specific factors such as the strength of the various fundamental forces. Our universe is the one that manifested and, because of that, we have the means to engage in arrogantly anthropocentric beliefs that it was created just for us.
What are you talking about? Seems you are trying to say that science uses the word 'natural' as a code word for 'God'. Is that where you are going with this?
How do you know this? We only have a limited example and perspective to go by.
Then what caused god?
That is just an assumption without any supporting evidence.
What arguments would those be? Be specific. I have not heard scientists say "god did it" or use anything as a substitute claim.
Of course he cannot possibly know this; nobody knows this.
If the force of gravity, for example, was weaker then the resultant universe would not be able to coalesce cosmic bodies such as stars and planets. In this universe, life as we know it could not possibly exist. How can anyone claim to know that it is impossible for such a universe to have formed instead of the one we find ourselves in? For it to be impossible one would need to know the initial conditions of the universe and the circumstances under which those initial conditions came to be. What does Nerm know of the Planck Epoch (and before if that makes sense) to make such a claim?
If someone wins a lottery and thus defies a 1 in 300 million shot, does that mean it was impossible for another to have instead been the winner? The probability of a particular winner are astronomically small but the probability of someone winning is near certainty.
It's like I said before, some people just start with an assumption and work backwards.
For all we know, there could be such a universe. It would be as if all the matter of our universe just scattered, like throwing sand. Gravity is the proverbial water that binds that sand.
Based on his posts, I'm going to assume little to nothing.
You can't win if you don't play, right?
If science does not know then science is in no position to dismiss on conjecture. Claiming 'God did not do it' without knowledge has no more merit than claiming 'God did it'. Stating that science does not know whether or not 'God did it' doesn't diminish the evidence that is available.
We are only concerned with our universe. Our universe is not a potential universe; it is a substantial universe. Our universe is here, now. Science attempts to understand causality within our universe; science is not in the business of understanding potential universes.
Humans are not a hypothetical. Humans are a result of a chain of causality. Humans being here, in our existence, has happened and could not have happened any other way; that's a constraint of causality. Potentially other humans doesn't describe or explain our being here; that may explain why we shouldn't be here which is another piece of evidence for fine tuning.
Fine tuning is a body of evidence generated by multiple scientific disciplines. Particle physics, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, thermodynamics, and, even, mathematics have generated evidence of fine tuning. π is evidence of fine tuning.
If humans are the result of a chain of trillions of events from the beginning of the universe (that could not have happened any other way) then explain why humans being here is not significant evidence. There are a host of other life forms on Earth but humans are distinct and unique. A host of life forms discovered elsewhere in the universe will not alter that humans are distinct and unique life forms. And our very real, very tangible universe provides evidence of fine tuning responsible for humans existing.
Then it would be impossible to observe a result and use the scientific method to determine a cause. Our understanding of causality is based upon understanding the result before we can determine the cause. And tracing the events from result back to cause means that what happened could not have happened any other way. If the chain of events happened any other way then we would not observe the same result.
That is a question based upon our understanding of existence dependent upon spacetime. Without spacetime, there isn't causality as we understand causality. How can God be caused (or a result of cause) without causality? We can't get past the asymptote of infinity.
Our universe is the only result we can presently see. That does not preclude the possibility of other universes. You seem to confuse results with causes. The "cause" is unknown. Trying to establish a cause is speculation at best.
Again, you cannot possibly know that. You just make assumptions.
See previous statement. Any differences could be minute and not observable by our limited perspective.
And yet, you assume god is infinite or the cause. The question is simple and applicable: if god caused something, what caused god?
You don't either so you are in no position to make conjecture, especially as fact. If science does not know, then science says it does not know. That is an honest answer. Conjecture is the best anyone can do in such a situation. But one cannot make conjecture as fact or valid.
When did science ever claim god did or didn't do anything?
What "evidence" would that be? I bet if there was evidence for a god, science would be all over it.
Humans as a species are nothing more than the result of evolutionary processes. Just like all other lifeforms on the planet. In that regard, humans are not unique. We just have a habit of (or wishful) thinking we are.
What do you think science is dismissing regarding fine-tuning? Where do you find dismissal?
Where do you see 'God did not do it'?
Again, what are you talking about?
No shit. Where do you find me claiming that our universe is simply potential?
Sure it is. Theoretical science is very interested in alternate universes (potential) as well as parallel universes and a fabric of universe (multiverse). This is mathematical speculation grounded in modern physics but it certainly of interest to the scientific community. Before it is possible to develop sound scientific theories, science explores the bounds of its knowledge with theoretical research (grounded, intelligent speculation).
You do not know that. But if human beings could indeed only exist in our particular universe that does not mean anything.
Who suggested that potential others describes or explains our existence?
'Fine tuning' is simply evidence that our universe (and thus life as we know it) can only exist under very specific conditions. Going beyond that is simply speculation.
How is π evidence of fine-tuning?
Evidence of what? Be specific.
Who claimed it would?
The specifics of our universe (the specifics of physics) is what enabled life as we know it.
Most of your comment was simply you rebutting arguments that have not been made.
Good grief, the strawmen are everywhere.
Yes, they just keep on coming, do they not?
It is ridiculous; as if it is impossible to directly address/rebut a point. Most of the time it is an end-run that rebuts a point that was never made.
The tactic is basically to write a comment that reads true and portray it as a rebuttal.
It is the panning for gold thing ... one must sift through a ton of crap on the hope of finding something of value.
How would we recognize God if our universe is the only result we can see?
Then understanding causality is impossible.
The only assumption is that there is God. God is the source of causality; causality is an intentional result with a divine purpose.
Fine tuning is direct evidence generated by many scientific disciplines. How would science recognize God? How would science recognize evidence of God?
And yet humans are distinct and unique among all known life forms. Neanderthals were distinct and unique and can be differentiated from humans. Human evolution is a sequence of events that could not have happened any other way; otherwise there would not be distinct, unique humans among all known life forms.
Fools gold maybe.
I'm not sure there was anything of value to begin with.
Every now and then an interesting point is made.
In that case, if you can't recognize god, how can one say there is a god to begin with, not to mention said god actually creating anything?
You still do not know that.
An assumption is all it is at best. But there's nothing to validate such claims. Substitute god with fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. Same difference and just as valid an assumption.
So you're just assuming fine tuning is done by god? Again, you're still starting with an assumption. There is nothing more than that at present.
Not really. Human are mammals and share the same traits as other mammals. Human DNA is 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. Other organisms also have DNA. We don't even know if there is life similar to (or essentially the same as) humans in the universe. We are not quite as unique as we like to believe we are.
Neanderthals were simply a subspecies of modern humans. They were thought to have also interbred with modern humans, making them not so distinct from modern humans.
You cannot know this for sure. Even if certain events occurred differently, you cannot say whether it would alter human evolution. It is possible that it could. But one cannot be certain.
Maybe I haven't noticed it buried in all the accompanying BS.
I don't "dismiss conjecture", I simply point out that's all it is, baseless conjecture. You might as well claim our universe was created by a galactic octopus that squirted out cosmic ink creating the blackness of space and all the matter and stars within. Conjecture is pure fantasy, taking something you've observed (which science also does) like lightning or some other phenomenon and inventing some cause like a lightning God like Zeus or Thor.
Both 'God did it' and 'God didn't do it' are claims based not on knowledge, facts or science. The only honest answer we have is 'we don't know' but are willing to keep searching, uncovering every rock to keep looking for answers. Saying you know one way or another can really only be seen as an excuse for the lazy who want to stop looking. Those who tire of searching for truth give up and just choose one side or the other likely because they're too weak of mind and heart to do the hard work it takes to uncover actual truths about the universe.
I'm not in any way "diminishing the evidence that is available". There simply is ZERO evidence of anything supernatural or divine. Zip, zilch, nada. Just because lightning exists and humans couldn't explain it's origins for thousands of years doesn't mean it didn't have an explainable natural origin. Believers simply take the phenomenon's we haven't been able to completely understand and claim that's proof of their God, but that's not actual proof their conjecture is correct. Taking a neutral position is clearly the best position to take until the phenomenon is further examined and understood.
Of course you are. That is the self-centered ignorant position of many. Science doesn't care if it's this universe or another, it's willing to go where the evidence leads.
It would be very interested if we found evidence of other universes. So far, just like with God, the idea of other universes is conjecture with no hard evidence. While one might conclude that since our universe exists, others might as well, it's no more than an unsupported hypothesis.
Just like lightning isn't hypothetical. It's the result of a chain of causality. Just because we don't have a complete understanding of the cause of life or of our universe doesn't mean it inherently must be supernatural. Sure, saying it's Zeus or Thor is an easier answer to explain the cause of lightning rather than spending centuries studying, observing and testing to learn that it's an electrical discharge caused by imbalances between storm clouds and the ground or within the clouds themselves, but baseless conjecture attributing phenomenon to supernatural forces has so far never led to actual truth or facts.
Supposed "fine tuning" is simply an explanation of what's here and doesn't explain at all what may have caused it. Saying life can't exist in any other type of universe with any other physics is woefully ignorant. It supposes that this universe was specifically built for us simply because we exist in it which is one of the most self-centered, vain and arrogant conclusions one can reach on par with those who used to believe the universe revolved around us.
That's like an exceedingly wealthy heir to a vast family fortune claiming his wealth and power over others is proof he was chosen by God. Sure, it was possibly trillions of events throughout human history that led to his family fortune and his inheritance of it, but does it really prove he was somehow "chosen by God"? In the past people believed that kind of shit because they were fucking stupid and had no better explanation or other choice but to believe it.
And yet they all exist within this universe as well with all the "particle physics, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, thermodynamics, and, even, mathematics". Just because some of us have higher brain functions (while clearly some do not) and self awareness allowing us to be at the top of the food chain doesn't prove shit. If it weren't us it would be another species of animal, plant or virus at the top. Would that mean the universe was specifically designed for some virus simply because it spreads far and wide and exists?
Studying the universe can explain how life has evolved and adapted into this form, it doesn't in any way even hint at why.
You stated that the only thing we can see is the universe. So, the question is how would we recognize God? How would we recognize evidence of God?
Why would I not know that what has happened could not have happened any other way? Because of phenomena that cannot be explained by causality? Because of statistical outliers? Because of miracles? Because the cause cannot be seen in our universe?
Substitute fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes with multiverses, a fifth dimension, and spooky attraction at a distance. Science uses assumptions to make the physics work, too. How do we know that quantum entanglement is not evidence of God?
I am assuming that fine tuning was done intentionally for a purpose. Hence God.
Fine tuning is not an assumption; fine tuning is a body of evidence generated by a diversity of scientific disciplines. Science recognizes fine tuning but, in spite of much effort, has not explained fine tuning. The demand for evidence of God raises an obvious question: how would we recognize evidence of God? How do we know evidence of fine tuning is not evidence of God?
You are only pointing out that humans are more than the sum of their parts. The fact that you are capable of claiming similarities with other life forms provides direct evidence that humans are distinct and unique. Humans not only know who they are, humans can compare themselves to other life forms.
And because humans are self aware of their distinctiveness, humans fall into the trap of hubris by thinking humans are superior life forms. Some humans even think they are so distinctively unique that they are superior to other humans.
Neanderthals were a separate species of humans that were distinctly different from modern humans. Neanderthals contributed to the rise of modern humans. Did the existence of Neanderthals serve a purpose in making humans what they are?
If we cannot know for sure about human evolution then we cannot know for sure about formation of our galaxy, solar system, or Earth. We cannot know for sure about reconstructed climates. We cannot know for sure if the coronavirus emerged in a natural host and jumped to humans.
We can only know what is. We can only know what we see. And since that is all we know then anything else is speculation. Multiverses and leprechauns.
To which I already replied, if you can't recognize god, how can one say there is a god to begin with, not to mention said god actually creating anything? But I suppose if the Earth was magically transformed into an Eden with no pollution, disasters, ect., or the solar system magically transform into a binary star system, that might be evidence for a god.
Because you only know of one particular way it has happened. That's not the same as saying it can be the only way.
The difference is, science doesn't present assumptions or speculation as fact. Science will say it does not know and science will adjust itself when something is discovered.
We don't. But it's disingenuous to assume it is. Unless you want to define god as quantum entanglement.
Yes, you are!
The more similar something is, the less unique it is.
And some go one step further and believe they were specially created by a deity that loves them.
That was once thought to be the case. But not so much anymore. They are not considered a separate species, but rather a subspecies.
We do know about human evolution and can trace our evolution.
It's necessary to understand the conjecture. The conjecture is that the existence of the universe, its parts, and ourselves is intentional for a purpose. If humans were intended to be here for a purpose then it follows that humans were created. Creation for a purpose is an act of intentional will. Therefore, a God creator.
The conjecture concerns intent and purpose. A God creator is a logical conclusion of that conjecture. The claim that 'God did it' is a statement of intent and purpose. The more complete claim would be 'God did it for a purpose'.
Sun gods, lightning gods, wind gods, water gods are all associated with a purpose. They aren't gods just to be gods. And worshiping those gods isn't just something to do. The gods control nature and worship is to intended to encourage the gods to control nature on our behalf. There is a purpose and gods represent that purpose.
As humans learn to control nature, humans lose connection with intent and purpose for our existence. Divine purpose is displaced by self serving human purpose. The intent and purpose of one God over us all is replaced by a multiplicity of self serving purposes in conflict with each other. If we turn away from the gods we lose our unifying purpose for existence. If human existence becomes nothing more than self gratification then the continued existence of humanity is rather unimportant. The extinction of humanity doesn't really matter if there is no purpose for humanity to be here. Humanity would just be an interesting blip in determinate causality.
But we know there is a cause for lightning even if we do not understand the cause. What we don't know is whether or not lightning serves an intentional purpose. Even after understanding the cause of lightning we still won't know whether or not lightning serves an intentional purpose.
The universe would function with or without lightning. So, why would lightning be included in the universe? What purpose does lightning serve?
So, evidence of God would be phenomena that are readily apparent but defies explanation. Like gravity. And fine tuning.
Why isn't saying that only knowing one particular way doesn't preclude other possibilities a type of magical thinking?
Science assumes a cause that can be understood. And science attempts to understand cause to explain the observed result and replicate the observed result. A hypothesis is conjectured understanding of cause and the scientific method is a process to test the conjectured understanding of cause.
Are you saying we've seen spontaneous terraforming or stellar formation?
There could be other ways. Just as there could be other universes and such. At present, we only know of one universe.
Science makes no such assumption. Science seeks to understand.
A hypothesis is just an educated guess.
We know what causes lightning. We don't need to ascribe a "purpose" for it. Lighting is just an effect.
You're still going under an assumption there's a "purpose."
Well, of course we have evidence of spontaneous terraforming and stellar formation according to our physics. Our own star and planet are evidence of that. That's why science is using spontaneous terraforming and stellar formation as a model to search for life elsewhere in the universe.
That is correct. That is the core assumption and conjecture. God is a logical, rational conclusion arising from that assumption and conjecture.
That is really cool. Thank you.
I don't think you understand what the word "spontaneous" means. Or solar system and sun did not suddenly form. It was a much longer process. Scientists estimate the earth itself took up to 100 million years to form. I suppose on a cosmological scale, 100M years is almost instantaneous. Let me make this simpler for you then. I'm referring to an instantaneous process which would violate physics. You know, snap your fingers and magically make a whole new sun appear or make all pollution on earth suddenly disappear and restore full ecosystems again.
No, god (assuming you use the biblical definition) is just another assumption along the lines of magical fairies, with no supporting evidence to even support a conjecture. To reach a conclusion, one must first have evidence to go by. You're starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards to make the evidence fit your conclusion. It's intellectually disingenuous.
Umm ... Better check your dictionary.
Instantaneous like quantum entanglement or the Big Bang? Aren't you demanding evidence of something coming from nothing? How is that possible within the constraints of spacetime?
God is not the assumption. The assumption is that our existence is intentional for a purpose. We are here because we are intended to be here to serve a purpose. The Sun rises and sets for a purpose. The rain falls for a purpose. Nature does what it does for a purpose. The claim is that God did it for a purpose. Creation for a purpose is an act of intentional will. Perhaps you've been misinterpreting the dictionary as well as the Bible.
If our existence was intentional and for a purpose, that is simply euphemistic language for 'a sentient entity created us' which is essentially equivalent to 'God did it'.
I did. And I even elaborated further.
Do we know those events were instantaneous? Even the Planck epoch was not instantaneous.
I'm demanding evidence that "god did it," as you seem to think is the case.
They're both assumptions.
No, it doesn't. That effect is simply due to Earth's rotation. If the Earth was tidally locked, only 1 side would face the sun and the other would be perpetually dark.
Wrong again. Rain falls simply because enough water vapor condenses and precipitates.
An empty claim is all it is.
Perhaps you are unable to understand that there may be no "purpose." You just assume there's one based on your own beliefs or wishful thinking, to the point where you want to ascribe a purpose to almost everything. So far, you failed to demonstrate any actual purpose and just assume there's one. Perhaps because it's emotionally appealing or helps you deal with reality? You fail to even consider the opposite.
Lightning need not have an intentional purpose, it exists because of physics, not because any divine hand is casting down lightning bolts. The planet has been effected by it, perhaps even the origin of life itself on our planet was effected by it. Working backwards believers might claim that that was lightnings purpose, but was it? There is simply no evidence to prove anything other than lightning occurs because the ingredients for it were there and the interaction of those ingredients followed the basic laws of physics. This could be exactly the same in regards to the big bang, no purpose necessary.
Much like the many vestigial parts humans and many other species have, the universe has millions of other phenomenon that don't seem to be related to our existence whatsoever. I believe this fact heavily refutes the 'fine tuning' theory since believers simply line up the handful of required physics and events that are necessary for our existence and claim the universe was made for us. If the universe was made for us, why would there be so many other cosmic phenomenon's that occur all over the universe that appear to have anything to do with our own existence?
That is malformed logic because it dismisses the the central point: purpose.
Creation without a purpose only requires a cause. Spontaneous creation just happens according to determinate causality. A universe that exists without a purpose only means causality is God. In a universe that wasn't created for a purpose, 'God did it' is simply euphemistic language for 'causality did it'.
When causality becomes God then interfering with causality becomes heresy. Causality did not give humans wings and humans are not supposed to fly. Causality means the disease will run its course and humans are not to interfere. The climate changes according to causality and interfering with that change in climate goes against the God of causality. Genetic manipulation turns causality on its head and geneticists are heretics to be burned at the stake. Knowledge of causality and the God of causality tells us how to avoid interfering; knowledge tells us what we should not do. Humans are meant to live within causality with what causality has provided.
Now do you understand why humans need a God of purpose rather than a God of causality? The claim is that 'God did it for a purpose'. God created the stars, the heavens, the Earth, and humans and saw that it was good. A statement of purpose.
There would not be life without lightning. A planet without lightning in its atmosphere will not have life. But lightning is only one component among many required for the emergence of life.
Fine tuning is a body of evidence that has identified specific components in specific combinations necessary for existence. Without any one of those components there would not be existence.
First of all, that was not a statement of logic, it was simply unpacking the bullshit of your euphemism. So it cannot be 'malformed'. Second, I did not dismiss or support your belief of purpose; I even used 'purpose' in my answer. You read that, right? I took your belief as a given and unpacked your euphemism.
Do you have canned responses that you pull from a shelf? Seems that way at times like this where your reply makes no sense given my comment.
Yes. I suspect everyone knows that.
Why must you label the cause 'God'?
Another obvious statement.
What utter nonsense.
You have not explained anything Nerm. Your bullshit is not informative. Many human beings need a God of purpose to feel comfortable. It is psychological.
Do you think any of us do not understand that this is your belief? Repeating your belief accomplishes nothing. Yes, Nerm, I know this is what you believe. No need to tell me again.
Not true. Existence would simply be in a different form.
Perhaps not our version of carbon life, but to claim other lifeforms out there can't exist without lightning is foolish. I'm not saying there definitely are other life forms out there, perhaps silica based one, but to proclaim that if life out there exists that it must conform to our standards is frankly ridiculous.
Necessary for OUR existence. From all the evidence we've uncovered so far the components were 'just right' for a spark of life on our planet and then humans evolved to survive just like millions of other species throughout history. And since that spark of life occurred it hasn't been a cakewalk for life on our planet. The fact is 99.9% of all the different species that have ever existed on our planet are now extinct. If that was some higher powers 'plan' it seems like a pretty shitty one and doesn't sound like 'fine tuning' to me, sparking life on a planet where 99.9% of all his supposed creations have gone extinct.
.
It's not just my belief, it is also the belief of science.
'Survival of the species' is a statement of purpose. The purpose of animal behavior and reproduction is to ensure survival of the species.
'Natural selection' is a statement of purpose. The purpose of natural selection is to establish life forms adapted to environment.
Life (and humans) did not create those purposes after emerging into existence. Life (and humans) did not create evolution.
Purpose supersedes causality and purpose establishes authority over causality. Changing the label from 'God' to a label of 'Nature' or a label of 'Human Progress' or any other label doesn't change the fact that purpose supersedes causality and establishes authority over causality. Whatever label is applied, the universe exists for a purpose.
What "belief" does science make?
Now that's a belief.
Good grief Nerm give it a break.
If a species does not reproduce, it does not exist. Survival of a species is thus an effect of having the means to reproduce. That does not mean there is a sentient entity that created reproduction for a purpose. In other words, if reproduction did not manifest as a function of life, there would be far less life (if any) and no species.
Natural selection is a process that we observe. It results in life forms suited to their environment. That does not mean there is a sentient entity that created natural selection.
Some ascribe purpose to pretty much anything but that does not mean there is an actual purpose. Purpose necessarily requires a sentient entity with great power. That is why you are engaging in this sophistry to argue: we see purpose thus God exists.
You have not established that anything has a purpose. The purpose that you perceive is just that — that which some human beings ascribe as purpose. Everything that happens in reality may have no purpose whatsoever even though it is replete with cause and effect. After all, what is the purpose of a new star forming 50 billion light years from us? What is the purpose of a snowflake forming its particular crystalline structure ... why that structure ... what is the purpose?
Umm ... Do you believe science has a purpose?
After answering, please, explain why belief is not important for the pursuit of science.
Of course science has a purpose. Human beings ascribe purpose to it. Works the same way that an automobile gets its purpose. Or religion gets its purpose. Or a smart phone gets its purpose. Or politics gets its purpose.
Belief in what? Belief that the scientific method is good? Belief in one's own skills? Belief that laws of science will likely not change? Something like that? Or belief in a sentient entity? Be clear.
Why are you answering my question with a question? What I "believe" is irrelevant. What belief does science make?
You have not answered the question of what "belief" science makes. Until you define that belief, I cannot explain why it is or is not important. Be specific!
Methinks someone is just trying to be clever regardless of whether or not truth prevails.
Methinks you are correct.
Belief in a purpose. Does the scientific method have a purpose?
If the scientific method doesn't have a purpose, doesn't have a reason to exist, then it wouldn't matter if the scientific method existed at all.
"Purpose" is what we ascribe to things. We make the purpose.
Yes, I did answer your question. The pursuit of science is premised on belief that science has a purpose.
We do not have evidence of extraterrestrial life. Yet, the Earth provides evidence that supports a belief in the possibility of extraterrestrial life. Scientists are searching for extraterrestrial life based solely on faith in a possibility. That search may be for extraterrestrial life but the search is testing the belief and faith of the scientists doing the searching. And the beliefs go much deeper, the belief in the possibility of extraterrestrial life has stated a purpose for the search; finding extraterrestrial life will tell us more about life on Earth.
Possibilities, belief, faith. Ultimately the effort to search for extraterrestrial life was initiated by a belief in purpose.
Well of course it does, see @1.1.259
Nerm, I answered your question @1.1.259. Here you go responding as if you never read it.
Yes, humans establish a purpose, a reason for existence. Humans begin human endeavors with a purpose in mind. But humans have only been present in the universe for a teeny, tiny portion of the universe's existence.
Does the universe exist for a reason? Does the existence of the universe have a purpose? The Earth provides direct evidence of creation for a purpose that supports belief in the possibility the universe, itself, was created for a purpose. And faith that the universe was created for a purpose would require a creator; just as human creation for a purpose requires a human creator.
Possibilities, belief, faith. Purpose is not a determinate result of causality. Purpose is established by deliberate intent. Causality cannot establish a reason to exist; cannot establish purpose.
The scientific method did not establish its own purpose. The scientific method is not the result of causality; the scientific method did not create itself through a determinant process. The scientific method is not the result of spontaneous creation.
The scientific method was intentionally created for a purpose. The purpose was established before the scientific method was created. And the scientific method did not pop into existence fully formed; the scientific method evolved to better fulfill the purpose of the scientific method. The purpose for the scientific method guided the evolution of the scientific method.
Do you find anyone on the planet who disagrees with that?
What point do you think you are trying to make? Human beings ascribe purpose to all sorts of things. We invent all sorts of things. This is all beyond obvious.
The crystalline structure of an individual snowflake may have no purpose. Can you wrap your head around that?
The creation / death of a star 50 billion light years from us may have no purpose.
Not everything necessarily has a purpose. Just because human beings typically have a reason for taking decisive actions does not mean that everything in reality is the result of a sentient entity taking decisive action with intent (purpose).
Then people should be studying as many philosophies as possible to learn and utilize what works for them as an individual. No one should be coerced to be a slave to one religion's dogma or limitations.
No. Isn't that interesting? When the purpose is known and the creator is known then there is not disagreement.
Yes, it's difficult to argue against the obvious, isn't it?
The progression of logic (both deductive and inductive) is from the obvious to the less obvious. The importance of the obvious shouldn't be dismissed so readily. Otherwise the logic won't work.
Yes, not everything necessarily has a purpose. But that's not the question. Does the existence of the universe have a purpose? Does the universe exist for a reason? And what is the source of that purpose and reason to exist?
A stone is a stone. When a stone is a tool, the stone has a purpose. The stone did not establish its own purpose as a tool by simply existing. Determinate causality did not establish a purpose for the stone. Determinate causality created the stone but determinate causality did not create the purpose of the stone as a tool. The purpose of the stone as a tool was a directed, intentional, and deliberate act by an independent agent. The purpose of the stone as a tool was created by an agent separate and independent from the stone. Recognizing the purpose of the stone as a tool depends upon observing minute differences that differentiates the stone tool from other stones that do not have a purpose as a tool.
That's the logical progression from the obvious to the less obvious.
Well of course not. Water is wet, trees have leaves.
What is the point of making obvious statements? You are not engaging in a rebuttal, you are not teaching. What do you think you accomplish by making statements that are obvious?
So what are your obvious statements doing to pursue answering those questions? The questions remain and I see you doing nothing but dancing around.
The belief is that the universe has a reason to exist; the universe has a purpose. The belief is associated with the creation of purpose for the universe's existence and not with the creation of the universe, itself.
Determinate causality can create a universe. But determinate causality cannot create a reason for the universe to exist; cannot create a purpose for the existence of the universe. A purpose for the existence of the universe must be created by an agent independent and separate from the universe.
Just as evidence of life on Earth establishes the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the evidence of purpose created by independent agents on Earth establishes the possibility of an independent agent creating a purpose for the existence of universe. The existence of the universe may be a result of causality but, as evidence on Earth indicates, the purpose of the existence of the universe cannot be created by causality.
The purpose of the existence of the universe cannot be understood by looking at causality. As with a stone tool, the purpose can only identified by minute marks that differentiates purpose from causality.
That is your belief based on speculation.
No it does not. Life on Earth evidences the fact that life can emerge from the physics at play in our universe. Thus, since life emerged once, it seems reasonable (given the vastness of the universe) that this has occurred elsewhere. Our life, however, is not evidence that other life exists.
The fact that human beings act as agents does not evidence an eternal omnipotent agent creating all of reality. Your reasoning here is myopic due to a dogmatic anthropocentric perspective.
Determinate causality can create life. How does determinate causality create a purpose of 'survival of the species'?
Who said that survival of a species was a purpose (other than you, that is)?
You keep repeating the same basic questions as if on one of these cycles you will elicit a different answer. Do something different because what you are doing is pointless.
What was the purpose of the 99.9% of all life that came into existence on this planet only to go extinct? If God created this planet and all the life on it, why would he/she/it create millions of species over billions of years if they were just fated to die and be forgotten? Was their only purpose really to be fossils for humans to find some day?
The Earth doesn't provide direct evidence of anything other than laws of physics at work. There is zero evidence of any divine intervention or supernatural actions that would indicate some higher power having a purpose. In fact, the evidence provided by the Earth seems to indicate that if there is a higher power, it hasn't taken any special interest at all to this planet considering the fact that it took no action to protect or preserve the millions of species this planet has spawned but didn't survive.
It seems pretty arrogant to me to assume that just because humans rose to the top of the food chain and have learned how to record history for a few thousand years that they would be the 'purpose' or reason God created a 14.2 billion year old universe or a 4.5 billion year old earth that has seen tens of millions of different species come and go.
Whether God exists or not , clearly God's "purposes" are beyond human understanding, certainly to a large extent.
As for your question, one might as well ask why God allows the temperature to be 120 degrees in some places and 60 below in other places. Why not let everyone have 72 degrees and sunny every day? That would be divine. And why did God make some animals prey and some hunters? That doesnt seem fair.
And these are minor questions.
If there is a God, there is likely more to everything than we have ever figured out.
You are in effect agreeing with DP and disagreeing with Nerm.
So why should we humans waste our lives worrying about whether a god exists if it is something we can't understand?
Furthermore, if humans can't understand a god, then why do some of them keep proclaiming they know what a god wants?
you dont have to understand god to believe in god
So believing in god is like believing in any other mythical creature like the boogeyman except even more mysterious and unknowable?
I'm not making any sort of claim that God definitely doesn't exist and the huge numbers of extinct creatures proves it. I'm saying that such evidence appears to refute the 'fine tuning' argument Nerm_L has continued to push as supposed evidence of God's existence.
I really don't care if people believe or not. I guess for me it comes down to truth in advertising. If they would stop lying about the science, claiming 'fine tuning' or 'complexity' somehow 'prove' God exists then there would be no need to point out the facts that shred their baseless claims.
Believe whatever you want to believe, worship a cosmic squid or a colosseum full of Gods if you want, but the fact remains that so far there is simply zero empirical evidence of anything supernatural or divine.
At least when Drakk was debating this topic he only stated that fine-tuning is (to him) evidence of a sentient creator. His logic is that since life (as we know it) is far more likely with a sentient creator and that life (as we know it) does exist, that suggests that it is more likely than not that a sentient creator exists.
Albeit flawed anthropocentric reasoning that ignores the fact that the likelihood of a sentient creator must eventually be factored in to the aggregate conclusion, at least the claim is 'more likely' exists rather than 'certainly does' exist.
That does not mean there's an inherent purpose in something like the universe. Humans are the ones making up a purpose or trying to connect the proverbial dots when looking for a purpose of something.
Philosophical questions. People will draw their own conclusions.
That is merely your belief. The earth is merely one planetary body out of potentially trillions (or more) in the universe. Planets can come and go, depending on the cosmic event.
Faith is all it is. Faith is not fact. I'm not sure why you continue to not understand or accept the possibility that there may be no "purpose" of the universe outside of what we want to believe. It's like you cannot contemplate the possibility that everything "just is," no rhyme or reason. And I'm not sure why that concept is such an issue. Ultimately, who cares? It's not going to change a thing about our own particular "universe" or our lives. Everything is still business as usual.
'Belief', itself, is evidence. The Earth does not have beliefs. Cosmic events do not result in creating beliefs or purpose.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? Belief is not evidence of anything. That's like saying belief in magical fairies is evidence of fairies. Do you not see how stupid that sounds?
Obvious statement is obvious.
Really? Tell that to ancient cultures which viewed sun or moon eclipses (as one example) as omens or signs from the gods.
I believe that martian mutant leprachauns have mated with humans to form a species of gremlins with magical powers who are the main reason for the increase in our greenhouse gases.
The act of believing is evidence; not what is believed. The act of believing is an observable phenomena, so the act of believing is evidence.
Planets, moons, and stars have not been observed to engage in the act of believing.
The simple fact that you can believe anything is evidence. Inanimate matter has not been observed to believe anything.
Believing is just wishful thinking. It is purely subjective and evidence of nothing. Do you even know what constitutes evidence.
But celestial bodies have been observed. That observation is evidence (if not actual proof) of their existence. Celestial observations have influenced peoples beliefs throughout history. But belief is a function of our cognition.
The only thing it's evidence of is peoples wishful thinking or such thought processes. It's not evidence of anything else.
It is simply evidence that an individual believes something. Belief in and of itself does nothing to evidence truth.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Exactly! Belief does not equal fact nor make something automatically real or true.
I noticed a similar line of his response to me too.
Exactly. It's rather funny to me that believers don't seem to recognize that all of their supposed "higher power" morality and purpose is consistently human-centric. Humans define "Good" as things that are beneficial to humans and "Bad" as things that harm humans. Most would consider hunting a boar, cutting its neck, draining the blood and then feeding a family as "Good". Do the same to a human and you're the epitome of "Bad". The purpose they attribute to their God of creating the universe almost always comes back to some version of "To create us".
For thousands of years humans assumed they were the literal center of the universe, and today most believers continue to believe they are the metaphorical center of the universe and that it was 'fine tuned' specifically for our creation. The hubris, the arrogance is truly astounding when one takes the time to think about it.
What humans consider as morality essentially comes from accepting that humans are the most important species to us because it is us, and thus to be 'moral' is to do things that benefit humans. Can you think of one thing that humans consider as 'moral' that doesn't involve how humans are treated? Even non-believers understand that they want themselves and their families to be safe and happy thus they act morally without any need for a God to tell them to behave, they are doing it for their own benefit. Some call it humanism but really it's just being good to others because being "good" or moral has its own rewards, no promise of heaven or threat of burning in hell required.
From all evidence so far, man has created God/Gods and proclaimed this/these Gods purpose was the creation of man. All their doctrines and beliefs have man as the central MC (main character) and all the battles fought even supposedly in heaven have been over the control or protection of the MC. The universe was created for us, the stars and moon were created to provide us light at night, our sun created to give us food, heat and light during the day. All this because they desperately needed an answer to those questions they found themselves asking when they became self-aware. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we have some higher purpose? The obvious answer to self-centered arrogant ignorant early humans was to fabricate an all powerful being that knows them, loves them and wants them to survive and has given them everything before their eyes.
I believe religion to be a part of humans social evolution and has in fact played a part in humanities survival. But that doesn't mean we have to stay ignorant forever, we've developed new ways to survive that don't rely on praying to some ancient God when we get sick. We developed antibiotics, vaccines and thousands of other medical advancements. We've expanded humans average lifespan by decades through science in just the last two centuries.
I think it's that threat coming from science, the fact that in some cases it's replacing the need for religion, we don't have to pray the sin away when we're sick anymore, we know what bacteria and viruses are now, that has created the veritable war between science and religion, not that they believe science is trying to disprove their God.
Indeed and it continues today as the core of religious beliefs. If one has the means to break free of a strict anthropocentric view of reality, one might gain the strength to at least intellectually question said beliefs.
Hi DP! Candidly, I do not know what to make of the message you deliver in this comment. At key spots in seems well thought out, but at the same time, you seem to be over-thinking my friend. Of course, humanity will focus on the sphere of humanity for several or more reasons.
People, religious or otherwise, should not feel threatened by science - it is a tool for use and service in this world. Science is a field that strongly affects this world and its 'container' of facts. "Proper" religion is a set of philosophies, dictums, dogmas, social conventions, traditions, creeds, and so forth which carve out a guide or path in this life. That is, not all its treatments in a topic will find "issues of this life" of believers.
Moreover, it is not clear to me that science with all its critical thinking and fact-finding can move people from forming passionate agreements or disagreements about outcomes they wish to see. For 'hearts and minds' a spiritual component (and ultimately maturity) is priceless.
Personal opinion. It may very well be possible that God in the slow expansion of time has "appointed" science its positive time to bloom. For an eternal Being there is no haste or urgency to this time and space humans, we, inhabit. By now, we can certainly say, that if God exist - God can not and ought not to be rushed to any conclusion.
That's my point. Most religions claim that they have communicated with aliens (what else would Angels or Demons be considered but 'alien' to us). These communications supposedly gave early humans laws yet virtually all those laws are anthropocentric.
Again, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with humans being anthropocentric, it's just that it seems odd that all religious morality is based around us even though the laws and morals supposedly are of divine origin and come from supposed spirit creatures of which many believe there to be "legions" of these alien angels and demons that exist.
Totally agree.
And most of the religious "philosophies, dictums, dogmas, social conventions, traditions, creeds" are solely based on behavior in this life, yet the punishments or rewards are supposedly met out in some possible future existence that they believe occurs after we die. We don't have any religious laws that dictate how we should behave once we get to heaven. There's no do's and do not's spelled out for any actual afterlife, and in fact the punishments and rewards seem to be solely based on our actions or conduct as flesh and blood humans. This to me indicates that all of those "philosophies, dictums, dogmas, social conventions, traditions, creeds" are terrestrial in origin.
From most religions perspective it seems that God and his heavenly armies of angels are simply waiting on us, that we were supposedly the cause of a war in heaven where Satan and his demons were cast out of heaven. There's no concept of God or angels doing anything other than watching over humanity. So either we're the biggest most popular universal reality-TV show to entertain the numberless spirit creatures that supposedly exist, or perhaps we're just so self-centered that we, often through religion, make ourselves the center of the story.
If the God most people worship exists he supposedly already knows the conclusion. How anti-climactic is that, just waiting on us to go through the motions while also giving us no information that we didn't discover ourselves through observation, repeated testing and verification, aka science. It wasn't any God that corrected the flawed belief that the earth was the center of the universe. It wasn't any God that informed humans about bacteria and viruses. It wasn't any God that told us about the possibly trillions of other planets out there.
It just seems odd to me that humans who have claimed to have had visions or supposedly spoke to spirit creatures didn't receive any verifiable knowledge of anything outside of what was terrestrial and already being studied or understood. There were great depictions of winged angels, fiery chariots, wheels within wheels, but all appeared to be based on terrestrial origins like birds or chariots. We don't have descriptions of angels, demons or Gods that don't look human or at minimum human/animal hybrids. This seems to indicate to me that the inspiration for all of those descriptions had very earthly origins. They used what they knew to create their religious narratives, their guardians and their fantasy heroes which always end up with humanities well being as the purpose or goal of all supernatural or divine actions.
Because humanity has no other 'sphere' to dwell on, literally and metaphorically. We're the 'It."
Humans look to its 'ancient texts,' because those speak to a time of wisdom that, like it or lump it, was a time when humanity was bigger consciously and more in-touch with itself—despite the limits on knowledge. It would seem we gave/give up something (useful/signifying/important) to get something. . . else.
The 'ready' problem, and we all experience it is, even when and where we agree with ancient texts on various and "weightier" matters-we have no known resources who can sufficiently update our past reference points. Thus, 'wisdom for the ages' is tattered, shredded, and showing signs of wear and tear.
A "refresh" or 'injection into" our texts of some new thoughts could relieve some of the stress and strain on religious 'stoics.' But, it is not a foregoing conclusion that any such thing is ever near to occurring. That is, we're 'stuck' - new word - spiritually.
We are directed:
Perhaps. Could be due to the patterns, streams, and pitches of preaching of the "Good News" Gospel. Human frailties creep into the core properties of a message as old as the Gospel. Told generation to generation continuously and non-stop. In a way, I admire (and pity) the pastoral leaders who have the "presence" to stand before a congregation-large or small-week after week, coming up with something 'new and interesting' to say about a timeless 'Message' for generations and their lifetimes.
Yes, I can see how 'indulgences' can slip in. . . .
And just like that I changed the trajectory of your comment. However, all around those bolded words are 'supporting' and 'important' information to bring new sense and meaning to what is 'exposed' to the naked eye.
What is, "discovery" in this sense? Is it not 'asking, seeking, knocking' after what is self-contained in the sphere of universal existence already?
It's very telling about someone's character when they say they need god or religion to be a moral person, as if they're incapable of being one otherwise.
There are those who might consider that a bad thing.
Exactly. And man is the one that created the rules surrounding their various gods.
I tend to agree.
Old habits die hard, eh?
That's one reason why there's a hostility towards science.
Right, so humanity would only invent doctrines, laws and rules based on our sphere of existence. However God supposedly has a far larger "sphere" of existence so why would all his apparent actions and desires be based on what humans are doing and whether humans are worshiping him the right way or at all?
Their supposed "bigger consciousness" or being "more in-touch" with themselves wasn't "despite the limits on knowledge", it was because of those limits. Because their knowledge of facts and the universe were so limited they used their "bigger consciousness" aka 'wild imaginations' to invent answers to the big unanswered questions. There is simply zero evidence that they were actually more "in-touch" with anything including themselves, they just weren't restrained by facts as they were imagining our origins and our role/place in the universe.
Yes, just like children giving up on the belief in Santa to gain self-reliance. Continuing to believe in something you have zero evidence of is purely an exercise in mental masturbation, telling yourself something over and over just to make yourself feel better and feel like you have a known purpose and an all powerful magical invisible Jiminy Cricket conscience instead of having to figure life out for yourself. I'm not saying that some people don't need that conscience to keep them on the right track, most people are sheep who do better following a shepherds crook rather than studying, investigating and understanding the principles behind being a good, caring human on their own.
We are directed:
Most humans "do good" because doing good has its own rewards and just about all humans want the same things for they and their families, safe streets, good jobs, quality education and the opportunity to succeed with hard work.
Pure fantasy conjecture. There is zero evidence of any 'spirit' or anything more than the existence we have here and now. And there are no actual scriptural laws spelled out that are supposed nurture that "fruit of the Spirit" that doesn't have to do with how we act and treat others now.
Again, no law demanding anyone "walk in the light" other than how they are to act and treat others here on earth now during the only existence we can actually verify.
Zero evidence of any supernatural or divine "presence" helping anyone to do anything.
Well then that proves there is no presence of God on this planet as we've always been beset by thirst, hunger and sickness somewhere since the beginning of recorded history and most certainly long before that.
Seems far more likely that human frailties were already at the core of the message because the messages came from humans.
Human "discovery" throughout history has been limited to what humans could see, sense and test from inside the bubble of our existence. There clearly wasn't something outside the bubble leaking us knowledge and discovery that later we discovered was true as our bubble expanded by our invention of better tools that let us see into our very atoms and out to the great expanse of the universe. As our bubble expanded religions have had to alter or modify much of their former supposedly divine based understanding of the universe. This indicates strongly that they had no actual divine connection to begin with because if it was knowledge from outside the bubble it would have been proved true or verified as our technology expanded that bubble.
Where did this 'pop' into existence in a shared stream of consciousness discussion? No one can say what God does with "ALL" God's infinite time! And how old how would that work in man's wheelhouse of full comprehending the mind of God (anyway)? (Smile.) The thinking goes along the lines of little neck clams (created things) trying to 'pry' open the vaulted mind of God (without aid).
I'll agree with this line of thinking up to a point: Science does not profess to 'think' for humanity. Science presents its 'case,' it's facts, it's scenario, then humanity can choose outcomes based on the 'plate.' Or choose to 'endure' and pursue some other course of action.
I trust you to engage the questions. Humbly, I submit you welcome a challenge, in my opinion!
"Mental masturbation"? Is that sort of thing "good"? Is it mental 'sex'? Or, a simple rhetorical flourish or 'brush-off'?
Why does being made a better human being through spirituality have to be discounted? 'Self-help' are around on all sorts of subject matters.
As to evidence, the resulting 'changed life' can be its own reward: Wholesomeness. (It's not a dirty word no matter how reached! Be it come about through science alone or religion alone. Albeit, its better to use both available techniques.
@1.1.299 my friend, I am pretty sure I was not comparing humanism to religion. I was attempting to put words to a basic set of statements regarding religion (alone) you delivered. (Some matters in life are not a contest, but can stand alone.)
Partially true. Yet, you assert and assume a great deal. Take note: "Our bubble" is yet mindfully and literal universally (continuously) expanding. To what end?
Every student of science (me included) knows that when scientific proofs change, that is, facts rearrange-'old' data is instantly casted aside dispassionately for the 'new' data.
We live in a scientific world full of expanding (and shrinking) data constants and variations.
One more thing: What we do not know about the world scientifically, we oft-times are not permitted to ignore in ourselves. To do so, would leave us living even more miserably than many do!
Where do you find anyone claiming that science proves or disproves God?
The title of the seed addresses the claim with "Does Modern Cosmology Prove The Existence Of God?" The seed article is premised upon the idea that the existence of God can be proved or disproved.
The science hubris is the assumption that our scientific description of 'existence' can be extrapolated to the prior state before the beginning of our universe. But our physics simply won't work without assuming eternal and omnipresent spacetime. Physics is relying upon the assumption of a God state to make claims that God is unsupported by physics.
Then the premise is false!
Science does not and cannot define or describe anything before the beginning of the universe. How can it?
There is nothing to support a claim of a god. It seems this is just another anti-science hit piece.
I asked you where you find anyone claiming that science proves or disproves God and you point me to your seed. I have yet to find a credible individual posit that science can prove or disprove God (assuming God = 'sentient creator'). Thus your notion is nonsense ... it is not a function of science nor do you find it claimed as a function of science except by those who seek to discredit science with profound intellectual dishonesty.
Where do you see science doing that? Another bullshit claim.
Prove that claim.
You clearly do not comprehend science. Just bullshit after bullshit. Who do you think you are fooling?
Stupid question.
Then don't demand proof.
The demand for proof means the question is not stupid. What follows the question as answer ignores the limitations of science in answering that question. 'Proof' of God is beyond the capabilities of science. Using the wrong tool isn't the smart way to address the issue of God.
The best that science can do is prove or disprove theological texts, such as the Bible. But that doesn't extrapolate to proving or disproving God. In the case of the Bible, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Disproving or refuting bits and pieces doesn't diminish the whole. So, yes, faith is unassailable by science.
And yet many claim that science refutes God. Many claim that evolution refutes God. Many claim that quantum physics refutes God. Many claim that the cosmology of the hot Big Bang refutes God.
But those claims cannot transcend the limits imposed by the asymptote of infinity. Physics may reconstruct conditions infinitely close to the beginning but can never reach the zero point of the beginning.
Who makes that claim Nerm? Certainly nobody on this forum claims that science refutes the possibility of a sentient creator.
Who? Who are these 'many' people? What is their argument. Give me something of value other than your mere claims.
More pedantic Gish Gallop.
Leaving it at that is impossible when faith is in conflict with the cumulative facts of science. Science has its limits just as theology has its limits.
Faith answers questions that science is incapable of addressing.
It does not answer questions ... it fills the gap of knowledge with speculation.
"Proof" is preferred, but might be too high a bar. Evidence is also useful. But one should not affirmatively claim god without proof, or even evidence.
Science can either affirm or discredit biblical texts and stories, much like I demonstrated in my Fallacy of Biblical Stories series.
No, but if one goes by the bible being "the word of god," and accepts the biblical definition of god, then discrediting biblical texts and stories brings the veracity of god into question. God becomes more of a character of a story than the author of it.
Of course. Some people clearly dismiss science in favor of faith or dogma. That does not discredit the science in the least. It just means some people are closed minded or willfully ignorant.
Who makes that claim? I know of no scientist or any such scientific declaration of claims to that effect. Cite a source for someone making such claims! Baseless allegations means nothing!
Science does acknowledge that. It can get as close to the beginning as the Planck epoch (which is very close), but no closer. So what's your point?
No, it doesn't! It speculates at best and assumes or makes things up (if not outright lie) at worst. It might fulfill the (emotional) need for an answer regardless if the answer is correct or not. Unlike science, faith tends to not acknowledge or accept it could be wrong.
The 'Planck epoch' is evidence, isn't it? The simple fact that reality is so predictable that correlation is sufficient without explanation serves as evidence, doesn't it? The simple fact that we are here is evidence, isn't it? The simple fact that we have the ability to ask questions about God serves as evidence, doesn't it?
Gravity just is. We cannot explain gravity. But correlating the influence of gravity to observations has been demonstrated to be more than sufficient for our understanding of reality. Only understanding the influence of gravity is adequate; we don't need to explain gravity itself. It's enough to accept that gravity just is.
But the whole of the Bible is greater than the sum of its parts. Affirming or discrediting bits and pieces doesn't alter the whole of the Bible. The bits and pieces serve a purpose in establishing the whole of the Bible. And the whole of the Bible doesn't depend upon the scientific accuracy of the bits and pieces.
Science affirming or discrediting a literal reading of the Bible is theologically illiterate. But, then, people basing their faith on a literal reading of the Bible are just as theologically illiterate.
'The Word' has a specific theological meaning. 'The word of God' is associated with the purpose for creating the universe and the purpose of our place in the design and function of that universe. 'The word of God' is a description of divine intent and purpose.
There is a Plank epoch because that was intended to serve a divine purpose. That is the word of God.
It's evidence of a small period of time surrounding the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. That's about it. Are you suggesting there's something more?
In what way is reality "predictable?" We can "predict" how the universe might behave or what can happen based on our current understanding of physics.
No. That's just an assumption. Replace "God" with magical fairies or leprechauns, and it would it still serve as "evidence" with the same level of validity.
Gravity is a fundamental force of the universe associated with mass. We can observe and explain how gravity affects things. But how it works is still hypothetical, with some camps leaning towards gravitons as an elementary particle for gravity, much like the photon is for light.
Science is trying to explain gravity. Knowing about it or its effects is only the beginning of trying to explain it.
If one part is discredited, then the who is lessened or at least brought into question as far as credibility goes. After all, if one part is flawed, then how do you know other parts (or the whole) is not flawed?
But it shows increased scientific literacy. Kind of an inverse relationship.
Those people might disagree and say the same about you.
The "Word" is nothing more than a writing by ancient men with pens. It doesn't necessarily reflect actual reality.
That is an assumption based on nothing more then mere belief.
The concept of God (Gods) don't really concern scientists one way or the other.
Correct. Please explain that to Nerm.
That's correct.
Theology attempts to understand the purpose of our existence. Science attempts to understand the causality of our existence.
Did it ever occur to you that there may be no purpose to our existence? We may merely exist, but must make a purpose for ourselves if we choose? Theology starts with the assumption of a purposeful existence for humans, with the hubris of thinking its because we're special in some way or with some "divine" purpose. How can theology attempt to understand our "purpose," when it can't define that purpose or prove a deity is responsible or actually exists to begin with?
Yes, it is possible there is no divine purpose for our existence. But the consequences of no divine purpose would be the primacy of self serving human purpose. The church would be justified in burning scientists at the stake for heresy.
The church, for hundreds of years, burned (and worse) others whose beliefs were just slightly different from theirs. We got past that.
How did we get past that?
I suspect society eventually evolved to the point where it was wise enough to see that Catholics killing Protestants and vice-versa was counterproductive and ultimately pointless.
But officially, it ended by decree:
Churches used to burn "scientists" or any other independent thinker contradicting dogma at the stake for heresy. Certain countries still view such "offenses" as capital crimes or worthy of severe punishment or imprisonment. All in the name or defense of a deity and/or related religious doctrine. So what's your point? If that's your argument, then history reinforces the notion of no purpose, divine or otherwise.
You've made the point: we have not gotten past that. And 'that' has not been limited to religion. Socrates drank hemlock. That was a politically imposed requirement.
Independent thinkers eventually demand conformity to their new dogma that replaces old dogma. But that is political and not religious. And persecutions are done in the name of dogma; not in the name of a deity. Heresy is a contradiction of dogma. We see that happening today concerning purely secular dogma.
Which is unfortunate. Especially in this day and age.
The focus has been on religion, not politics.
You have that backwards. It's those in authority that demands conformity or compliance. Religion is well known for this.
Tomato, toma-toe.
What exactly is "secular dogma?"
It will never be possible to prove or disprove the existence of God. By definition God is a supernatural entity and cannot be investigated from entirely within this existence (nature).
So if God showed up and engaged in acts such as turning our solar system into a twin binary star system, for example, that would not be proof?
Okay, then why believe in something that cannot be proved and, in fact, cannot even be evidenced?
Same.. It's a waste of energy and time.
Nope.
It would be compelling evidence. So what would be "proof?"
As I anticipated. So why did you skip my question?:
I believe my family loves me even though it cannot be proved and evidence can always be dismissed as non-probitive (as with your binary system example). I would still defend believing it nonetheless. The belief, while provable, is nevertheless reasonable and has value in my life.
But you have very strong evidence that your family loves you and you can continually test your hypothesis that they love you. I suspect you have overwhelming, persuasive evidence that they love you. Your belief, I suspect, is well-founded in observable (and even objective) fact.
Having answered your question directly, the something in this context is 'that which caused the universe to form'. So to be super clear, my question (paraphrased) is:
Okay, then why believe in a specific cause for the formation of the universe if said cause cannot be proved and, in fact, cannot even be evidenced?
Not really. We have opinions that the evidence is strong. But we don't have an objective way of determining that the evidence is actually strong.
So to continue the thought: Forming a hypothesis and designing an experimental approach does not mean that we are actually measuring - or even determining the presence of - love. What happens is that we approach the situation with our own sense of what love is and then we look for signs of it. Each individual makes a personal determination that the available signs are - or are not - sufficient evidence of love. That's the best we can do. Expecting more than that is probably unreasonable.
I think it's probably about the same as with love. I think a creator God is an extremely reasonable idea, but it would be impossible to prove or disprove using any known method of inquiry. After all, unless you are God, how would you know what to test? What to measure? How would you know what appropriate data is?
No, all anyone can do is decide what would be sufficient evidence for them personally, and then go with that. Anyone demanding unequivocal proof one way or the other has an unreasonable expectation.
Besides, if God is God it logically follows that God can "allow" whatever God wishes or has power to be. That is, God can "grow" new senses in some set of people, while discriminating in others five senses (or less). God can "open" new senses in people while not so in another. God can remain "hidden" in the "expanse" of what for God is a mere 'corner.'
Precisely.
I can't prove this, but I think it is a high probability-this is a world of testing and discovery/ies. That information of the natural "kind" has been stored up in the elements of this planet for different humans with various "properties" to build upon at various stages of development. That is, this world of our, even so our universe, seems to SCREAM "ponder me" and "plunder me" -because whatever can be dreamed can be found in the elements of this world.
Has that not been the totality of the human experience of recent? What we dream up is "infinitely" possible and 'playing itself out' here.
Our universe operates on firm laws and we all have the experience of laws requiring a Lawgiver.
Our planet does not operate like an inert, dumb, and 'unordered' thing, when it puts on displays of life, spirit, intelligence, and order - found existing not within us but drawn out of its planetary elemental systems.
Kind of like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
If you have evidence that your family loves you and that evidence is corroborated to the point where you are highly confident it will continue then you have the closest thing to truth that you can achieve. And that is exactly what happens in science. Science does not PROVE, it explains with degrees of confidence. And because it does not prove, every theory of science must be falsifiable so that it can be challenged in perpetuity.
You described normal human limitations. Who is suggesting that we presume human do not have those limitations? I asked why one would believe something that cannot be proved or at least highly evidenced. That question remains. Your argument suggests that we should base our beliefs on the best evidence we can find and that the lack of evidence should correlate with a low confidence. How does it make sense to believe as true that which has low confidence in terms of evidence?
Correct. It is currently impossible to prove or disprove a sentient creator. And it is reasonable to speculate that there is a sentient creator. But as one adds attributes to this speculation with no supporting evidence, one diminishes the reasonableness of the speculation. So, in short, if religions stopped at: 'we believe in a sentient creator' there would be no real controversy. It is the abundance of specifics, sans supporting evidence, that makes religious beliefs unreasonable.
I must have stated hundreds of times by now that proof is impossible in reality and that the only thing that we can actually prove are statements within formal systems such as logic and mathematics. The assertion of proof (certainty) is what makes the beliefs of the gnostics (the gnostic theist and the gnostic atheist) irrational. Nobody can state with certainty that their god exists (depending upon the definition of god) or that no god exists. Both extremes hold irrational beliefs that they are 100% correct (equivalent of proof).
Yes God, if we define same as all powerful, etc. can do anything. And anything that cannot be explained such as the painful death of a pre-school child due to cancer can be dismissed as 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'.
When one takes the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing entity coupled with 'we are too stupid to understand the mind of God' then everything that happens in life can be explained. The explanations will often be boring and unsatisfying, but any gap can be filled with God. This has worked for human beings for thousands of years ... well before science was available to give actual explanations for phenomena. And likely this will continue because there are always gaps in our knowledge to be filled with God.
Yes, if God is all powerful God can do anything. Let's stick with that. To wit, God can allow humanity to slowly develop and operate on a myriad of spectrums while living on the surface of a spinning planet in "deep" space.
Correct. So when one defines God in this manner that simply provides a universal key to unlock any door. It has no probative value. It does not help one move closer to truth.
This is why, to me, it makes great sense to simply hold the speculation that there is a sentient creator. It is speculation because nobody really knows if a sentient creator exists or not. But the speculation is reasonable and largely harmless.
Note that this speculation does not impose truths. There are no rules imposed by the speculation. There are no acts that can be justified 'in God's name'. It is simply a way for human beings to fill a gap in our knowledge with some speculation that rings true to them.
Actually, a belief behavior (or set of codes, policies, and standards) is a "call" to people who choose to come under a detailed 'way of life.' Albeit, again, we realize there is a spectrum running from good to evil on which beliefs 'rest.'
But that way of life is something defined by mere human beings. What is the point then ... it is similar to a cult?
See things would be very different if there was a true God presence — where God is not that whose existence is perpetually debated but rather was clearly in existence. Then this clearly existing God defining morality, etc. would have real value.
Touchè. Of course, belief (in God) does not denote a negative or pejorative "cult." There are considerable "main-stream" religion-organizations, charities, and enterprises.
It would be very different if God is present, "LORDING" over everything. But then, for then, there would be no need of examining, testing, experimentation, proofing, or repeating - effectively, science would become obsolete right alongside a need for faith(s).
Science would not be obsolete unless God made us all omniscient. If we were to remain as ignorant of reality as we are today, there would still be a role for science. There would not be a need for faith since you would have the real thing front and center.
It is impossible to be "ignorant" (not knowing; life, reality, truth) in the presence of God. Though, omniscience is 'scalable' to the need to know. Similarly, with faith, it would end because the object of faith will be 'front and center.' There will exist no need for 'exploration' of life as we know it.
(It is a 'property' of the Divine, that no formerly dead thing can exist in God's presence. Reflect on that for a moment. Similarly, no "dumb" thing can stand in the presence of God. For God emanates from God's being: Life. Knowledge. Understanding.)
LOL. That means God would make everyone omniscient. Do you really want to go there?
Look CB, you have a certain divine reality in mind and that is fine, but don't present it as fact. And I do not want to debate your vision.
I have not lapsed into fact here. This is merely philosophical and according to a specific faith 'tradition; standard; codes.' A human (carnal) creature probably can not by nature be all-knowing. It is not 'standard issue' equipped to be so. It would require an alteration of some kind or type.
Okay
The concept of god only exists in weak minds that need external comfort.
It is just to easy to assert believers have weak minds by 'lip-service.' (Smile.) Now, prove it.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
IMO it is impossible to think of God in terms of the scientific description of existence. The 'existence' of God is an abstraction that cannot be reconciled with the universe emerging into existence described by science.
Then how can one possibly claim god actually exists, much less define said god with various attributes?
God cannot exist without assuming eternal and omnipresent spacetime. Our scientific description of existence is dependent upon spacetime.
Theology claims that God is the source and the creator of the universe. The universe emerged from a God state that we do not understand. Theology has adopted the limitation of science to make claims that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and all powerful; theological infinity. Theology trying to prove God exists must make the same assumptions that science makes.
Nerm, there is no 'god' hypothesis in science.
A theological claim which has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Another way of saying "god did it." Also with no supporting evidence.
Still just empty, grandiose claims.
Science does not say "god did it." Science doesn't use god as an explanation for anything. Your statement is downright dishonest!
Our physics doesn't ALWAYS work though. Example: If you could survive crossing the event horizon of a black hole, you would be greeted with the singularity. No matter how fast you go, you will never reach it because "space time" swaps and becomes, "time space". In essence, you would be forever frozen in time, never reaching the singularity. It would be a cosmic purgatory. But I digress...
Mankind created God as a way to control the masses. What better way to control people than to tell them that a magical being, (that was responsible for all kinds of natural phenomena in the past because people didn't know any better), than to tell them, "if you do what I tell you to do, you'll forever be reborn and live in an everlasting nirvana, but, if you don't, you'll burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity". A lack of scientific knowledge made people incredibly gullible. I think the sheer size of the universe proves that "God" didn't create it.
As to the question of, "when did the universe start"? That's a tough nut to crack. One theory that I lean towards is, "the big crunch", (as silly as it sounds). The Big Bang happens and over the course of billions of years, the universe expands, just like with any explosion. Eventually, this stops and everything starts to come back together via gravity until it all collapses into a single point, where it explodes once again, starting the whole process all over again. Again, it's just a theory.
To say that what humans know about the universe is in it's infancy is a huge understatement. We like to say that everything has a beginning, but that's based on what we know, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a fact. For all we know, the universe has always existed....it may have no beginning and no end.
For all we know, our universe exists in a drop of water on a small planet in a universe that exists in a drop of water in a universe...etc. etc..etc..
MrFrost, my friend, while you "dismiss" God as perceivable, are you aware the entirety of your comment cancels out everything you wrote? That is, you share no conclusions. (Smile.)
I am not clear (at all) why God operates in the spiritual realm of our corporeal make-up, but as that is the case, it takes spiritual 'wokeness' to perceive, eh?
That's because science as of yet hasn't reached (m)any solid conclusions. Like I said, we are in our infancy with regards to understanding the universe. That doesn't mean, "If we don't understand it, it had to be, "God"".
I did not suggest that "If we don't understand it, it had to be, "God." That is a leapt to some kind of conclusion not delivered in my comment, my friend.
However, everything in nature we perceive with our known senses. People have conveyed for centuries that there are other forms of sensing and comprehensions for which we have theories, hypotheses, and the like. Moreover, simply because a thing is "not detectable" by no means does that state it is not operating on/in nature itself.
For instance, until science reaches solid conclusions on say, a disease or condition, its does not mean a disease or condition is not operating in nature (barely above detection level).
God (as in 'sentient creator') is speculation. People (billions) believe in this speculation. Many believe in this speculation along with all sorts of amazing attributes and stories. The more attributes and stories attached (sans evidence) the wilder the speculation.
There is plenty "speculation" to go around out there, yes!
And there is nothing wrong with speculation as long as people do not attempt to pass speculation off as fact / truth.
God: One of the mysteries of life! (Smile.)
Yes, the concept of a sentient creator could well be a perpetual curiosity for human beings. We have 360° of freedom to speculate on such an entity.
'Dark matter' in the universe lays outside 'reach' of our senses. Yet it is. . ."sensed" (or speculated) about with seriousness.
What is your opinion? Does humanity capabilities to sense things, only extend to things in nature?
Dark matter is sensed due to the behavior of matter that we can sense. We can see the effect and have labeled the cause 'dark matter' but we have no idea what dark matter is. It is like watching leaves move from a distance and labeling the cause as 'wind' before we knew what wind was.
I have yet to see any convincing study producing evidence of someone genuinely sensing something beyond nature. There are studies of near/after-death experiences which claim an out-of-body experience to gain information that would be impossible to gain. I am not persuaded by sporadic studies like that. And we all should know that psychics are con-artists and that nobody really is in touch with spirits. So, in short, I am not persuaded that we have a psychic sense.
I won't mention "psychics" beyond this point. It (they) is not party to my thinking process or commentary.
What we do have in nature are people who have validity, writing, explaining, and sharing information about a being who alters courses and paths of innumerable lives by way of their minds (process of thinking) and behavior. This is undeniable. Though, of course, like any human agency we have the choice and capability to make good or bad of its function.
Call it anecdotal, or something such. However, we label it, "spirituality" leading to religion, leading to orthodoxies, leading to organizations because it can be sensed. Else-wise, what would be the cause of this definite effect in people throughout history.
Thus, we can confidently state that people of faith are not crazy by any measure. Though, yes, we do have a great many misinformed and malformed faith organizations. That is a different problem, per se.
People influence others. Of course that is true. How does that apply to what I wrote?
You are aware of many false beliefs. Those believers 'sense' too.
People of faith are not crazy. They believe in that which is unsupported be evidence. That is not 'crazy'; it is simply belief. Note that millions of people in the USA believe that Trump actually won the election. Does that mean they are all crazy? No. But it does mean that (since we have overwhelming evidence that he lost) their beliefs are irrational.
It is a behavior of matter (@3.1.9). In this manner spirituality is sensed, spoken about, and effective. —Be it used or abused by humanity.
Yet again, speaking of God, the question for a scientist and rational being could be how can something exist, impact the behavior of millions, not be a 'mania' or 'disorder,' and yet be considered as non-existent? (If only evidenced in the mind.)
If you define God to be: 'that which causes millions (actually countless billions) of people to behave a certain way' then you have simply named an unknown phenomenon. You might as well call it 'the Force' because it is simply a label.
The trick really is to correlate this with the religious definition of God. That is where you hit a brick wall.
First, the 'trick' is to call it "extant." Because, it is behavior that is sensed.
But this is simply an 'it'. One is free to call anything that is unknown 'God' but that does not provide any truth; it is simply a label.
To be clear, I could collectively label everything that we currently cannot explain as 'God'. Other than affixing a label, what have I accomplished?
Apologies to CB for intruding.
'That which cause millions (actually countless billions) of people to behave a certain way' is faith; not God. Faith may be inferred as an influence of God but that really can't be demonstrated due to the indeterminate nature of humans. Attempting to correlate the influence of God (as faith) with observations would be the same sort of exercise as Newton correlating the influence of gravity with observations. Newton's task in developing the laws of gravity was far simpler because Newton correlated the influence of gravity on determinate inanimate matter to observations.
Isaac Newton did not explain gravity with his correlation. So, we shouldn't expect correlating faith with observations to explain God, either.
Why are you replying to me? Seems you should be stating this directly to CB.
I am directing my comment to both you and CB. I felt your comment provided a fuller, more complete context to address the apparent confusion between faith and God.
This was CB's notion. Take it up with him.
Can you see a "God effect" on/in people? Does whatever you label "God" exist? If yes, then it can be established as sensed by some (billions) of humanity: past, present, and highly probably future.
Faith in what, Nerm? Faith points to an object, it is not faith in faith. Nor, belief in belief.
No problem, with this "intrusion." (Smile.)
I am not sure what you are asking.
Sure. Take 'the force' analogy. We all 'sense' (using the word loosely) things we cannot explain like déjà vu. Maybe this is 'the force'. Who knows? But, this is just speculation, not knowledge and certainly not truth.
When people experience the loss of a loved one, emotions are high and some people 'experience' the departed loved one communicating with them. One can concoct all sorts of speculative explanations (and we certainly do) but none of this helps us get closer to truth.
The simple Bible school answer is faith in God. But that is not theologically precise and not completely theologically accurate. But to explore that more completely requires sticking with theological definitions of language.
The creation story in John says 'in the beginning was the Word' (capital W). The Word is the intent and divine purpose for creating the universe, creating the Earth, and creating humans. Faith is actually acceptance and belief in the Word; belief that the universe, humans, and our place in the universe has intent and divine purpose. Faith is based upon us being here for a reason other than just being here.
The word of God is not the Bible. The word of God is the intent and divine purpose of the Word. The Bible is supposed to convey that intent and divine purpose.
As John tells us, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The one God is the divine purpose for us being here; false gods are really false purposes.
Faith is an expression of our purpose. True faith is an expression of acceptance and belief in the one, true intent and divine purpose for existence and our place in that existence.
And, yes, understanding that intent and divine purpose is not easy. Faith is not easy. It's much easier to accept that our reason for being here is just to be here. It's much easier for us to believe our purpose is to gratify our own wants, needs, and desires. It's much easier to believe there is no divine purpose and just do as we please. It's much easier to believe in science with its facts and explanations of a universe without purpose than it is to have faith that there is a divine purpose.
Religious people live out an experience of trusting in that impression that is sensed. We call it, for it needed a name, spirituality. Thus, bring it into existence in the sphere of humanity. Because, it is being touched upon within us.
We need not lapse into "departed" streams of rhetoric. This is not that discussion. After all, people evoke spiritual awareness that has only to do with living day by day, month by month, year by year. And, so forth.
Please elaborate on this.
Elaborate how? There aren't a lot of options.
Either the universe was intentionally created for a purpose - or - the universe is the determinate result of causality. Either life and humans were intentionally created for a purpose - or - life and humans are the determinate result of causality.
Religion attempts to understand the purpose of our existence. Science attempts to understand the causality of our existence.
The question is whether or not causality serves a purpose? Answering that question requires faith that there is a purpose.
Dark matter is a reserved term. Like X in an equation. We can observe galaxies spinning around stars, but science cannot account for enough mass for the galaxies having enough gravity to be able to stay together and not spin apart. Dark matter is the amount of matter that makes up the Newtonian mass needed to balance the equation.
That being said there are other mathematical modeled theories that make more sense that don't use dark matter.
Thank you, 'Genius. That is a different point being expressed. The point of my comment is "dark matter" is recognized by its 'behavior,' - yet the same 'constant' is not allowed (by some) to the 'modeling' of God working through the behavior of believers.
Not exactly. It's recognized by the possible effect it has on our known weighable, calculable universe. Whether it's dark matter or an adjustment to Newton's law, there is a measurable effect that 'something' has on our universe. Because it's a constant and can be applied in every corner of our known universe it seems to be something within the natural laws of physics that we simply cannot see or capture at this time but can only measure the effects it has on our universe. Much like the spin of the earth and the gravity from the moon wasn't measurable by early man, they did see and record the tidal effects long before they understood what it was that was causing it. The easy answer was of course "God did it" which was the easy go to answer for early humans, and some today may want to claim that 'dark matter' is just evidence of their God's hand at work in the universe. But the fact remains that it isn't a selective phenomenon that only effects say the supposed habitable zones in the universe where this supposed God created life so he uses his power to protect it. It works the same no matter which corner of the universe you look in which does seem to indicate it's a power that is 'universal' and not one of selection.
My point is that if you're looking for some scientifically perceivable evidence of God that "can be established as sensed by some (billions) of humanity: past, present, and highly probably future", then dark matter is unlikely to be your answer. To find some evidence of God's power stepping in I would think it highly likely that it would be evidence of the universal laws of physics being broken to alter an outcome for one of Gods supposed chosen ones or believers. To have hard evidence of prayers being answered that soundly beats the placebo group every time. We can show unexplainable effects on our universe all day long, we can theorize about dark matter or dark energy, we can show how in quantum physics what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" occurs, but so far there is no known evidence of anything that can be empirically proven to be 'supernatural' or divine in origin.
IF there is dark matter it isn't magic, it's mass we can't yet account for, but mass nonetheless. If there is no dark matter then it's an adjustment in how our Universe works. No gods need be involved.
Evil, I'm sorry, again, that is not any point I am making in this discussion.
Again, my point is if we can indirectly "sense" dark matter based on some type of triangulation of 'invisible' behaviors found in nature; we can indirectly "sense" spirituality basing that on the stated words and behaviors of people (rightly or wrongly) living them out.
You can make any (other) assertion you wish, nevertheless. Prove it, too. When you can (Smile.).
First, let me apologize for taking two days (my, how time flies) to get back to you.
Second, I 'borrowed' TiG's use of the word "behavior", @3.1.9 Dark matter is sensed due to the behavior of matter that we can sense.
Lastly, billions of people have expressed spirituality (various forms and fashions) and yet 'nay-sayers' for lack of a better word, are always quick to shout, "delusion" and other negative expressions, while finding unknown 'truths' in other as yet unexplained theaters of nature.
Finally, if people, who can speak and express themselves are found to have credibility in the proper sense and mental faculties, recognize when they say that God or whatever else is a useful placeholder-has entered the frame(s) of their lives, there is something 'there.'
I don't think the historical, anthropological, and archaeological evidence actually points that way. Existing religion and faith have certainly been tools to control masses of people, but that is not the same thing. And if you're thinking of Christianity, then it definitely doesn't apply. Being a Christian in the first two or three centuries after Jesus was pretty much asking to be persecuted. Those people weren't controlling anyone.
Much of our evidence for early religious ideas does not reflect this. In Egypt, for example, the afterlife was something for the nobility, not the masses. In ancient Sumeria, the afterlife was a dreary and sad existence for all (see the Gilgamesh epic).
In furtherance of your "transmission" much of what has been recently discussed in articles on NT make the point that "evil" when it used for "good" and vice-versa. Thus, it is not when religion is 'turned on its head' - it's messages malformed and twisted - in the mouths of fools that the picture of religion is shown in its best and only light. True religion is to use it appropriately to better people and not manipulate people for ill-will.
We're all old enough to see the harm an outright lie can do to control people (negative propaganda and rhetoric). Such does always manifest itself out the mouths of preachers and sermons. There are all sorts of people that take to a 'soap-box' to be influencers of millions. That is, have control over people.
Furthermore, being free is bounded by "control << and its opposite >> out of control." That is, having too less freedom can effectively lead to slavery and having too much freedom can effectively lead to chaos.
Mankind created a plethora of gods over the years.
Pretty sure that we are not nearly as important as we think we are.
Considering we are less than a speck in the infinite universe, then yes, we are not important at all.
A very interesting article, no matter which side you land on. Thanks for posting it.
I get the point, but it's a bit of a straw man argument.. Since when have we ever found one and ONLY one atom of any substance? To my knowledge, never.
Plus it is fallacious to claim that since science does not know the cause and effect of X that there is no cause-and-effect.
Agreed.
Without human sacrifices it is impossible to prove to none believers that Odin is real. He is just not satisfied with a goat or a sheep and refuses to now reveal himself.
According to modern cosmetology (invented by Tammy Faye Bakker Messner), God needs LOTS of makeup.
Yes, according to a recent seance (not science), Tammy Faye revealed that God needs lots of makeup because He's invisible. Without all the makeup nobody would believe that He exists.
This photograph of God is proof that He exists.
Worship me or I will throw you into a lake of fire for all eternity!
God must have been awfully bored before it created itself and everything else.
No.