Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 5:03 PM
424 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,137 Year: 9,743/21,208 Month: 2,830/2,674 Week: 254/961 Day: 118/136 Hour: 0/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
323334Next
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12563
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 451 of 506 (697143)
04-22-2013 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by GDR
04-22-2013 12:57 AM


Re: Predictions
Personally I'd say that you were trying to CREATE a gap to fill. Your whole argument assumes that existing explanations - even for the existence of atoms!!! - are so inadequate that simply assuming this entity is MORE plausible.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 12:57 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 11:37 AM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15560
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 452 of 506 (697149)
04-22-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Son Goku
04-21-2013 4:03 PM


Re: Green doing an illusion.
Son Goku writes:

The only problem is that from the point of view of the fundamental laws...

The laws of thermodynamics that set the direction of time seem pretty fundamental. I know you later argue, effectively, that they are emergent, but that's just our current state of knowledge, or perhaps even just of our terminology. Maybe the number of possible states *should* be considered a fundamental, rather than emergent, property of a system.

If the universe had began as a homogeneous soup of matter (which is "more likely"...

Though we do have a number of hypotheses, there is so much we don't know of the causes of the Big Bang that I don't think we can know that homogeneity is "more likely." When we eventually discover the true causes we may find that low entropy is the only and obvious possibility, and we may well utter, as Huxley about evolution, how stupid we were not to have realized it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Son Goku, posted 04-21-2013 4:03 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Son Goku, posted 04-22-2013 11:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 453 of 506 (697163)
04-22-2013 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by GDR
04-22-2013 12:57 AM


ScienceFictionology
So we have an alternate universe with similar but different physical laws to our own universe. Laws which allow eternal existence by virtue of there being no T=0. And residing in that universe we have uncreated intelligent being(s). Beings which are constrained by the physical laws of that universe in a similar fashion to the way we are constrained by the physical laws of our own universe (otherwise why would it matter whether that universe allows eternal existence or not?) It is this/these intelligent being(s) that are responsible for creating our universe. Presumably by utilising the physical laws of their own universe.........

Is this all correct?

GDR writes:

I'm not trying to fill a gap.

Whenever something is proclaimed to be so mysterious that god should be inserted into it - It is very arguably a god of the gaps argument.

GDR writes:

The question was asked, as it often is, who created the creator and I'm just suggesting what I think is a possible, but anything but conclusive, answer to the question.

A being residing in another physical universe where the physical laws allow for both eternal existence and the ability to create new universes (like ours) which are programmed for intelligence to evolve - Sounds more like advanced alien beings than any notion of an omnipotent god doesn't it?

GDR writes:

I'm just trying to put together what I have read from a theological, philosophical and scientific point of view and trying to picture a possible scenario where it all fits together.

Frankly you have come up with something that sounds like a rival to Scientology rather than a basis for Christianity......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 12:57 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 1:45 PM Straggler has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 454 of 506 (697178)
04-22-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by bluegenes
04-21-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Questions (again).
I asked you some questions relating to your idea of "specified information"

Okay sure I will answer your questions but first I would ask that you take a look at my comments to NoNukes in mssg#425, and I will direct them towards you since he seems to have wimped out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by bluegenes, posted 04-21-2013 3:22 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:03 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 460 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 12:51 PM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 455 of 506 (697179)
04-22-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by NoNukes
04-21-2013 4:56 PM


The signals need not be transmitted for the purpose of reception. They might be a bi-product of some energy use.

Yes and the detection of such a signal would still have a transmitted, receptor, observer relationship. Else we would not be recognizing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 4:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:08 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 464 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 3:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9430
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 456 of 506 (697180)
04-22-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Just being real
04-22-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Questions (again).
I will direct them towards you since he seems to have wimped out.

What on earth is the basis of this comment? Have I been too slow in responding to some of your messages? Did I not stay up late enough last night typing posts?

Have you been able to show specified information that could only come from God? Have you responded to my question of why arguments of exactly the same form as your argument that we've only seen Quantum fluctuations inside a universe are not also correct? Have you forgotten that the current discussion regarding quantum fluctuations addresses only one of the two complaints I leveled at designtheorist when you stepped in to defend his nonsense?

I acknowledge that I don't respond to everything you might post, but compared to your own cherry picking, I believe I've done alright.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ĎThat the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.í Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:49 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:31 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9430
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 457 of 506 (697184)
04-22-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Just being real
04-22-2013 10:56 AM


Yes and the detection of such a signal would still have a transmitted, receptor, observer relationship. Else we would not be recognizing it.

Using that definition, isn't the receiver pretty much of no function at all? I understand that ID proponents need a receiver to advance their theory that they can observe design, but in reality, even a laser beam intended for no use other than to destroy a target, if received by us would constitute a signal of the type you want to say is intelligence. Yet the object having a receiver in the relationship is an inanimate object not intended to respond other than by blowing up.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ĎThat the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.í Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:56 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 458 of 506 (697188)
04-22-2013 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by PaulK
04-22-2013 1:36 AM


Re: Predictions
PaulK writes:

Personally I'd say that you were trying to CREATE a gap to fill. Your whole argument assumes that existing explanations - even for the existence of atoms!!! - are so inadequate that simply assuming this entity is MORE plausible.

The explanation of why everything from atoms to intelligence exists is unknown. I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 1:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2013 1:11 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 483 by Taq, posted 04-24-2013 1:03 PM GDR has responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1060
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(4)
Message 459 of 506 (697191)
04-22-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Percy
04-22-2013 7:28 AM


Re: Green doing an illusion.
No real disagreement Percy, I'll just add some comments in case my post above was a bit unclear.

The laws of thermodynamics that set the direction of time seem pretty fundamental. I know you later argue, effectively, that they are emergent, but that's just our current state of knowledge, or perhaps even just of our terminology. Maybe the number of possible states *should* be considered a fundamental, rather than emergent, property of a system.

Indeed, it probably should. One thing a lot of the quantum gravity theories (String, Loops, Causal networks, e.t.c.) have in common is that they all promote the number of possible states to being a fundamental property. So a lot of people would agree with you.

I'm saying that current, verified physics does not do this and the number of possible states is not fundamental but derived. You might, and quite a few physicists do, think that this could be a flaw in current models.

Though we do have a number of hypotheses, there is so much we don't know of the causes of the Big Bang that I don't think we can know that homogeneity is "more likely." When we eventually discover the true causes we may find that low entropy is the only and obvious possibility, and we may well utter, as Huxley about evolution, how stupid we were not to have realized it.

Again, this is what most people think. There is a tension between current physics and the arrow of time. Again since entropy is not fundamental under quantum field theory and General Relativity (which are current physics) and there is no selection mechanism for initial states (like that at the Big Bang), current physics would say all states are equally likely and since there are vastly more high entropy states than low entropy ones then, under current physics, a high entropy state is more likely.

Of course this does not mean that a high entropy state is actually more likely. Quite probably there is some quantum gravitational effects controlling the initial state.

However we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet, so although almost all physicists would agree with you, the low entropy of the Big Bang is as of yet an unsolved problem. We still don't know why the universe has a preferred time direction even though many, including yourself, can guess at the probable form of the answer. That is, some deeper physics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Percy, posted 04-22-2013 7:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2991
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 460 of 506 (697210)
04-22-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Just being real
04-22-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Questions (again).
Just being real writes:

Okay sure I will answer your questions but first I would ask that you take a look at my comments to NoNukes in mssg#425, and I will direct them towards you since he seems to have wimped out.

I've read your post. Here's the bit where you assume your conclusion.

Just being real writes:

In fact one could argue that specified information is the biggest clue to detecting intelligence. The very definition of specificity incorporates words like purpose or intent.

No it doesn't.

Just being real writes:

Itís almost redundant to even say, but youíd be surprised at how many Iíve encountered that donít make the connection.

No, I wouldn't be surprised.

Just being real writes:

Of course anything with an intent or purpose must have an intelligent source. Therefore we know for certain that when we observe specificity that we are observing something with an intelligent source. We can say this with certainty because we have never observed (physically) anything of a specified nature form apart from intelligence.

We observe it all the time. Bacteria send specific signals to each other and will react in specific ways on receiving the signals. They are not intelligent.

Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:49 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 9:45 PM bluegenes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12563
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 461 of 506 (697213)
04-22-2013 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by GDR
04-22-2013 11:37 AM


Re: Predictions
quote:

The explanation of why everything from atoms to intelligence exists is unknown. I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.

That may be what you wanted to say, but you said a whole lot of things that are very different. Certainly you argued that it is implausible that atoms could form without intelligent direction. Quite frankly it is hard to avoid the conclusion that your idea of plausibility has a lot more to do with attempting to justify your beliefs than any considered analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 11:37 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 462 of 506 (697217)
04-22-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Straggler
04-22-2013 9:12 AM


Re: ScienceFictionology
Straggler writes:

So we have an alternate universe with similar but different physical laws to our own universe. Laws which allow eternal existence by virtue of there being no T=0. And residing in that universe we have uncreated intelligent being(s). Beings which are constrained by the physical laws of that universe in a similar fashion to the way we are constrained by the physical laws of our own universe (otherwise why would it matter whether that universe allows eternal existence or not?) It is this/these intelligent being(s) that are responsible for creating our universe. Presumably by utilising the physical laws of their own universe.........
Is this all correct?

I suppose but frankly that is more detailed than what Iím suggesting. Let me try it another way. Here is the on line definition of universe.

quote:
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

Now for instance does this include dark matter and dark energy? Is there more to our universe that we donít perceive with our 5 senses? So Iíve not sure what terminology to use. Iíve used the term universe in the same way that Scientific American did but maybe that isnít the term that should be used. If there is more to our universe than what we perceive with our 5 senses then maybe I should be suggesting an expanded idea of our own universe, when I suggest that our universe, as we think of it, is an emergent property of a greater reality without knowing what term to use for the greater reality itself.

Frankly Iím just looking at possible ways to marry science and theology which is the topic of this thread. From a theoretical science POV we have this.

1/ As SA says, ďAn Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own.
2/ There is much scientific speculation about additional universes and dimensions including other possible time dimensions.
3/ Time is a variable dependent on speed/gravity.
4/ QM tells us that particles donít take on the form that we perceive until we perceive them and then creates the history to make that happen
5/Science tells us that what we perceive is only about 4.5% of our universe.

From a Christian POV

1/ God is eternal
2/ God interacts with us which in some sense makes Him co-located

All Iím doing is trying to speculate as to how these things might all fit together assuming that the Christian POV is accurate.

Straggler writes:

Whenever something is proclaimed to be so mysterious that god should be inserted into it - It is very arguably a god of the gaps argument.

I donít think so. If my Christian beliefs are accurate, then there has to be a consistency with good science. Iím not rejecting any current science and Iím speculating as to how science might have an impact on theology, which as I say is the question that seems to be being asked in the OP.

Straggler writes:

A being residing in another physical universe where the physical laws allow for both eternal existence and the ability to create new universes (like ours) which are programmed for intelligence to evolve - Sounds more like advanced alien beings than any notion of an omnipotent god doesn't it?

I think when we talk about alien beings we are talking about life in our universe that is directly perceivable to us. All Iím saying is that as science suggests that there might be other universes or dimensions that arenít perceivable to us and may have a different set of laws, (physical or not), than we do. That makes it consistent with Christian thought, which is not to say that it proves anything. It is at this point speculation. Maybe someday it will be less so.

Edited by GDR, : Submitted by mistake prior to previewing


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 9:12 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2013 3:17 PM GDR has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 463 of 506 (697231)
04-22-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by GDR
04-22-2013 1:45 PM


Re: ScienceFictionology
In this thread you have cited (your interpretation of) concepts in modern theoretical physics as compatible of your view that an eternal intelligent being resides in some alternative universe. Things like universes that lack a T=0 and the laws of physics being non-directional in time.

But unless the intelligent being you are proposing is constrained by the physical laws that are present in the alternate universe in which it resides why would such a universe need to allow for eternal existence anyway?

Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not?

If it is constrained - I wouldn't call that a god. I'd call it an alien from another universe obeying a different set of physical laws.

If it isn't constrained - Why bring up universes whose physical laws allow eternal existence as at all relevant to anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by GDR, posted 04-22-2013 1:45 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by GDR, posted 04-23-2013 11:55 AM Straggler has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15749
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 464 of 506 (697238)
04-22-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Just being real
04-22-2013 10:56 AM


Yes and the detection of such a signal would still have a transmitted, receptor, observer relationship. Else we would not be recognizing it.

But what you said originally was an "intended purpose".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Just being real, posted 04-22-2013 10:56 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 465 of 506 (697270)
04-22-2013 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by NoNukes
04-22-2013 11:03 AM


Re: Questions (again).
akgtjlsasjzgmslriutasgsugskgajlahajlajaehklhu
quierounatazadecafeconcremayazucarporfavor

What on earth is the basis of this comment? Have I been too slow in responding to some of your messages? Did I not stay up late enough last night typing posts?

I have already gotten the message that this thread is drawing to an end, and have consoled myself with the fact that I probably will never get to discuss the actual evidence here because of the dragging. I understand that you don't want to answer me with a straight answer, and I understand why.

So here is my new point to this discussion. Scientific evidence for intelligent design gets stonewalled by the "big bouncers" at the door before it can ever even make it inside to the "dance floor." And the reasons for the stonewalling have nothing to do with science at all. Normally I here the objection that looking for non-human intelligence is not a scientific en devour. And yet I can show at least two sciences that clearly do exactly that. The next objection I usually here is that looking for intelligence in marine animals or extra terrestrials is somehow different than looking for intelligence in the design of the universe and life. So I point out that the methodology used is exactly the same. No one can ever seem to explain why looking for specified narrow bandwidths, or dolphin sound patterns is a good way to hunt for intelligence, but looking for specified information in the laws of physics, DNA molecule, and arrangement of the cosmology is not.

I understand that ID proponents need a receiver to advance their theory that they can observe design, but in reality, even a laser beam intended for no use other than to destroy a target,

And the target is the receiver. The point I am making with the "transmitter, receiver, observer" scenario is that this is how specified information is DETECTED. We look for something that has an intended purpose. I once found a very old rusty wrench berried in my yard. I knew immediately by its shape that it was fashioned for an intended purpose. It was not a shape that occurs naturally, and a previous unrelated experience I had with tools gave me the recognition response needed to immediately determine it was the product of intelligence. In order to detect intelligence, there has to be a source of the object, bandwidth, or sound (transmitter). Then there must be an intended reason for the object, bandwidth, or sound (receiver). And finally there must be someone to make the connection that the object, bandwidth, or sound was meant for that reason (observer). Without these three ingredients, specificity can exist, but it can not be detected.

An example: at the beginning of this post there are two seemingly meaningless lines of letters. Actually the first line is. It is merely random meaningless letters. But the second actually has specified information. You may have not recognized it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If you speak Spanish then you know what it means. You have a recognition response that is completely independent of that line and you become both the receiver and the observer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 11:03 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2013 10:06 PM Just being real has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
323334Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017