Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:53 PM
25 online now:
Coragyps, edge, PaulK, PurpleYouko (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Three models for the origin of the universe
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 38 of 41 (115705)
06-16-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stellatic
06-16-2004 9:05 AM


Well yet again we see misrepresentation rather tan dealing with the point. The point - which is quite clearly stated - is not that datign an object to more than 6000 years ago disproves YEC but that YEC - even as defiend in your original post - must reject such dates and therefore radically disagrees with both other positions on the history of the Universe.

From your other posts it is clear that you are at least sympathetic to YEC. However the "retreat to Omphalism" refers to how you might defend your original assertion that YEC was scientifically equivalent to the other two positions.

With regard to my later post as I state Omphalism has two serious problems

Firstly it needs to present arguemnts to explain why we see particular evidences of age. We might need the sun to have reached a certain point in stellar evolution, but we do not need a fossil record indicating a long history over which the fauna and flora of Earth have greatly changed - if they have in fact not changed significantly since the Creation.

The other problem is the unstated assumption that a YEC creator God would create a universe like this. Why, for instance, are the sun moon and stars not simply lights in the sky ? Why should we be able to even construct a theory of stellar evolution (which is more like the changes of an individual from birth to death than biological evolution) ? After all only a fraction of the process could possibly happen between the Creation and Armageddon.

It isn't enough to just write off contrary evidence with ad-hoc explanations in science. "God just made it look that way" isn't very good unless you have a reason to suppose that God WOULD make it look that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stellatic, posted 06-16-2004 9:05 AM Stellatic has not yet responded

    
Stellatic
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 41 (118620)
06-25-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
06-10-2004 1:15 PM


Hi PaulK,

Ah, I see what you meant with absurdities.

1) I thought that with 'history' you meant the history after the creation of the universe, so in the case of YEC only the past 6 ky. Since I didn't mean model (1) to be the entire YEC view, but just the model as defined in my first post, I didn't want to discuss what YECs usually claim to have happened during the past 6 ky. I realize now that with 'history' you meant the timespan between 13.7 Gy and 6 ky ago. Of course that plays a role in this discussion, leaving this out of consideration would surely be absurd. However it is not relevant for this discussion what happened during this history, but whether the reality of this history can be tested. It appears that this indeed can be tested and science can favour statements concerning the age of the universe. Which is basically why I excluded model (1) from my proposition in post Message 22.

I understand now that I have been a bit slow-witted. Thanks for being so patient with me!

2) On your second point I'm afraid we still disagree. I understand your position very well though, it's just that I see it slightly different.

I agree that it is more scientific to attribute for example lightning to electromagnetism instead of attributing it to a god. Not because electromagnetism is a natural mechanism, but because it is testable. Attributing it to a god is untestable, because you can't conduct experiments with gods. You can't say: "God, produce lightning now", well you can say it, but, even assuming this god exists, there is no reason why he would listen to you. With electromagnetism on the other hand, you can conduct an experiment in a lab with the same conditions and each time you do it, lightning will strike.

For the origin of the universe, I think model (2) and (3) are both untestable and therefore equally (un)scientific. I understand that you think model (3) is more scientific because you think natural explanations are by definiton more scientific and I can't say you're wrong. I shouldn't have used the word 'natural' in my definition of model (3), because it implies things that, in my opinion, do not apply to this model.

If a theory is testable, then it's scientific. If the tests do not falsify the theory, the theory apparently describes nature and therefor is called 'natural'. This however is not what I meant with 'natural' in my definition of model (3), because I don't think these 'natural' events can be tested. What I meant was that these events (according to this theory) will occur again under the same conditions. They are (according to this theory) a consequence of the circumstances in combination with the way nature reacts on these circumstances. Therefor I called them natural, but I didn't meant 'testable' and certainly not 'verified by tests'.

I already said that I didn't want to accuse you of prejudices; I'll explain here what I meant in more detail. What I wasn't saying is: "It's prejudiced to state something, because it's also prejudiced to state the opposite." That would basically make all statements prejudiced. What I meant with prejudices is taking a natural explanation as your starting point. After that you can ask whether we should keep this natural explanation or substitute a god for it. But why don't we start with: "We don't know what the cause of the existence of the universe is." and think about which optional explanations there are after that.

Greets Stellatic


"What interests me is whether God had a choice when he created the world.". --Albert Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2004 1:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2004 3:53 PM Stellatic has not yet responded
 Message 41 by AstroPutz, posted 06-30-2004 7:23 PM Stellatic has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14754
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 40 of 41 (118701)
06-25-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stellatic
06-25-2004 10:06 AM


Well I still don't understand how you could not think of the 6,000 year age as being relevant when the only difference between your YEC and IEC position was that YECs did insist on the 6000 year age.

But I think you are still confused on my second point.

As I have said ultimate origins are outside the bounds of science.

The problem came in after you stated that you were not referring to the possibility of proposing God as the ultimate cause beyond any we could discover. But if we ever did produce a complete naturalistic model for this universe's origin you have ruled out your only way of keeping God in the picture that is consistent with science. Which means that your self-imposed limitation makes the atheistic model at least potentially scientific, while the theistic model is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stellatic, posted 06-25-2004 10:06 AM Stellatic has not yet responded

    
AstroPutz
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 41 (120511)
06-30-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stellatic
06-25-2004 10:06 AM


"For the origin of the universe, I think model (2) and (3) are both untestable and therefore equally (un)scientific."

Hmmm. The differences between (2) and (3) are untestable (god vs. natural cause...no science can be performed there) but the premise that the universe had an origin 'that appears to be' 14B years ago is indeed testable and therefore very scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stellatic, posted 06-25-2004 10:06 AM Stellatic has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019