|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3862 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
dt writes: Is it possible for science to say anything about the supernatural or God? Science investigates that which can be detected. Science is a method for investigation. If supernatural entities can be detected then we can apply the methods of science to investigate them. If such entities cannot be detected then, whether they actually exist or not, any claims to have expererienced such entities tell us more about the internal workings of the claimants mind than they do any aspect of reality external to that mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
If you are going to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural by observing reality you need to be able to distinguish between a universe where there is no supernatural involvement and one where there is.
What would the universe look like without any supernatural involvement?What would the universe look like with supernatural involvement included? How have you come to these conclusions? DT writes: Science has detected both dark matter and dark energy. We believe they exist because we can see their effects. Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We infer their existence of dark matter because our theory of gravtitation, which we know is able to make accurate predictions regarding gravitational phenonema , suggests that there is considerably more mass in the universe than so far directly observed. What similarly compelling (i.e. able to make testable predictions) theoretical basis can be utilised in order to infer or deduce the existence of the supernatural?
DT writes: What do you think? I think your claims rely on the rather debateable premise that the observable universe is so ordered/impressive/wondrous/whatever that it must have been created by some sort of super-being. I also think it worth noting that humanity has a rather dismal record of erroneously invoking gods as necessary causal agents for phenomenon deemed wondrous and impressive. But I, like everyone else here, am still waiting for this evidence you keep promsing us.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You seem very confused about the use of the term "fictional" (or more commonly "fictitious") as used to describe perceived forces in physics.
Centrifugal forces are most commonly described as "fictitious". This is the sort of thing one learns about at school level physics. According to GR gravity is a similarly fictitious force.
quote: Wiki on fictitious forces So clearly the term "fictional" here is not being used in the way you are assuming it is. Nobody is suggesting that gravitational effects and phenomena don't exist.
DT writes: I cannot begin to tell you what a bad book Stenger has written. I haven't read it yet so I don't know. But I think you have demonstrated your own inability to judge the technical content of this popular science book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
JBR writes: Look, my skepticism to whether or not they occur everywhere all the time is inconsequential to the paramount problem of quantum fluctuations only being observed taking place within the parameters of this universe’s already existing time and space. Well it would be quite an achievement for us to observe something outisde of time and space........ But the fact remains that quantum fluctuation have been observed whilst creator gods haven't. 1 - 0 to the fluctuations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
The obvious disparity here is that quantum field theory is one of the most successful scientific theories ever devised. It has demonstrated itself able to make predictions which have led to new discoveries. The ability of QFT to accurately predict experimental results has been described as comparable to determining the distance from Boston to Pasadena to within the thickness of a human hair.
What has your "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of? If the answer to that is "nothing" why do you think we should even put the two things in the same ballpark of credence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Would you agree that a theory which results in verifiable predictions and discoveries is superior to a theory which effectively just says "I can explain this by invoking magic"...?
Isn't that what is happening here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I could make numerous objections to your post but I'll restrict myself to one.
GDR writes: Which is more plausible - is intelligence the result of the chance coming together of mindless, non or uni-dimensional particles or is it the result of an intelligent first cause. Saying that the cause of intelligence is an existing intelligence doesn't make sense does it? If intelligence already exists then it is not and cannot be the cause of intelligence. So the question becomes thus - Do complex things like intelligence evolve from simple beginnings or do they just come/exist from nothing prior? All the evidence suggests the former.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No matter how you phrase it - To claim that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence is obviously silly.
Either intelligence requires an intelligent creator, in which case it's turtles all the way down, OR intelligence doesn't require an intelligent creator - In which case you don't really have an argument.
GDR writes: It seems that our current understanding of the laws of physics indicate that theoretically it should be possible to exist by either going forward or back in time. You really need to read up on the role of entropy in the arrow of time.
GDR writes: This alone would allow for an infinite existence. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite existence"...?
GDR writes: We can't talk about an intelligence that already exists in our own time line as it has been repeatedly pointed out the idea of time prior to T=0 is meaningless. However if we are an emergent property of an eternal intelligence... First you talk about an infinite existence based on backwards and forwards in our "time line" (to use your phrase) and then say that this creator intelligence doesn't exist in our "time line" and is instead "eternal". This seems contradictory.
GDR writes: ...than it is fits. Fits what? Without wanting to be rude the only thing it seems to fit is some rather confused and contradictory assumptions.
Straggler writes: So the question becomes thus - Do complex things like intelligence evolve from simple beginnings or do they just come/exist from nothing prior? All the evidence suggests the former....... GDR writes: If you believe the former then you are saying that the evolution from having nothing but fundamental particles to intelligent life is simple. I'm saying, for example, that a single celled zygote which grows into an embryo which grows into a fetus which grows into a baby which grows into a conscious, inventive, opinionated and intelligent adult human being is an observed instance of simple -> complex. I'm saying that a similar simple -> complex evolutionary process accounts for the origin of intelligence in living organisms (e.g. humans). And ultimately I am saying that (to use your phrase) "fundamental particles to intelligent life" is similarly simple -> complex process in a way that.......
TADAAAA - I'm a super unimaginable-to-your-puny-human-mind intelligence and I just exist ....is not. So I'm saying the simple -> complex position is evidenced in a way that the TADAAAA position isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
JBR writes: I thought we were discussing the theory that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation? We are. See Message 402 and Message 394 JBR writes: If you want to talk merits of belief in a supreme being verses merits of QFT.. Well as competing theories of creation one is evidenced by a theory that has proven it's worth in terms of making accurate and reliable predictions. And the other isn't. So (to put it mildly) one of the possibilities under consideration can be considered superior to the other.
JBR writes: ...then lets talk virtually every university, educational system, hospital, and charity organization, being birthed from belief in God. Whether true or not what does that have to do with quantum fluctuations in a thread titled - "can science say anything about a creator god?".
JBR writes: But I know, that's a whole nother thread. Because none of the things you list have anything to do with either scientific or god based modes of "creation".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So where exactly are you suggesting this godly intelligence exists? Within the (backwards and forwards) time of our universe that began at T=0?
Did god begin at T=0 too......?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Is it still your contention that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence?
Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not? You spoke at some length (quite possibly wrongly - but that is by the by) about the time reversible nature of our universe - Unless you are suggesting this intelligent creator exists within the time component of our universe (which began at T=0) what relevance does this have? Now you seem to be suggesting to Percy that this intelligent creator exists in an alternate physical universe. But what are you suggesting created the alternate universe in which this intelligence resides? I still don't get where exactly you are suggesting this entity exists - Can you clarify? At the moment it sounds like a god of the gaps where even the gaps are ambiguous......
GDR writes: If we are actually part of a greater reality that is all around us, but not perceivable to us, then at this point in our understanding of things we have no knowledge of the dimensions of space and time that might be possible in the greater reality from which we are split off. When we talk about extra dimensions within our universe (string theory and suchlike) we are talking about spatial dimensions which didn't expand in the Big Bang. Are you suggesting god dwells there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So we have an uncreated intelligence which exists in time in an uncreated universe which has a time dimension with no T=0.
Is this correct?
Straggler writes: Does intelligence require an intelligent creator? Or not? GDR writes: In our universe yes. Why the qualification of "our universe"?
GDR writes: It does seem to me that as science uncovers the mysteries of the universe it keeps finding that the universe is more mysterious than ever. GDR writes: It isn't a god of the gaps as there isn't a gap to fill. Mystery. Gap. Tomato. Tomahto.
GDR writes: Well science seems to talk about parallel universes, multi-universes etc. Science seems to agree that there is a great deal that we aren't able to perceive. That is different to saying that it is inherently empirically imperceptible. If we are going off into wild speculation then there is nothing in the laws of physics which prohibits the creation of wormholes or blackholes as bridges between universes in a multiverse. If this is the case and we combine it with your suggestion then meeting god (or establishing his existence) would be a matter of engineering and technology (type 3 civilisation) rather than spirituality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: You can call him an alien if you like but that wouldn’t change anything. The distinction I am making is between a being that is bound by the natural laws of the physical universe in which it exists and a being that is unbounded by any such natural laws. A being that is bound by the natural laws of the universe in which it resides is no more supernatural or godly than you or I. It might be more technologically advanced. But it isn't 'supernatural' and it isn't 'god' if it is constrained by natural laws is it?
GDR writes: I’m only saying that the Christian understanding of things is largely congruent with current scientific thinking. I don't think Christian understanding of things involves worshiping beings who are no more or less bound by natural physical laws than we are. Albeit different natural laws in a different physical universe.
GDR writes: All we know is that our universes has a set of laws which keeps things going. And you have postulated an alternate universe with different laws in which this intelligent being of yours resides.
Straggler writes: Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not? GDR writes: If my speculation is anywhere near correct then that question is meaningless. Why is it meaningless?
GDR writes: All of this goes beyond anything that we currently understand, and quite likely ever will be able to understand while living in this universe. Maybe in the dim and distant future traversing between universes in a multiverse will be commonplace. Similarly creating 'baby universes' may be a possibility. Maybe even creating life..... Check out this link:
The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a wormhole into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here’s how to do it If we as a species should ever achieve such things our 'creations' may mistakenly deem us to be gods. But we would know better.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024