|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, JungEinstein. Welcome to EvC!
JungEinstein writes: PaulK writes: "Because the Bible says so" isn't exactly rational. This same line of reasoning can be applied to scientific evidence. Scientists believe that only scientific evidence is valid "because science says so." This is a very gross mischaracterization of scientific philosophy. There is no appeal to science or to scientists in the process. The appeal is to the universe at large, which we regard as generally unlikely to lie to us and generally unlikely to behave in a manner that is at odds with reality, and therefore, generally likely to yield reliable evidence. Where people's testimonies contradict the universe's testimony (i.e. the evidence), we generally consider the universe to be a more reliable witness. Do you think this is unreasonable? -----
JungEinstein writes: quote:Bolding added. -Bluejay Where did this quote come from? Is the point of this quote that laser beams, superconductors and transistors are, in fact, faith? -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Hi Bluejay,
Agobot writes: ...i don't believe [the laws and physical constants] were sent from Jesus or Allah and i am not content with the "we don't know yet, we might know in the future" bit. Bluejay writes: What option do we have? If you’re dissatisfied with the current level of scientific knowledge, go get a degree in physics and find the solution yourself. But, don’t make up solutions that can’t be shown with current science, because you’d be effectively doing the same thing as invoking Jesus or Allah. I don't need a degree in physics to find out that a singularity must have contained in it all the physical laws and constants that made possible the unfolding and existence of the Universe for billions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out as it doesn't take a genius to figure out that just raw energy cannot construct a universe. And if you want to be logical and make sense you have to admit that all those laws and constants couldn't have entered the singularity by chance. If they did, where did they come from? This fact just screams "Designers!". I think secularism in our countries is going into severe OVER-drive mode at times, it's almost like in Yemen and Iran towards Allah and quite frankly it's a shame. People(and some scientists) find utterly unacceptable the idea that intelligent entities must have set everything in motion. I'd be ashamed of my country if such a stance be adopted officially on a governmental level toward the evidence of design of the universe.
Bluejay writes: But, don’t make up solutions that can’t be shown with current science, because you’d be effectively doing the same thing as invoking Jesus or Allah. I am not making anything up, you are pretending that you don't understand what made possible the unfolding and existence of the universe from raw energy. I am not going to bury my head in the sand, I have no fundamentalist belief in atheism and what i believe is directed only by deductive logic based on scientific findings. Any dogma, whether it's religious or atheistic is still dogma. What solutions can be shown by science concerning pre-Big Bang? Exotic theoretical hypotesises? Why would you need solutions for pre-Big Bang when you haven't resolved the issue with the physical laws entering and emerging from the sinularity with the raws energy(by chance)? How would anyone ever possibly explain this in any way other than design? If the total energy of the universe can be sqeezed into a dimensionless dot, then all the forces, physical lawsand constants must be also there within that zero-volume dot. You think science will explain that in an atheistically friendly way? Think again. In the meantime you can ask Stephen Hawking at S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk but he'll probably respond "It's a philosphical question" as he did in "History of Time". Bluejay writes: Second, you are exaggerating when you say “trillions of different laws and constants.” I meant trillions of laws and constants in trillions of different universes. But you are right, I wasn't puntcual - it's much more than trillions, it's many Quadrillions and more(as in the infinity of universes of a Multiverse). "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
This is all subjective conjecture.
You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities than you know that it is inevitable and unique in it's current form. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Straggler writes: This is all subjective conjecture.You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities than you know that it is inevitable in it's current form. And where are all those universes? And who created them with their different laws and constants that somehow penetrated their singularities and made their unfolding from raw energy possible? Let me guess, it'd be luck + chance + coincidence. They created themselves but how??? Think about it... Pure energy is bogus, you need something else, can you guess what? Where did it come from? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
And where are all those universes? Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist.
And who created them with their different laws and constants that somehow penetrated their singularities and made their unfolding from raw energy possible? Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist.
Let me guess, it'd be luck + chance + coincidence. They created themselves but how??? Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist.
Pure energy is bogus, you need something else, can you guess what? Where did it come from? I don't know. Nor do you. All else, including your statements of improbability, are subjective conjecture. Nothing more. Maybe this universe is the only possible universe that there ever could have been and maybe it was inevitable. Maybe it is one of an infinite number and was inevitable. Maybe it is as improbable as you seem to think. Maybe even more so. Who knows? Unless answers are supported by evidence based investigation such statements are as equally baseless as any theistic assertion. This includes statements of great improbability. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Straggler writes: Maybe this universe is the only possible universe that there ever could have been and maybe it was inevitable. Maybe it is one of an infinite number and was inevitable. Maybe it is as improbable as you seem to think. Maybe even more so. Who knows? I said a universe, or a multitude of universes cannot construct themselves from pure energy without the guidance of physical laws and constants residing in the singularities(at the very least). And as you say, with all those laws that we have in our universe, you could make a good case that our universe was in fact quite inevitable.
Straggler writes: Unless answers are supported by evidence based investigation such statements are as equally baseless as any theistic assertion. This includes statements of great improbability. So I'll need evidence that energy without physical laws to govern it is impossible. Should i pack my stuff up and head for the uncreated where the laws of our universe don't have effect? Wouldn't the NBP steer my spaceship in a circle? You said:
Straggler writes: You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities to which i replied:
Agobot writes: And where are all those universes? Then you said:
Straggler writes: Which other universes? We don't know that any others even exist. You proposed that other universes might exist and then you went to say "Which other universes?" What is so scary about being designed? We may well have free will and completely free lives undecided by fate. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
...i don't believe [the laws and physical constants] were sent from Jesus or Allah and i am not content with the "we don't know yet, we might know in the future" bit. If you are determined to find an answer regardless of reliability or validity then I would suggest that you at least consider some of the more potentially evidenced scenarios before you head off down the complex eternal uncaused unevidenced undetectable creator path. I started a thread to examine these some time ago Message 1. Feel free to start that one up again if you so wish. Have you considered the zero energy universe hypothesis?Maybe (I don't know) the limitation of having an overall energy of zero necessarily limits the possible types of universe in terms of the laws and constants you are considering. Maybe it is worth finding out rather than asserting scales of improbability in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to justify these claims. It's up to you. Just a suggestion. Edited by Straggler, : Correct link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
You no more know that the universe we inhabit is deeply improbable one of many possibilities than you know that it is inevitable in it's current form.Aqobot writes: You proposed that other universes might exist and then you went to say "Which other universes?" You misunderstood. Probably because you only read half the sentance.I simply meant that we do not have any more reason to conclude that we are one of many universes than to conclude that we are definitely not. We also have no more reason to conclude that our universe is inevitable than to conclude that it is deeply improbable. In the absence of any evidence about how the universe came to be nothing, including your improbability assertion, is evidenced. All is subjective conjecture. It may be that our universe was inevitable and it may be that however this occurred could only occur such that it would result in our universe and no other. This is subjective conjecture on my part. But it is no more or less valid than your subjective conjecture regarding the deep improbability of our universe. We have no evidence. We don't know how improbable or probable or even inevitable the universe might be. That is the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Straggler writes: Have you considered the zero energy universe hypothesis?Maybe (I don't know) the limitation of having an overall energy of zero necessarily limits the possible types of universe in terms of the laws and constants you are considering. Yes i have. I wrote about a similar scenario in "What is matter" and got a suspension from the mods on that idea because they misunderstood what i wrote and i didn't use exponents. Anyway, how would that change anything about the creation of the universe? It all started via a singularity(this time the singularity is a quantum fluctuation). How would a quantum fluctuation create a universe if it didn't carry within itself the laws of physics and the constants? OK, the quantum fluctuation does seem uncaused(for now), but a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space. How would this energy point know how to construct an universe? It needs the laws of physics and the constants(at the very least). Where would they come from? I am not aware of quantum fluctuations producing laws of physics and constants. Bottomline - all theoretical models of physics require a universe to be produced from energy. To do so by itself, an energy point needs the guidance of physical laws and constants to be integrated into that energy point. A belief that raw energy without physical laws and constants can create a universe is nonsense approaching infinity(I know you haven't claimed that). 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Agobot.
Agobot writes: I don't need a degree in physics to find out that a singularity must have contained in it all the physical laws and constants that made possible the unfolding and existence of the Universe for billions of years. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out as it doesn't take a genius to figure out that just raw energy cannot construct a universe. And if you want to be logical and make sense you have to admit that all those laws and constants couldn't have entered the singularity by chance. You keep saying this as if you think it somehow has something to do with my argument. Do you think I am arguing that the laws of physics need not exist during the Planck epoch? I'm going to try something different here: why don't you spell out for me exactly what you think my argument is. Maybe then we can see where it is that we're talking past each other. ----- To make it fair, here is what I think your argument is:
-----
Agobot writes: I meant trillions of laws and constants in trillions of different universes. I will reiterate what Straggler asked. What other universes are you talking about? I have not hypothesized the existence of other universes. All I have hypothesized is that our universe happened among an indeterminate number of possibilities. The number of possibilities could be anywhere from 1 to infinite, but it makes no difference to my argument, because I have not invoked any sort of probabilities to explain our universe. My argument simply consists of the following:
Something happened. Our universe is that something. And, that's all we can prove right now. In no way have I argued that atheism is logically sound.In no way have I argued that the universe must be the result of random processes. The only argument I have offered is that you are making an argument that suffers from many logical problems. You must focus your efforts on addressing these logical problems, rather than continually repeating what you perceive to be the strengths of your argument, because your argument's strengths do not simply make the weaknesses go away. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JungEinstein Junior Member (Idle past 5660 days) Posts: 8 From: Tampa Bay, US Joined: |
Hi, Bluejay
Where did this quote come from? Is the point of this quote that laser beams, superconductors and transistors are, in fact, faith? No, that wasn’t my point. I'm very glad you pointed out where the confusion lies. Now that I’ve reread my previous post, I can see that I didn’t make my point very obvious. I quoted the Bible’s statement that faith is “evidence of things not seen.” (I understand completely why Straggler and others don’t accept this statement, because it isn't evidenced by science alone.) I attempted to make an analogy between the unseen quantum world and the unseen spiritual world. I believe this is where I failed, because I didn’t explicitly say that I was using the quantum world as an analogy to the spiritual world. I attempted (rather poorly) to express the thought that if evidence could exist of the unseen quantum world (lasers, superconductors, transistors, etc.), then perhaps evidence could exist of an unseen spiritual world (evidence-substantiated faith). I had hoped the analogy would be evident from the context of my post. I in no way meant to imply that lasers, etc. were identical to faith, or that the quantum world was identical to the spiritual one. I meant simply that the idea of “evidence of things not seen” is not such an irrational concept, because such evidence exists within our physical world in the case of the quantum domain.
This is a very gross mischaracterization of scientific philosophy. There is no appeal to science or to scientists in the process. The appeal is to the universe at large, which we regard as generally unlikely to lie to us and generally unlikely to behave in a manner that is at odds with reality, and therefore, generally likely to yield reliable evidence. Where people's testimonies contradict the universe's testimony (i.e. the evidence), we generally consider the universe to be a more reliable witness. Do you think this is unreasonable? No. I agree that the universe is a more reliable witness where there is contradiction with human testimony. This is why I said earlier that there is no such thing as objective evidence that is inferior to faith. However, it seems to be the consensus among many atheists and scientists that all faith-based testimony contradicts the universe’s testimony, and so all faith is rejected outright. I wish to convey that this is not the case. If it’s the consensus among scientists that the universe hasn’t yielded testimony to the existence of an unseen spirit realm one way or the other, why the distaste for faith-based propositions (other than because of a dislike for the common concept of God)? And why is it that scientists allow themselves an appeal to the universe at large, but people of faith are dismissed for making an appeal to a creator of the universe? If scientists say it's because there is evidence that the universe actually exists, but not so for a creator, is this not an appeal to people, or scientists, who must be able to recognize that evidence? Because what is evidence? Just natural phenomena in and of itself? No, it’s a major ingredient to the scientific process. So I don't agree that "There is no appeal to science or to scientists in the process." Also, it’s interesting that you should mention a “very gross mischaracterization of scientific philosophy,” because I’ve been trying to convey that there is a very gross mischaracterization of God and faith within this thread. I suppose I will be content with my mischaracterization of science as long as scientists and atheists are content with their mischaracterization of God and faith. (Tongue in cheek ). Edited by JungEinstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, JungEinstein.
Jungstein writes: I attempted (rather poorly) to express the thought that if evidence could exist of the unseen quantum world (lasers, superconductors, transistors, etc.), then perhaps evidence could exist of an unseen spiritual world (evidence-substantiated faith). I had hoped the analogy would be evident from the context of my post. Ah. I see. The problem really isn't that evidence for the unseen spiritual world couldn't exist: it's really that none appears to be forthcoming to those who would be interested in attacking the subject from the perspective of critical thinking. And, what evidence there is has so far failed to lend itself to rational inquiry, meaning that the only information so far gleaned from spiritual research is highly person-specific and has shown the potential to produce enormous quantities of false positives. Thus, the method really shows no promise for obtaining objective results that can usefully answer questions in a “real world” situation. So far, objective, materialistic inquiry is the only method that has accomplished that. ----- Let me ask you a question: would you expect evidence for an unseen, spiritual world to be spiritual or physical (or both) in nature? In other words, could you see the evidence for an unseen, spiritual world? -----
Jungstein writes: If it’s the consensus among scientists that the universe hasn’t yielded testimony to the existence of an unseen spirit realm one way or the other, why the distaste for faith-based propositions (other than because of a dislike for the common concept of God)? Oooooh!! Now I get it! Well, the distaste comes from the inability to know how accurate a given faith-based proposition is. Surely you have had discourse with people whose faith leads them to different conclusions than you?What was/would be your method for determining which faith-based conclusion is correct? Edited by Bluejay, : Formatting. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The problem is that it isn't evidenced at all.
quote: If you had your argument would have done no better. By assuming that a spiritual world exists and that faith is a reliable guide to it you beg the question.
quote: Yet the problem at hand is the assertion that faith IS evidence. And it should be noted that you objected when I pointed out that your argument did not touch on that point. Yet now you say that it was an analogy, not intended to address that point.
quote: No, it isn't. If there is a consensus it is that faith is simply not useful for telling us about the universe, and therefore faith-based propositions have no more value in science than unsupported speculation.
quote: There IS no comparable appeal. therefore even if the rest of your argument stood it would fail. But it does not stand. At most you can say that it is usually convenient for non-scientists to accept the word of scientists. However that is not part of the scientific process - the scientists are merely relaying the outcome.
quote: Of course the idea of God you object to is derived from faith-based propositions. If think that it is a "very gross mischaracterisation" then it only proves that you do not consider faith-based propositions a reliable source of truth either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3396 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
I hope you don't mind a brief butt-in.
Well, the distaste comes from the inability to know how accurate a given faith-based proposition is. Surely you have had discourse with people whose faith leads them to different conclusions than you?What was/would be your method for determining which faith-based conclusion is correct? Surely this is the heart of the disagreement between religious and non-religious points of view. Until religious people come up with a convincing answer, so-called spiritual notions cannot have any validity in discussions but are merely individual quirks of personality. Remember the story where the physicist goes to his lab to check his idea, but the the metaphysicist cannot because he has no lab?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Bottomline - all theoretical models of physics require a universe to be produced from energy. To do so by itself, an energy point needs the guidance of physical laws and constants to be integrated into that energy point. A belief that raw energy without physical laws and constants can create a universe is nonsense approaching infinity(I know you haven't claimed that). Bottom botom line: Until we have any evidence as to what mechanisms or processes are involved, until we even have evidence that such mechanisms or processes are required we can say nothing about what is probable, what is improbable, what is inevitable and what is "nonsense" except by means of subjective speculation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024