Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 310 (486325)
10-18-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Agobot
10-18-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Why is there no need for the assumption that only energy cannot create the universe we are in? Because it's against the atheistic dogma?
You do realize that if energy is shown to be the force behind creation, pretty much all of the world's religions will be shown to be false?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 12:46 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 2:20 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 182 of 310 (486326)
10-18-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Coyote
10-18-2008 1:30 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Coyote writes:
You do realize that if energy is shown to be the force behind creation, pretty much all of the world's religions will be shown to be false?
So what? Since when are religions right about creation or what God truly is? It was not the point why I claimed that energy constructed the Universe. The point was that i was expecting someone from the atheists lot to come up and say - "Hey, it was not just energy, it was energy plus the laws of physics that constructed the universe".
How would energy just after the Big Bang obey laws? Where did they come from? Did the singularity contain the laws within it in a package? What split the energy into electrons, quarks, etc.? How would energy know how to do this? If electrons were already present in the singularity, what put them there? Was the energy within the singularity infinitely highly pre-ordered and structured? If it appears so, how is this possible from the POV of an atheist?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2008 1:30 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 183 of 310 (486328)
10-18-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Agobot
10-18-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
First of all, you have wrongly attributed one of your own quotes to me. Please fix it, since I would never say any such thing.
Agobot writes:
In the end you have to answer the question - does energy possess the greatest mind and intelligence that anyone could ever imagine?
Granny writes:
Of course it doesn't.
Agobot writes:
You don't want to answer because you'll have to assume intelligence and so you wipe the uncofortable question under the carpet as if it doesn't exist.
No, I did answer the question. I'm surprised that you didn't notice it, since you quoted my answer. Just to reiterate, here is the answer again;
No.
Okay? Just for the record, it's not a question that troubles me in the least. In fact, I regard it as being a trivially silly question. Energy is simply the capacity to do work. There is no way that the capacity to do work can have mind or intelligence. Don't be silly. I do not need to assume intelligence when my answer is that no intelligence is involved.
Why is there no need for the assumption that only energy cannot create the universe we are in?
You have it backwards. Why is there a need to assume intelligence. i am not beholden to provide evidence against your proposition when you have no evidence in the first place.
The position taken so far, by most of the atheists on this thread, is that one cannot universally prove a negative proposition, therefore science cannot definitively prove that God does not exist. I agree with this. Thus, it is not up to me to prove that {God/the creator/the designer/some nameless cosmic intelligence} does not exist. It is up to others to provide evidence that he/she/it does exist.
Because it's against the atheistic dogma?
No. because there is no evidence in favour of such a proposition.
Where did the gravity emerge from after the BB?
I have no idea. Is this somehow relevant? Just because I don't know, does that mean we must invoke God? I can assure you, there are a lot of things I don't know. We're going to need an awful lots of gap-gods to fill all the holes in my knowledge.
Alternatively, we could simply accept that there are many things that I (and we) don't know without inventing fictional characters to provide bogus explanations.
Did energy set the four fundamental forces by itself within itself just after the BB, so that matter could somehow later arise and exist? Or was it a coincidence that such forces would arise at all?
For all we know, it might be that there could be no other balance of fundamental forces. Anyway, the anthropic principle explains this perfectly adequately. If the forces had been any other way, we just wouldn't be having this conversation. Where is the problem?
Why would the early universe be homogeneous at all? So that galaxies could form? No everything is random, right?
Again, I have no idea. I'm not required to have an explanation for everything. I am perfectly happy not knowing if the alternative is inventing sky-pixies as a pseudo-explanation. Wouldn't you rather honestly admit ignorance, pending an evidence-based explanation, or would you rather just make one up?
All the theories of elementary particles...
One long argument from incredulity, peppered with a few technical terms, no doubt to try and dazzle me with sciencey-sounding terminology.
So what? That you happen to be amazed and incredulous is completely irrelevant. If you want to propose an intelligent agent behind a particular physical phenomena, you must provide positive evidence in favour of it. No evidence, no dice, and simply saying "Wow, isn't it all so improbable!" is not evidence of anything, except your own incredulity.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 12:46 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 3:13 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 184 of 310 (486329)
10-18-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Granny Magda
10-18-2008 2:31 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Granny Magda writes:
One long argument from incredulity, peppered with a few technical terms, no doubt to try and dazzle me with sciencey-sounding terminology.
So what? That you happen to be amazed and incredulous is completely irrelevant. If you want to propose an intelligent agent behind a particular physical phenomena, you must provide positive evidence in favour of it. No evidence, no dice, and simply saying "Wow, isn't it all so improbable!" is not evidence of anything, except your own incredulity.
The only thing i can state for sure and can prove is that just energy residing into the uncreated between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. cannot form matter, space, the universe and life on our planet. There is much more to that energy, and at the very least it contained all the laws of physcis within it(and the question is how and why). I will not go so far as to claim that a creator directed the process but then the fact that there was much more than pure energy within the singularity, in the form of laws, correlations and maths that made possible the emergence of our universe - like the speed of light C, the number P=3.141529..., E=mc^2, etc. surely raises all kinds of philosophical questions to us - the non-religious non-atheists .
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2008 2:31 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 4:10 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 186 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2008 4:44 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 185 of 310 (486331)
10-18-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Agobot
10-18-2008 3:13 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
In an "unstable", "eternal" and "infinite" "nothingness" would not the formation of such a universe be potentially inevitable rather than impossible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 3:13 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 6:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 186 of 310 (486333)
10-18-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Agobot
10-18-2008 3:13 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Hi, Agobot.
Agobot writes:
The only thing i can state for sure and can prove is that just energy residing into the uncreated between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. cannot form matter, space, the universe and life on our planet.
Bolding added
I think you are being far too casual with your usage of the word "sure."
On what grounds do you state this with such surety? Can you provide the math that backs up your claim that energy cannot produce all the material structures of the universe?
-----
Agobot writes:
There is much more to that energy, and at the very least it contained all the laws of physcis within it(and the question is how and why).
Laws are not physical entities that must exist somewhere, Agobot. The “laws” are only descriptions of how physical entities interact. Neither I nor anybody more knowledgeable than I can give you a reason why these interactions happen (it may be the manifestation of greater intelligence, for all we know), but we can tell you that the interactions follow very specific patterns, and that there is no reason to believe that those patterns can’t cause matter, and even life, to develop.
-----
Agobot writes:
...the fact that there was much more than pure energy within the singularity, in the form of laws, correlations and maths that made possible the emergence of our universe - like the speed of light C, the number P=3.141529..., E=mc^2, etc. surely raises all kinds of philosophical questions to us...
I would include numbers as artifacts of the physical universe, not as agents of the universe's physical formation.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 3:13 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 5:24 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 187 of 310 (486334)
10-18-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Blue Jay
10-18-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Agobot writes:
The only thing i can state for sure and can prove is that just energy residing into the uncreated between T=0 and T=10^-44sec. cannot form matter, space, the universe and life on our planet.
Bluejay writes:
I think you are being far too casual with your usage of the word "sure."
Oh yes, I am more than sure that JUST(I said JUST in the quoted paragraph) energy cannot produce an universe. In the sense that ONLY energy is not enough, you need information, physical laws, physical constants, etc at the very least. Are you sure you want to argue agaist that?
Agobot writes:
There is much more to that energy, and at the very least it contained all the laws of physcis within it(and the question is how and why).
Bluejay writes:
Laws are not physical entities that must exist somewhere, Agobot. The “laws” are only descriptions of how physical entities interact. Neither I nor anybody more knowledgeable than I can give you a reason why these interactions happen (it may be the manifestation of greater intelligence, for all we know), but we can tell you that the interactions follow very specific patterns, and that there is no reason to believe that those patterns can’t cause matter, and even life, to develop.
That's exactly what I am saying, the universe follows those laws that allow its existence. They allow our existence as well and the existence of your computer that you use to communicate with me. Those set of laws emerged from the singularity, unless you want to believe they were sent down from Jesus or Buddah seconds after the Big Bang.
Agobot writes:
...the fact that there was much more than pure energy within the singularity, in the form of laws, correlations and maths that made possible the emergence of our universe - like the speed of light C, the number P=3.141529..., E=mc^2, etc. surely raises all kinds of philosophical questions to us...
Bluejay writes:
I would include numbers as artifacts of the physical universe, not as agents of the universe's physical formation.
Sorry, i disn't get that, could you rephrase?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2008 4:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 5:31 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 10-18-2008 7:39 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 188 of 310 (486335)
10-18-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Agobot
10-18-2008 5:24 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Oh yes, I am more than sure that JUST(I said JUST in the quoted paragraph) energy cannot produce an universe. In the sense that ONLY energy is not enough, you need information, physical laws, physical constants, etc at the very least. Are you sure you want to argue agaist that?
What do you think a universe that did not have any such laws would be like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 5:24 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 6:03 PM Straggler has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 189 of 310 (486338)
10-18-2008 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Straggler
10-18-2008 5:31 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Agobot writes:
Oh yes, I am more than sure that JUST(I said JUST in the quoted paragraph) energy cannot produce an universe. In the sense that ONLY energy is not enough, you need information, physical laws, physical constants, etc at the very least. Are you sure you want to argue agaist that?
Straggler writes:
What do you think a universe that did not have any such laws would be like?
A non existent universe. Without physical and mathematical laws even a singularity is impossible to exist, if the singularity ever existed it was governed by laws and forces(albeit unknown to us). How could we imagine something to exist without being subject to laws? Isn't that the realm of the omni-potent Biblical god?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 5:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:25 PM Agobot has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 190 of 310 (486341)
10-18-2008 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Straggler
10-18-2008 4:10 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Straggler writes:
In an "unstable", "eternal" and "infinite" "nothingness" would not the formation of such a universe be potentially inevitable rather than impossible?
Maybe it's me, but i prefer everything to make sense. Every process of the universe is governed by laws that we can comprehend(so far at least), why should I suspect that certain aspects of the universe should not make sense and resort to zero and infinity? What eternal, infinite or nothingness have we ever observed outside of theoretical models?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 4:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:15 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 191 of 310 (486344)
10-18-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Agobot
10-18-2008 6:08 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
What eternal, infinite or nothingness have we ever observed outside of theoretical models?
Exactly.
So concluding what is or is not possible, or is or is not inevitable, or is or is not likely is just arm waving conjecture and subjective philosophising.
We really know nothing about the reality or otherwise of any of these concepts and they are so far removed from human experience that I would suggest we don't understand the concepts even in quite abstract terms never mind practical ones.
On this basis your conclusion that it is all just too unlikely to have happened without divine intervention of some sort seems grossly unwarranted.
On common sense level I might partially agree with you. If I was not sitting here existing in this universe I might well conclude that such a universe and such a being as myself were indeed "impossible".
However common sense notions are about as relevant as the price of haddock and as reliable as the average investment bank.
This universe does exist. We know that. We have evidence for that. If we want to reliably know how that happened then we can try and undertake evidence based investigation into that question.
If we do not really care about the quality and reliablity of the answers that we achieve then I guess we can invoke even more complex unevidenced beings which themsleves potentially require creation as some sort of answer. Purely for the sake of having an answer. You are welcome to do that if you so wish.
I would rather await an evidenced and more reliable answer and am quite content to acknowledge my ignorance regarding that question in the meantime. I am also willing to accept that there may never be a reliable answer. I remain optimistic. And I am damn sure that if we ever do get a reliable answer it will be science and not silly notions of subjective "evidence" that provide it.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 6:08 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 192 of 310 (486345)
10-18-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Agobot
10-18-2008 6:03 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
A non existent universe. Without physical and mathematical laws even a singularity is impossible to exist, if the singularity ever existed it was governed by laws and forces(albeit unknown to us). How could we imagine something to exist without being subject to laws? Isn't that the realm of the omni-potent Biblical god?
Exactly.
So it should hardly come as a suprise that the universe in which we find ourselves operates in such a way.
As a slght aside I was wondering: Do you think that we invent or discover mathematics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 6:03 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 7:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 193 of 310 (486347)
10-18-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Agobot
10-18-2008 5:24 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Hi, Agobot.
Agobot writes:
Oh yes, I am more than sure that JUST(I said JUST in the quoted paragraph) energy cannot produce an universe. In the sense that ONLY energy is not enough, you need information, physical laws, physical constants, etc at the very least. Are you sure you want to argue agaist that?
No. I want to argue against what appears to be your main argument, which is that some form of intelligence is required to make things happen. Was that not the point you were making with the above sentence? If that wasn't the point, it seems that this sentence just amounts to an admission that you don't actually have a case for the requirement of intelligence.
Is that the case?
-----
Agobot writes:
Those set of laws emerged from the singularity, unless you want to believe they were sent down from Jesus or Buddha seconds after the Big Bang.
So, is it your argument that the laws of physics couldn't have been in place before T=0-43? My understanding is that nobody really knows what was going on during the first Planck epoch, so I'm not sure I buy your argument that the laws must have arisen later.
Looking at this in the broader context of your overall argument on this thread, you would seem to be saying that a structured system of physical behavior (i.e. physical laws) necessarily implies the work of an intelligent agent.
Is this correct?
If so, doesn’t this also imply that that intelligence was similarly the work of an intelligent designer? After all, what is intelligence if not a structured system of physical behavior?
This all leads up to the nonsensical conclusion that the existence of intelligence predates the existence of intelligence.
-----
At any rate, I find it glaringly obvious that the "god hypothesis" cannot be supported or refuted by objective, rational thinking, and that such concerns should be properly removed from all practical usage, except for those cases in which the religious insist on the injection of these issues into legal battles, or in which the religious are willing to pay generous grants to philosophers who cannot, by other means, feed their families.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 5:24 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 8:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 194 of 310 (486348)
10-18-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Straggler
10-18-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Atheists are smart, right?
Straggler writes:
As a slght aside I was wondering: Do you think that we invent or discover mathematics?
Mathematics is the description of the universe. What do you mean by invent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Straggler, posted 10-18-2008 7:47 PM Agobot has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 195 of 310 (486349)
10-18-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Agobot
10-18-2008 7:42 PM


Mathematics
Mathematics is the description of the universe. What do you mean by invent?
Can we use mathematics to describe things that do not physically exist in the universe?
Can we create forms of mathematics that have no application with regard to describing physical reality. Forms of mathematics that are abstract constructs alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 7:42 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Agobot, posted 10-18-2008 8:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024