Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: god/science

  1. #1 god/science 
    Forum Sophomore numb3rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    166
    i dont fully put my fath in eather science nor god but i think possobly the 2 are the same is it possable that god made life to evolve at its own pace? without the gidence of him. or he created the original atom that created the big bang. is it possable that science and god are about the same?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18
    I think God created science. He created the laws of physics, and every other scientific law in this universe. Science is used to explain HOW God has acheived something. IMO


    The religious vs science argument to me is silly. Science says the big bang, religion says God created it. Well, why didn't god create it with the big bang? It's not like things have to have no explanation to be attributed to God.

    Except for Islam, of course, which not only states that the universe started as a singularity before it exploded and the universe was created, but that the universe is expanding.

    Anyway, the point is, science and religion often complement eachother. I am expecting a hefty flaming.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    The laws of physics weren't created, they're a product of existence.

    If God created big bang, what created God?

    Religion tends to cloak the answer instead of answering the question, which is why science exists. No faith is needed in science as science is most often objective, explaining hypothesis' through facts, observations and experiments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Youssef
    Science is used to explain HOW God has acheived something. IMO
    maybe this is done in certain quarters of society, but i'd say that is a perversion of what science is about, which is to explain the world around us without reference to supernatural means, including god

    in western society, the role of science as somehow rubber-stamping the plans of god was abaondoned as unfeasible centuries ago
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    what created God?
    Its simple, himself.

    I see your still using a capital letter :-D.
    I DIDN'T GIVE GOD A CAPITAL HE!!!

    Himself. There you go.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    I'm not a religious person in any ways but if I were, in response to the question "Who created God?" I would reply with the following response:

    Why does God need to be created? I think you misinterpret what exactly God is. He is an entity of sorts that lives outside what we call time. God created time himself. If god lives outside time, why would he need to be created?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    what created God?
    Its simple, himself.

    I see your still using a capital letter :-D.
    I DIDN'T GIVE GOD A CAPITAL HE!!!

    Himself. There you go.
    I actually am more concerned with grammar than with how the word "God" should be written according to what I feel. God, being a name, should be written with a capital letter. But anyhow, your answer is indeed a non-answer, giving a somewhat fallacious and presumptious suggestion.

    I'll point that out in my response to the other post wich was:

    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Why does God need to be created? I think you misinterpret what exactly God is. He is an entity of sorts that lives outside what we call time. God created time himself. If god lives outside time, why would he need to be created?
    If he lives outside time he lives without time. If he's immaterial, then he's invisible and without any physical properties.

    Don't you see? This is the very definition of "nothing."

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.reference.com
    noth·ing [nuhth-ing] Pronunciation Key
    –noun 1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
    2. no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
    3. something that is nonexistent.
    4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
    5. something or someone of no importance or significance: Money is nothing when you're without health.
    6. a trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark: to exchange a few nothings when being introduced.
    7. a person of little or no importance; a nobody.
    8. something that is without quantity or magnitude.
    9. a cipher or naught: Nothing from nine leaves nine.
    10. (used in conventional responses to expressions of thanks): Think nothing of it. It's nothing. Nothing to it.
    God is complex, that's the main issue here. He can aquire data, intepret it etc... He has a consciousness. I think Daniel C. Dennet explains quite well what makes up our consciousness. It's a complex system of data being distributed around the brain. There are trillions of cells doing this, none of which are conscious, but who all contain data. (He probably explains it a lot better than me)...

    Anyhow... Moving on...

    Everything complex has an origin, or a cause. The conclusion is that God is a fallacy, or, like I showed, the definition of nothing...

    Addressing 425 Chaotic Requisition proposition that God created himself... Well, how did he create himself if I may ask? Do you have a theory or something? He created himself out of dark matter or something? Is that even feasible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    I'm not a religious person in any ways but if I were, in response to the question "Who created God?" I would reply with the following response:

    Why does God need to be created? I think you misinterpret what exactly God is. He is an entity of sorts that lives outside what we call time. God created time himself. If god lives outside time, why would he need to be created?
    Obviously Obviously is cracked.

    The universe is complex so it must have an origin, but it doesn't have an origin and so it is a fallacy or a definition of nothingness.



    How about a slight improvement:

    Everything in the universe has an explanation for this is the role of science to find such explanations but then why does the universe itself require no explanation? Is it because it is too big, too complex? Well if that is the case then if the universe it created by something bigger and even more complex then would that not that thing require an explanation even less? Perhaps a God who is infinitely complex and without any limits, would require no explanation at all. LOL


    Is it nothingness that requires no explantion? If we looked into another universe and saw that nothing was there, could we not ask, why is there nothing?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Obviously Obviously is cracked.

    The universe is complex so it must have an origin, but it doesn't have an origin and so it is a fallacy or a definition of nothingness.



    How about a slight improvement:

    Everything in the universe has an explanation for this is the role of science to find such explanations but then why does the universe itself require no explanation? Is it because it is too big, too complex? Well if that is the case then if the universe it created by something bigger and even more complex then would that not that thing require an explanation even less? Perhaps a God who is infinitely complex and without any limits, would require no explanation at all. LOL


    Is it nothingness that requires no explantion? If we looked into another universe and saw that nothing was there, could we not ask, why is there nothing?
    You missed a lot of my post... I would ask you to reread my post which you evidently misunderstood (perhaps on purpose just to provoke a flaming war or something, but how am I to tell) and respond afterwards, but instead I'll respond(/bite?).

    The universe began simple and evolved to the complex state it is in now. And the universe is material... so much for the definition of nothing...

    You have to had misunderstood on purpose, you couldn't possibly miss the fact that the universe is material, could you? :?

    I don't know what started the big bang, if it indeed needed to be "started." It's a common fallacy to assume "something must've come from nothing", but why couldn't it all just have been? Does nothing exist? Energy can't be created nor destroyed, surely that could've always existed?

    Anyhow, invoking God doesn't solve the puzzle, it just raises a million questions about God himself/herself/itself. I prefer to don't know than to think I do know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    You missed a lot of my post... I would ask you to reread my post which you evidently misunderstood (perhaps on purpose just to provoke a flaming war or something, but how am I to tell) and respond afterwards, but instead I'll respond(/bite?).
    No I didn't miss anything. I was just responding one particular part of your post to make a point. And yes I was posturing as I often do, not to start a flaming war (for I would quickly become concilliatory if that actually happened) but simply to make my points larger that life and thus easier to see.

    The significance you see in God being invisible and physical is unanswerable because it resolves on different fundamental premises. You presume that the physical is all there is and I do not. What more could be said on this matter.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    The universe began simple and evolved to the complex state it is in now. And the universe is material... so much for the definition of nothing...

    You have to had misunderstood on purpose, you couldn't possibly miss the fact that the universe is material, could you? :?
    Yes and ice is water, my desk is metal (mostly iron I think), and wood is a complex structure of carbohydrates (indigestible to humans). All things are made of that which makes them what they are. So God is not made of any of these things operate by the mathematical laws of physics, so what? God is spirit. You don't believe in spirit so you don't believe in God. Again I say, so what?



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I don't know what started the big bang, if it indeed needed to be "started." It's a common fallacy to assume "something must've come from nothing", but why couldn't it all just have been? Does nothing exist? Energy can't be created nor destroyed, surely that could've always existed?

    Anyhow, invoking God doesn't solve the puzzle, it just raises a million questions about God himself/herself/itself. I prefer to don't know than to think I do know.
    Exactly! My point is that the situation is exactly the same. God does indeed make no difference. For if you can say that God requires no explanation or cause then you can indeed say that the universe requires no explanation or cause. The same "flaw" is in both, and it is the assumption that everything must have a cause that is clearly wrong, for obviously something must not have an explanation or cause. If the theist can say it is God then the atheist can say it is the universe.

    Perhaps the theist like his idea of the first cause because he cannot see it and therefore can attribute all sorts of unlikely or even contradictory properties to it. Perhaps the atheist likes his idea of the first cause because he can see it, and therefore at least he knows it really exists. Are these not a simple extention of the twin approaches to understanding given by faith and skepticism?

    Both have there flaws and assumptions. Is it not all too likely that the real cause is in fact quite beyond our capacity to observe? Is it not all to likely that whatever attributes we can attribute to such a cause, that is beyond our observation, nothing more than imaginative speculation?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    67
    What's the difference between a spirit and a fanciful idea that exists only in your mind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    If he lives outside time he lives without time. If he's immaterial, then he's invisible and without any physical properties.

    Don't you see? This is the very definition of "nothing."
    That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are reading into soemthign which was never said and which was never implied. If God created time why would he live in what he created? For that matter why would he live in the universe if he was around before it was created? God is timeless and eternal. If god were real he would live in a completely different dimension than us. We'd be like a 2D drawing on a scrap of paper to him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore numb3rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    If he lives outside time he lives without time. If he's immaterial, then he's invisible and without any physical properties.

    Don't you see? This is the very definition of "nothing."
    That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are reading into soemthign which was never said and which was never implied. If God created time why would he live in what he created? For that matter why would he live in the universe if he was around before it was created? God is timeless and eternal. If god were real he would live in a completely different dimension than us. We'd be like a 2D drawing on a scrap of paper to him.
    ...i wonder what a 4d demetion looks like.


    4D cube???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Four dimensions are just two cubes, one ahead of another, but still joined.

    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71

    That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are reading into soemthign which was never said and which was never implied. If God created time why would he live in what he created? For that matter why would he live in the universe if he was around before it was created? God is timeless and eternal. If god were real he would live in a completely different dimension than us. We'd be like a 2D drawing on a scrap of paper to him.
    If God created time. . . If god were real . . . .yes, those are the big assumptions you make here. God- the assumption you must argue to establish before even thinking about giving characteristics like timelessness, or before giving Him (or her or whatever) a dwelling place (like the 42.34 dimension or what not).
    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Not sure why nobody jumped on this before.

    Obviously said:

    Energy can't be created nor destroyed
    What? Is Obviously still using a 1923 version of the laws of thermodynamics? Apparently.

    Is Obviously unfamiliar with the equation E=MC(squared)? Einstein just rolled over in his grave.

    Does Obviously know what happens in a thermonuclear explosion or a thermonuclear reaction? Obviously not.

    Great name to play with, by the way.

    The thing is, we can take matter and use it to create energy. So far, however, we have not been able to take energy and turn it into matter which seems to be what happened in the discussed Big Bang.

    Observationally, it appears we can undo what God has done, but we cannot do what God as done.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist

    That makes absolutely no sense at all. You are reading into soemthign which was never said and which was never implied. If God created time why would he live in what he created? For that matter why would he live in the universe if he was around before it was created? God is timeless and eternal. If god were real he would live in a completely different dimension than us. We'd be like a 2D drawing on a scrap of paper to him.
    If God created time. . . If god were real . . . .yes, those are the big assumptions you make here. God- the assumption you must argue to establish before even thinking about giving characteristics like timelessness, or before giving Him (or her or whatever) a dwelling place (like the 42.34 dimension or what not).
    I never stated that God is real. I am speaking from what I have heard coming from modern Christian religious belief. Modern Christian belief states that God created everything in our reality correct? If God created everything from our perspective then he could not live in what he created. Therefor since modern belief is that he created time then he can't live within time so he must be timeless. I believe time as we see it is merely our interpretation of those dimension which we can not see (which I have heard on other forums).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes and ice is water, my desk is metal (mostly iron I think), and wood is a complex structure of carbohydrates (indigestible to humans). All things are made of that which makes them what they are. So God is not made of any of these things operate by the mathematical laws of physics, so what? God is spirit. You don't believe in spirit so you don't believe in God. Again I say, so what?
    But what makes God conscious if not physical properties containing data etc? Consciousness isn't something that just is, it's a complex system. So perhaps God is made up of spirit particles? In which case, what are these particles, and why do they make up a conscious entity? Why do these particles exist? How do we explain the existence of these particles? Do they make up more? Do they act similar to our own physical particles? Perhaps Gods world is similar to ours and God evolved in his world?

    Everything has an explanation. Even though we don't know it.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Exactly! My point is that the situation is exactly the same. God does indeed make no difference. For if you can say that God requires no explanation or cause then you can indeed say that the universe requires no explanation or cause. The same "flaw" is in both, and it is the assumption that everything must have a cause that is clearly wrong, for obviously something must not have an explanation or cause. If the theist can say it is God then the atheist can say it is the universe.
    I wouldn't say the universe requires no explanation. If we are to explain the beginning, we must get rid of the cause. Just as Dennet explains that if we're to explain consciousness, we must get rid of the "me."

    Or maybe we don't have to exclude the cause, maybe the universe has been working in an infinite cycle like in the Ekpyrotic universe?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Perhaps the theist like his idea of the first cause because he cannot see it and therefore can attribute all sorts of unlikely or even contradictory properties to it. Perhaps the atheist likes his idea of the first cause because he can see it, and therefore at least he knows it really exists. Are these not a simple extention of the twin approaches to understanding given by faith and skepticism?
    It's interesting though. I would say that the theist likes his idea because it gives meaning, thus illusion of the will. He wants it to be true. The atheist likes his idea because it makes sense.

    This reminds me a bit of what Dan Dennett explained about magic tricks. He said that when a magic trick is performed, there's two kind of people (this is not what he said exacly, but still). The one man or woman will attempt to explain the magic trick, and the other man or woman would rather leave it a mystery. Whatever explanation there is for the magic trick, the answer will always be unsatisfactory for the one who wants it to stay a mystery. But for the other person the mystery provokes an explanation and he/she will attempt to solve it.

    On the one hand you have the one who wants to keep the mystery who will find whatever explanation for the mystery unsatisfactory, whilst on the other side you will have one that would find a reasonable explanation for the mystery satisfactory.

    It's interesting behavior, and it can be compared to the atheist/theist dilemma.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Both have there flaws and assumptions. Is it not all too likely that the real cause is in fact quite beyond our capacity to observe? Is it not all to likely that whatever attributes we can attribute to such a cause, that is beyond our observation, nothing more than imaginative speculation?
    Well, that might be true, but it is weird that God has to be a conscious unimaginable being. It's like the theist put God there just to have a mystery that can never be solved, perhaps that's a good thing for some people?

    Either way, I think the universe can be explained simple and without invoking God to the equation. These are one of the mysteries still being worked on. Like the magic trick, I would love to solve that mystery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Everything has an explanation. Even though we don't know it.
    Exactly. And you don't know how refreshing (from exhaustion) that view is to me, for I am really rather tired right now of the anti-science rhetoric called "Intellegent Design" which is basically trying to say that there is no explanation, while making the preposterous self-contradictory insane clame that THIS is a scientific theory! Aarrghgggttsdgtrrrggg!



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes and ice is water, my desk is metal (mostly iron I think), and wood is a complex structure of carbohydrates (indigestible to humans). All things are made of that which makes them what they are. So God is not made of any of these things operate by the mathematical laws of physics, so what? God is spirit. You don't believe in spirit so you don't believe in God. Again I say, so what?
    But what makes God conscious if not physical properties containing data etc? Consciousness isn't something that just is, it's a complex system.
    "What makes God conscious if not physical properties"??? What a towering bundle of presuppositions that is!!! Now I do happen to believe in a physical mind, but to most people your question would be extremely nonsensical. But you just happen to ask this of someone to whom this might make a tiny bit of sense. But even I would say that this is going way to far, for it is hardly an established fact that consciousness arises purely from physical properties - that is purely your own idea. Conscious is a very poorly understood phenomena and the subject of only wild speculation. Science is a process of objectification - removing the observer from the picture, which make it a very poor tool for studying the essense of the observer himself.

    HOWEVER, since you ARE talking to someone who believes in a physical mind, I can respond somewhat. First, consciousness is not just a complex system, it is a very particular process that occurs in complex system, and I believe that the general name for that process is life. It is just that in our typically anthropocentric manner we have to give our life (mental life) this special name of consciousness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    So perhaps God is made up of spirit particles? In which case, what are these particles, and why do they make up a conscious entity? Why do these particles exist? How do we explain the existence of these particles? Do they make up more? Do they act similar to our own physical particles? Perhaps Gods world is similar to ours and God evolved in his world?
    Absolutely not. The process theologians may go in such a philosophically bankrupt direction but I have nothing but contempt for this. This being based on inanimate particles interacting according to mathematical laws is precisely what distinguishes the physical from the spiritual. It is a bit like the words in the pages of a book, where a story is told by the arrangement of letters on the pages, these are but tokens representative of something. But it is foolish to think that what is represented is no more than the tokens themselves or that this content requires that representation for there are other languages and other mediums by which the same content can exist. The spiritual is most definitely not of a quantitative nature like the physical and definitely not governed by mathematical laws, but by laws or principles of a very very different nature. But again in this I am also somewhat in the minority because of my belief that there is a natural law of the spirit, not to mention my monistic metaphysics where I see the spiritual as simply a different form of the same universal substance - energy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I wouldn't say the universe requires no explanation. If we are to explain the beginning, we must get rid of the cause. Just as Dennet explains that if we're to explain consciousness, we must get rid of the "me."
    Now that is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard. You don't explain something by denying it, but by finding it. For example, GR explains gravity not by getting "rid of it" but by showing how it is essentially a geometric property of space-time itself. String theory explains all the different elementary particles not by saying they don't exist but by showing how these are all different vibrational modes of the same thing. It is a matter of opening a black box and seeing what is inside the box, what is there is what was always there. Answering questions does not make the questions disappear for the answers don't even make sense without the questions to give them meaning. GR only makes sense because you connect it with our very real experience of gravity. It is kind of like that ultimate answer of 42 in "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy", utter useless without the question it is the answer to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Or maybe we don't have to exclude the cause, maybe the universe has been working in an infinite cycle like in the Ekpyrotic universe?
    Maybe. But since that would not really explain anything you would still have a something without an explanation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Perhaps the theist like his idea of the first cause because he cannot see it and therefore can attribute all sorts of unlikely or even contradictory properties to it. Perhaps the atheist likes his idea of the first cause because he can see it, and therefore at least he knows it really exists. Are these not a simple extention of the twin approaches to understanding given by faith and skepticism?
    It's interesting though. I would say that the theist likes his idea because it gives meaning, thus illusion of the will. He wants it to be true. The atheist likes his idea because it makes sense.
    Yes and I can say that atheists are just stupid too, but I think that just saying those who think differently are stupid, is what is really stupid. The theist may indeed believe in meaning and will while the atheist does not, but the theist also like his idea because it makes sense to him just as the atheist likes his idea because it makes sense to him. Name calling is a childish substitute for an acceptance of the reality of the subjective nature of human thought.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    This reminds me a bit of what Dan Dennett explained about magic tricks. He said that when a magic trick is performed, there's two kind of people (this is not what he said exacly, but still). The one man or woman will attempt to explain the magic trick, and the other man or woman would rather leave it a mystery. Whatever explanation there is for the magic trick, the answer will always be unsatisfactory for the one who wants it to stay a mystery. But for the other person the mystery provokes an explanation and he/she will attempt to solve it.
    Interesting analogy, so let me work with that. I say there is a third category, represented by the person who knows how it is done but still appreciates the art of it anyway, and instead of calling the magician a fraud and a liar, still applauds with rest of the crowd. In fact this points to a similarity between the blind theist and the hostile atheist in that both foolishly think that it is supposed to be unexplainable - almost as if both still believe in magic. I think this analogy reveals that there is a clear progression of maturity in this and it doesn't stop with the person calling the magician a fraud and a liar.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Either way, I think the universe can be explained simple and without invoking God to the equation. These are one of the mysteries still being worked on. Like the magic trick, I would love to solve that mystery.
    Such is the natural presupposition of any scientist, for the problem with God as an explantion is that it is all too easy and useless for anything but another reason thank God and praise him. Some of us have no desire to return to the dark ages when that is practically all that people did do. So we will continue with the scientific task of explaining things in terms of smaller mysteries instead of by using this one biggest mystery of them all. For mathematical equations and laws we can predict, but this infinite God and these supernatural miracles we cannot.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore numb3rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    166
    you all have way to much to say
    im glad i have a small mind and only post small posts that get right to the point. :?
    my grammer is not to be made fun of
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by numb3rs
    you all have way to much to say
    im glad i have a small mind and only post small posts that get right to the point. :?
    We're discussing a variety of points on a difficult matter. The posts are bound to be long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Some people enjoy debating. Its their hobby.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Absolutely not. The process theologians may go in such a philosophically bankrupt direction but I have nothing but contempt for this. This being based on inanimate particles interacting according to mathematical laws is precisely what distinguishes the physical from the spiritual. It is a bit like the words in the pages of a book, where a story is told by the arrangement of letters on the pages, these are but tokens representative of something. But it is foolish to think that what is represented is no more than the tokens themselves or that this content requires that representation for there are other languages and other mediums by which the same content can exist. The spiritual is most definitely not of a quantitative nature like the physical and definitely not governed by mathematical laws, but by laws or principles of a very very different nature. But again in this I am also somewhat in the minority because of my belief that there is a natural law of the spirit, not to mention my monistic metaphysics where I see the spiritual as simply a different form of the same universal substance - energy.
    I'd say you're defending my statement that the spiritual might be similar to our world (in the sense of particle interactions etc), it's just in another "lanuage." Wait, did that make sense at all? :? Maybe not, but we already have matter and anti-matter, symmetry if you will. What is the spiritual supposed to be? The opposite of existence? Isn't that non-existence? So how does non-existence exist? :? I'm probably confusing myself...

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Now that is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard. You don't explain something by denying it, but by finding it. For example, GR explains gravity not by getting "rid of it" ... ...
    I think you misunderstood, besides, the GR analogy didn't make much sense to me. You don't deny the first cause, you eliminate it by explaining it through a vareity of things, like with consciousness. Perhaps that's a good approach, perhaps not. It might be worth trying though.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Maybe. But since that would not really explain anything you would still have a something without an explanation.
    I like the solution of the Ekpyrotic universe because it doesn't assume existence to come from non-existence, it presume that existence/universe goes through an infinite cycle, which is not a bad idea. Why couldn't existence always exist? Maybe it's too simple, I dunno.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Yes and I can say that atheists are just stupid too, but I think that just saying those who think differently are stupid, is what is really stupid. The theist may indeed believe in meaning and will while the atheist does not, but the theist also like his idea because it makes sense to him just as the atheist likes his idea because it makes sense to him. Name calling is a childish substitute for an acceptance of the reality of the subjective nature of human thought.
    It wasn't my intention to say theists are stupid, only more subjective than objective. Subjectivity isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Interesting analogy, so let me work with that. I say there is a third category, represented by the person who knows how it is done but still appreciates the art of it anyway, and instead of calling the magician a fraud and a liar, still applauds with rest of the crowd. In fact this points to a similarity between the blind theist and the hostile atheist in that both foolishly think that it is supposed to be unexplainable - almost as if both still believe in magic. I think this analogy reveals that there is a clear progression of maturity in this and it doesn't stop with the person calling the magician a fraud and a liar.
    Ah, but I didn't say that solving the riddle makes it unsatisfactory, even when solved the one who would rather solve the puzzle might still watch in amazement as the trick is done. There is skill needed in doing magic tricks. And I wouldn't say that the atheist would find it unexplainable, he believes there is an explanation and attempts to find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Such is the natural presupposition of any scientist, for the problem with God as an explantion is that it is all too easy and useless for anything but another reason thank God and praise him. Some of us have no desire to return to the dark ages when that is practically all that people did do. So we will continue with the scientific task of explaining things in terms of smaller mysteries instead of by using this one biggest mystery of them all. For mathematical equations and laws we can predict, but this infinite God and these supernatural miracles we cannot.
    So is the concept of God only there for humility? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or both? If we assume we can't explain something just for the humility, isn't it a little self-defeating? Aren't we saying, "we don't know, therefore we shouldn't try and find out"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Just as a matter of clarification on this discussion.

    It seems to me that Mitchell and Obviously are bordering on doing one of two things.

    a. There is an attempt to try to deny the potential existence of an alternate infinite world, or:

    b. There is an attempt to try to describe and define a possible infinite existence in terms of our finite time-space continuum.

    I have no strong concept of an infinite existence other than to feel it must be different than in our finite sytem. If it is not constrained by time or space, I see no reason to assume it is subject to any of the other physical laws of our universe.

    If we know only one thing about eternity, it is that time does not exist in that environment.

    It would seem to me that time is sort of an expression of the relationship between energy and matter. That is, we express universal time (vis a vis earthly time) by how long it takes light (energy) to go from one point to another with those points basically established by the source of the light and a specific piece of matter some distance away. We then turn around and express that distance in terms of that time. A is so and so many light years away from B.

    If eternity has both energy and matter, then it would also, necessarily, have time. Thus, I suggest that eternity could be missing either energy or matter or both. My feeling is that if only one exists in infinity, it would more likely be energy.

    In our finite world, consciousness (thought) is the result of energy impulses communicating via physical routes in specific patterns. It could be in an infinite world the energy impulses do not require a physical path in order to communicate.

    On the other hand, I could be a total crackpot.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    I'd say you're defending my statement that the spiritual might be similar to our world (in the sense of particle interactions etc), it's just in another "lanuage." Wait, did that make sense at all? :? Maybe not, but we already have matter and anti-matter, symmetry if you will. What is the spiritual supposed to be? The opposite of existence? Isn't that non-existence? So how does non-existence exist? :? I'm probably confusing myself...
    Well there is the question of similar in what way? I believe I said that I am a metaphysical monist. John Polkinghorne, a quantum physicist who became an Anglican priest, is also a metaphysical monist though from that comonality our views greatly diverge (I also agree with his position of critical realism). In any case, what this means is that we both consider all of reality to be made of the same basic stuff, but unlike JP I actually call that stuff, energy. Everything consists of different form of energy.

    But this reductionist analysis of looking at constituent parts to see what things are made of, by going to molecules then to atoms then to particles and then to energy, is only half the picture, even when just looking at the physical aspecit of reality. for there is also an analysis in the opposite direction of looking at the laws that bind things together in relationships to a greater whole. And the trend of modern science has been more and more to see these binding relationship between physical thing in geometric terms. Thus we find that all physical things are bound together into a single whole by a web of mathematical relationships that most probably can ultimately be represented by the geometric structure of an 11 dimensional space-time.

    The question is no whether this all there is and this is where the atheist or naturalist will part ways from those believe that there is another aspect to existence as well. The dualist think that there is a whole other aspect of reality of an entirely different nature and substance which they think is related to our mental experiences. Polkinghorne looks for this other aspect of reality in the informational conent and relationship between things (I can't explain this too well because it doesn't really make sense to me). I take a sort of intermediate view, that there is another form of energy other than the physical which is not quantitative in nature and is not a part of this web of mathematical relationships of space-time. Nevertheless it interacts with the physical through very small gaps that are inherent in the mathematical laws themselves, represented by the uncertainty principle.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Now that is the biggest bunch of baloney I have ever heard. You don't explain something by denying it, but by finding it. For example, GR explains gravity not by getting "rid of it" ... ...
    I think you misunderstood, besides, the GR analogy didn't make much sense to me. You don't deny the first cause, you eliminate it by explaining it through a vareity of things, like with consciousness. Perhaps that's a good approach, perhaps not. It might be worth trying though.
    You show me how a concrete physical thing is made to disappear by an explanation of it, or give some example of this explanatory process, because as you are explaining it, it still sounds completely nonsensical.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Maybe. But since that would not really explain anything you would still have a something without an explanation.
    I like the solution of the Ekpyrotic universe because it doesn't assume existence to come from non-existence, it presume that existence/universe goes through an infinite cycle, which is not a bad idea. Why couldn't existence always exist? Maybe it's too simple, I dunno.
    Yes the steady state universe was the preference of scientists until this was shown to be incorrect. Now measurement of the accelerating expansion of the universe shows the cyclical model to be likewise incorrect. It is now pretty clear that the future of our universe is a cold death in thermodynamic dissipation. So I am afraid that the beginning of the universe is a reality that cannot be escaped - and the only question is, "beginning from what?" We can speculate as to the nature of this origin and some have proposed the existence of a quantum foam as being responsible, but since this "foam" is outside our space-time relationships, it is thus outside of any physics we know or can in any way substantiate, and thus this sort of speculation loses all of its advantages over religion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    It wasn't my intention to say theists are stupid, only more subjective than objective. Subjectivity isn't necessarily a bad thing.
    I will not argue with that.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Ah, but I didn't say that solving the riddle makes it unsatisfactory, even when solved the one who would rather solve the puzzle might still watch in amazement as the trick is done. There is skill needed in doing magic tricks. And I wouldn't say that the atheist would find it unexplainable, he believes there is an explanation and attempts to find it.
    Yes of course. But your the one suggesting this is an analogy. And the truth is that those who seek explantions for the world in real life are not the atheists but the scientists (which do in fact come in both atheist and theist varieties). So the difference is that while the theistic scientist looks at the beauty and complexity of these explanations as evidence of skill and artistry of someone to praise, the atheist only sees these explanations only as a reason for bringing an accusation of fraud.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Such is the natural presupposition of any scientist, for the problem with God as an explantion is that it is all too easy and useless for anything but another reason thank God and praise him. Some of us have no desire to return to the dark ages when that is practically all that people did do. So we will continue with the scientific task of explaining things in terms of smaller mysteries instead of by using this one biggest mystery of them all. For mathematical equations and laws we can predict, but this infinite God and these supernatural miracles we cannot.
    So is the concept of God only there for humility? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or both? If we assume we can't explain something just for the humility, isn't it a little self-defeating? Aren't we saying, "we don't know, therefore we shouldn't try and find out"?
    Well I certainly said no such thing, although that is apparently one of the many roles that God does indeed play in the lives of the religious.



    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    If we assume we can't explain something just for the humility, isn't it a little self-defeating? Aren't we saying, "we don't know, therefore we shouldn't try and find out"?
    It most certainly is and that is why ID can never be accept as legitimate science. But frankly I don't know who is more arrogant, the person who says they can describe and explain the things that they can "see" (in the broadest scientific sense of that word), or the person who says they can describe and explain things that they cannot "see".
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You show me how a concrete physical thing is made to disappear by an explanation of it, or give some example of this explanatory process, because as you are explaining it, it still sounds completely nonsensical.
    I'm not suggesting eliminating anything physical, only the first cause. Why is a first cause needed? Maybe we can explain the first cause through a number of things?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    You show me how a concrete physical thing is made to disappear by an explanation of it, or give some example of this explanatory process, because as you are explaining it, it still sounds completely nonsensical.
    I'm not suggesting eliminating anything physical, only the first cause. Why is a first cause needed? Maybe we can explain the first cause through a number of things?
    This is not making sense to me because it seems rather clear that either everything has a cause or not everything has a cause. If everything has a cause then things are ultimately unexplainable because every explanation will be incomplete. Even if we imagine some repeating cycle of causes, we will be without any explanation for why there is such a repeating cycle.

    If not everything has a cause then there are first causes because that is the definition of a first cause - something which has no cause. You were in fact suggesting that the first cause was some kind of cyclical universe, because you were basically saying that this cyclical universe is the explanation of everything but that the cyclical universe itself required no explanation or cause. Or you could say it is the cause of itself - or self existing, which is also how theologians describe God. In any case, I was saying that whatever the cause of this universe (that we can see) might be, whether an intellegent being or previous cycles of a cyclical universe, because these are in fact outside the limits of our own space time relationships, this cause for our universe is outside what we can scientifically observe or explain, and thus any description of it must be considered the most fanciful sort of speculation.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •