First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Does science/logic have a place in religion?
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
@ Mauz...It will take a lot more than challenging my beliefs to offend me. I made the statement I did because we were getting off topic, and I didn't want a mod to slap me on the hand (irony intended), and also because we can run around this debate until the world ends, and never see eye to eye.

@ Seraph: You asked (in your second post) "Is God a scientific entity Himself, or did he create science?" I answered with "both", and we were off and running.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


@seraph: Also, God is the creator of science? come on. Science is a human tool to further understanding of reality. And if you are going to reply with the redundancy of 'well god created everything so there fore science was created by it too' then don't mind answering.


Where the heck did I say God created science? O_O I don’t recall having said that at all.




Whatever the case, I agree very much with you. So, let me ask you-Do you feel God is a scientific entity himself, or just the creator of science? Do you feel science really is a method for which to understand God-or, do you think we’re using intellect where wisdom should be employed?

I dont like when people say 'A scientific world'

Reality is out there and science is the map to it. So I would never say we live in a cartographic world for example.
Saying scientific world is just referring to only a part of it.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/08

mauz15 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


@seraph: Also, God is the creator of science? come on. Science is a human tool to further understanding of reality. And if you are going to reply with the redundancy of 'well god created everything so there fore science was created by it too' then don't mind answering.


Where the heck did I say God created science? O_O I don’t recall having said that at all.




Whatever the case, I agree very much with you. So, let me ask you-Do you feel God is a scientific entity himself, or just the creator of science? Do you feel science really is a method for which to understand God-or, do you think we’re using intellect where wisdom should be employed?

I dont like when people say 'A scientific world'

Reality is out there and science is the map to it. So I would never say we live in a cartographic world for example.
Saying scientific world is just referring to only a part of it.


Well, a lot of people hate to hear, “a scientific world.” Science is a logical foundation, and logic is black and white. The real world, however, seems to have a wide spectrum of colors. Most people say that it’s “gray,” but I disagree. I don’t think it’s black, white, or gray. I think it’s a wide array of many colors, I believe God is a creative entity.

So, scientific world can be deceiving. The same thing can be applied to speaking about God. God -is- a scientific entity, in my belief, and yet he is not.

At least not in our since of the word. The highest level of our science is physics, most notably theoretical and theological physics. However, we cannot tangible comprehend, explain, or study the non-physical. Take, for example, thoughts.

We can study thoughts-but we can only study them according to their relationship with the physical. In the same light I believe we can use the physical universe’s relationship to God to induce God’s relationship with the physical universe-understanding at least an aspect of him.

Do I think we can really completely comprehend God? In the same nature that two blind men can comprehend sight. We can be aware of “what” god is, but we can’t understand the nature of that thing. Two people born blind can come together and start talking about sight. “Well, it’s the bouncing of light from one object to another,” but try as they might they cannot grasp this.

I’ll use my favorite example. You’ve probably heard me say this a hundred times in the past. I use it a lot. An electron spins around twice before it presents the same face a second time. Using mathematical measurements we can prove this-and thus know it’s true-but we can’t comprehend it.

I personally theorize that this is our limit-we can know something without understanding it. We can know God without understanding him.

I believe that God exists as a logical entity through which all things are “scientifically” possible in that I believe he exists on a “supper naturally natural” plain of existence. The same level as your thoughts exist on, outside of space and outside of time. Because he exists on a level higher than any other…anything, he can do everything, because he is the highest level.

You understand? I don’t believe God just exists because he exists. The laws of physics show us that the physical cannot spontaneously exist. The laws of physics have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe cannot have created itself.

People deny this out of desperation. They come up with complex theories so they don’t have to admit the “supper natural,” because the term is a taboo. We create unnecessary complexities to avoid obvious but uncomfortable simplicities.

I’m not calling this proof of God. I saying that in order for the physical-based on its own laws to exist, it must have had something on the next level to have spawned it.

See, physical laws state that nothing can be created from nothing. So, something above physical laws must exist before the physical can be created to exist. This is the level on which I believe God exists.

So, God is a scientific entity on a science that is not of man. I also believe that math, science, and logic are amongst the many colors with which God painted existence.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/24/08

I’m not calling this proof of God. I saying that in order for the physical-based on its own laws to exist, it must have had something on the next level to have spawned it.
The physical universe in it's current form was spawned by the big bang. What caused the big bang has yet to be established. Establish why say a highly advanced civilization in another reality could not be the cause of it, or a singularity, or the actions of a independent quantum computer, or the collision of two branes. There are a host of things which may have spawned the physical universe in it's present form. I want to see empirical evidence that something supernatural had to have been the cause if you don't mind. Calling super string theory, and a host of other branches of theoretical physics attempts to avoid the super natural is HIGHLY presumptuous of you. I really can not believe you would post that to be honest, as it is an insult to many brilliant men. Do not be offended but you seriously need to check your ego. I do not mean to offend you.

Second the laws of the universe state energy can not be created or destroyed. We can not know for certain if
1. God created energy or
2. Energy has always existed.
It is nonsense to say that the fact that energy can not be created or destroyed is evidence for a god, as Occams razor must guide our thinking. Without evidence of god he is an unneeded complication, which we can dismiss as energy has always existed in some form is far more logical an answer than a being we have never observed created it.

Without empirical evidence you present yourself with a serious problem when you speak of god as a being outside of logic. If you have no real evidence for the existence of god (and unless you empirically demonstrate that god is a more likely an explanation than those presented above for the formation of the current universe it does not count) then you must become an agnostic. Why? There can no logical reason to believe in him.

I contend that if someone could figure out that god existed using a priori reasoning, then god must be a logical being, or else how could he have ever used logic to determine god existed? So if god is beyond logic then we have to be agnostic since there is no a posteriori reasoning he can use, as he has never experienced god through observation of the universe.

I will use our argument from free will as an example. If you tried to say god could give us free will in a non logicalk fashion than I would answer you with this:

a priori: "what comes before"
a posteriori: "what comes after"

If something is needed before a conclusion can be made, it would fall under a priori. If it's the conclusion that's found it's a posteriori. In this case, logic is a priori while free will would be the a posteriori topic being concluded. One cannot conclude the state of free will while invoking a source that's unbound from the logic to make it so.

God has to be bound by logic, if we want to believe in him for logical reasons. You can not conclude by invoking a source not bound by logic. So logical proofs against the omniscience, omnipotenc, and yes existence of the Christian god are all logically valid. You can not get out of any logical problem by saying "god is not bound by logic".

Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/24/08
I also want to address some more things on the subject of god and logic. Logic is not something god used to paint the universe into existence. Logic merely preserves truth values through a chain of reasoning. To say that logic is truth is similar to saying that a car is a journey. It is what we use to make valid statements based on premises about the universe or things we imagine.

First I do not think using the way that an electron behaves from the standpoint of math matter when compared to the problems this creates for us logically really matters. The situation is different for logic and arithmetic.

For logic (1st order predicate calculus), Gödel's Completeness theorem assures a recursive set of axioms from which all logical truths (tautologies) follow.

Of course, his Incompleteness theorem says that the analogon does not exist for arithmetic.



Time and again I am faced with the assertion by Christians that the supernatural is beyond science and/or beyond investigation.


To me this sets up a paradox: one is making a positive statement about something (the supernatural). In order to make rational positive statements about something one needs to be able to know something about it. The claim is that one cannot know anything about the supernatural because it is beyond investigation, and yet this is a positive statement which requires evidential support borne of investigation.

To me it is like saying "I've climbed that mountain to the summit, and found that there was no way to the top."
Is this (my interpretation) nonsense, or is it in fact the position of the Christians which is nonsensical?



If you way the universe began at the big bang and was made you may have this problem depending on how you define god :
The Impossible Intelligent Creator
1. Everything God does or does not do is volitional and expresses his desires.
2. At some point outside of time, God existed without a universe.
3. From (1) and (2): God desired to exist without a universe.
4. God does not change.
5. God could not change from a point of wanting to exist without a universe to a point of wanting to exist with one (nb - we live in a reality where it is possible to change our desires so this also disproves God's omnipotence).
4. God could not have created the universe.

If God's desires do not change and he was responsible for our universe (wants it to exist alongside him) then we would expect the universe to be co-eternal with God.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
*Grunt* I’m not even going to bother to address this.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08
^^^^ Alright then see if you would like to bother with this argument.

Let us turn to start with to David Hume, and his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Hume, or his character Cleanthes, puts the argument like this:


“I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.”


The argument in this passage, formalised, goes something like this:
(1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.
(2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.
(2) Everything can be conceived not to exist.
Therefore:
(3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.

To find out whether a statement can be proved a priori, we try to imagine that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we are unable imagine the statement being false, then we may infer that the statement is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility. What is impossible involves a contradiction, and what involves a contradiction is inconceivable, so what is impossible is inconceivable.


To find out whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we must try to imagine that he does not exist. As we are able to do so, his non-existence is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori proof of his existence is possible.

So in conclusion your belief in god is utterly illogical, since you have no empirical data to support it, and you can not prove it a priori.
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/26/08

YouAreDumb wrote:

I also want to address some more things on the subject of god and logic. Logic is not something god used to paint the universe into existence. Logic merely preserves truth values through a chain of reasoning. To say that logic is truth is similar to saying that a car is a journey. It is what we use to make valid statements based on premises about the universe or things we imagine.

First I do not think using the way that an electron behaves from the standpoint of math matter when compared to the problems this creates for us logically really matters. The situation is different for logic and arithmetic.

For logic (1st order predicate calculus), Gödel's Completeness theorem assures a recursive set of axioms from which all logical truths (tautologies) follow.

Of course, his Incompleteness theorem says that the analogon does not exist for arithmetic.



Time and again I am faced with the assertion by Christians that the supernatural is beyond science and/or beyond investigation.


To me this sets up a paradox: one is making a positive statement about something (the supernatural). In order to make rational positive statements about something one needs to be able to know something about it. The claim is that one cannot know anything about the supernatural because it is beyond investigation, and yet this is a positive statement which requires evidential support borne of investigation.

To me it is like saying "I've climbed that mountain to the summit, and found that there was no way to the top."
Is this (my interpretation) nonsense, or is it in fact the position of the Christians which is nonsensical?



If you way the universe began at the big bang and was made you may have this problem depending on how you define god :
The Impossible Intelligent Creator
1. Everything God does or does not do is volitional and expresses his desires.
2. At some point outside of time, God existed without a universe.
3. From (1) and (2): God desired to exist without a universe.
4. God does not change.
5. God could not change from a point of wanting to exist without a universe to a point of wanting to exist with one (nb - we live in a reality where it is possible to change our desires so this also disproves God's omnipotence).
4. God could not have created the universe.

If God's desires do not change and he was responsible for our universe (wants it to exist alongside him) then we would expect the universe to be co-eternal with God.


I once had a math teacher prove through mathematics that 1+1 did not equal 2. (don't ask...it was about 25 years ago, and I didn't really understand it then.) My point is that using converse logic and calculation can prove anything you want it to...that doesn't mean it's right. I have already mentioned that when dealing with religion, logic does not always enter into the equation. I would remind you that the topic here is not "does God exist?" but "should science and God go together?". Getting down to the basics of the first post...it should be a "yes/no" opinion question. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and we are all entitled to share/support our opinion. BUT...if you pull out your text book, then we (the Religious who answer "yes") should be allowed to pull our OUR text books as well. You give me authors whose writings you believe are true, and expect me to believe them. I should be allowed the same courtesy...I should be allowed to present MY authors, and expect you to believe them. Philosphers are every bit as unreliable and fallable to ME as the prophets are to you, and you cannot expect me to blindly accept their writings, without reciprocating.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08

kimmm6 wrote:

[

I once had a math teacher prove through mathematics that 1+1 did not equal 2. (don't ask...it was about 25 years ago, and I didn't really understand it then.)
Them why should I give it any credence?




My point is that using converse logic and calculation can prove anything you want it to...that doesn't mean it's right.
No it can prove very few things if you mean a priori logic, as I demonstrated in my second post. As for empirical observation it is the only way of proving most things exist, and we must use it to function in the world.




I have already mentioned that when dealing with religion, logic does not always enter into the equation.
Thats fine if you are going to admit that faith it not rational. If you claim it is, then you open it to logical, and scientific attacks. If people want to go on what they feel to be right they can, but I prefer reason, and will not allow it to be misrepresented if I in my limited way can stop it.



I would remind you that the topic here is not "does God exist?" but "should science and God go together?". Getting down to the basics of the first post...it should be a "yes/no" opinion question.
It is also I believe about logic, but regardless my posts are in essence an answer to that question, though they are not just a yes or no. My answer I suppose is a firm "no", as I think belief in god is not logical, or scientific. I was trying to give my opinion.


I am also of the opinion that yes or no questions usually require elaboration to have any relevance to anything whatsoever.



We are all entitled to our own opinion, and we are all entitled to share/support our opinion. BUT...if you pull out your text book, then we (the Religious who answer "yes") should be allowed to pull our OUR text books as well. You give me authors whose writings you believe are true, and expect me to believe them. I should be allowed the same courtesy...I should be allowed to present MY authors, and expect you to believe them. Philosphers are every bit as unreliable and fallable to ME as the prophets are to you, and you cannot expect me to blindly accept their writings, without reciprocating.
I do not ask for blind acceptance. By all means if you see a flaw in their reasoning point it out. When I bring in a philosopher or a text then I support the logic there. I think it is logically valid; I do not claim that David Hume, John Locke,or Immanuel Kant are infallible, and never have. So I do not encourage you to blindly accept their thinking, but to think about these ideas for yourself. I can not see how this would raise any objections.

Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/26/08 , edited 4/26/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


kimmm6 wrote:

[

I once had a math teacher prove through mathematics that 1+1 did not equal 2. (don't ask...it was about 25 years ago, and I didn't really understand it then.)
Them why should I give it any credence?




My point is that using converse logic and calculation can prove anything you want it to...that doesn't mean it's right.
No it can prove very few things if you mean a priori logic, as I demonstrated in my second post. As for empirical observation it is the only way of proving most things exist, and to function in the world.




I have already mentioned that when dealing with religion, logic does not always enter into the equation.
Thats fine if you are going to admit that faith it not rational. If you claim it is, then you open it to logical, and scientific attacks. If people want to go on what they feel to be right they can, but I prefer reason, and will not allow it to be misrepresented if I in my limited way can stop it.



I would remind you that the topic here is not "does God exist?" but "should science and God go together?". Getting down to the basics of the first post...it should be a "yes/no" opinion question.
It is also I believe about logic, but regardless my posts are in essence an answer to that question, though they are not just a yes or no. My answer I suppose is a firm "no", as I think belief in god is not logical, or scientific. I was trying to give my opinion.


I am also of the opinion that yes or no questions usually require elaboration to have any relevance to anything whatsoever.



We are all entitled to our own opinion, and we are all entitled to share/support our opinion. BUT...if you pull out your text book, then we (the Religious who answer "yes") should be allowed to pull our OUR text books as well. You give me authors whose writings you believe are true, and expect me to believe them. I should be allowed the same courtesy...I should be allowed to present MY authors, and expect you to believe them. Philosphers are every bit as unreliable and fallable to ME as the prophets are to you, and you cannot expect me to blindly accept their writings, without reciprocating.
I do not ask for blind acceptance. By all means if you see a flaw in their reasoning point it out. When I bring in a philosopher or a text then I support the logic there. I think it is logically valid; I do not claim that David Hume, John Locke,or Immanuel Kant are infallible, and never have. So I do not encourage you to blindly accept their thinking, but to think about these ideas for yourself. I can not see how this would raise any objections.



Okay...I get why you continue this argument. Science is logical, and since God is not logical, before we can decide if He has a place in science, we must first decide if He even exists. Am I right? I would remind you that science is not always logical. Some scientists have pulled radical theories and suppositions out of thin air, based on not much of anything...that have since been proven. It was not logical for Edison to try over a thousand combinations before coming up with the light bulb. There was no evidence what-so-ever that what he was looking for even existed. Relativity comes to mind, as does gravity, Ben Franklin and his kite flying was definitely NOT logical. These men had gifts, whether they came from God or just a natural inborn talent doesn't really matter. They pursued their ideas with a zealous fervor that borders on insane...and they were right.

The battle of Jericho was NOT logical. A group of people who knew very little about the world in which they lived marched up to a city, and armed with nothing more than faith, they demanded the city surrender. They were, of course, laughed at. Joshua prayed, and was told to do some mighty strange things. He took his million or so Isrealites, and marched around the city...once a day for 6 days. On the 7th day, they marched 7 times, then he had all the trumpeters blow one great blast. The walls fell. To these men and women, it was a miracle. Of course, we can explain it scientifically now, but then? No way. So...how did Joshua know what to do? He was no scientist...he was a prophet. Of course, in order to accept anything about Joshua, you must accept that the story happened the way the Bible tells.

Religion is not logical. I never claimed it was. If I followed logic I would be very dead (several times over) by now. However, science is not always logical either. There are scientists who think that religion is an out-dated superstion, there are religious people who think that science is an abomination...I think that extremes in either direction sells both sides short. If God created the universe, and IF God wants us to study His work and His word, THEN God must want us to pursue science.

I have a busy home. It is full of active little girls who are always moving, and doing, and consuming. It is my universe. I know from first-hand, empirical evidence that without constant supervision and laws, my little universe reverts to chaos. You will never be able to convince me that the universe automatically ordered itself to become an efficient and lawful place, where chaos was before, without outside help. THAT IS NOT LOGICAL. Everything in creation reverts to it's simplest form if given enough time. If it is natural for all matter to revert to it's simplest form, then what is holding it together? Yes, I know, laws of physics. Who made these laws? We may have discovered them, but we certainly did not make them...these laws themselves are as much a paradox as the God you deny...UNLESS God is in the equation.

*EDIT* lol...the original post is: Does science/logic have a place in religion? NOT: does religion have a place in science? We've been answering the wrong question. *oops*
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 4/26/08

kimmm6 wrote:



Okay...I get why you continue this argument. Science is logical, and since God is not logical, before we can decide if He has a place in science, we must first decide if He even exists. Am I right? I would remind you that science is not always logical. Some scientists have pulled radical theories and suppositions out of thin air, based on not much of anything...that have since been proven.
We can theorize all we want. I think this is good, but no real scientist would suggest something not supported by any evidence is anything more than speculation. At least until it is tested.




It was not logical for Edison to try over a thousand combinations before coming up with the light bulb. There was no evidence what-so-ever that what he was looking for even existed.
No it was very logical. It was very logical to try to prove something using empirical testing. God should be placed under the same burden; I mean that the logical way to go about proving god is obtaining evidence he exists.



Relativity comes to mind, as does gravity, Ben Franklin and his kite flying was definitely NOT logical. These men had gifts, whether they came from God or just a natural inborn talent doesn't really matter. They pursued their ideas with a zealous fervor that borders on insane...and they were right.
Yes, but I do not imagine they would have claimed to be right had their testing not proved them so.



The battle of Jericho was NOT logical. A group of people who knew very little about the world in which they lived marched up to a city, and armed with nothing more than faith, they demanded the city surrender. They were, of course, laughed at. Joshua prayed, and was told to do some mighty strange things. He took his million or so Isrealites, and marched around the city...once a day for 6 days. On the 7th day, they marched 7 times, then he had all the trumpeters blow one great blast. The walls fell. To these men and women, it was a miracle. Of course, we can explain it scientifically now, but then? No way. So...how did Joshua know what to do? He was no scientist...he was a prophet. Of course, in order to accept anything about Joshua, you must accept that the story happened the way the Bible tells.

Religion is not logical. I never claimed it was.
As long as you admit this, then we are fine here.




If I followed logic I would be very dead (several times over) by now. However, science is not always logical either. There are scientists who think that religion is an out-dated superstion, there are religious people who think that science is an abomination...I think that extremes in either direction sells both sides short. If God created the universe, and IF God wants us to study His work and His word, THEN God must want us to pursue science.

I have a busy home. It is full of active little girls who are always moving, and doing, and consuming. It is my universe. I know from first-hand, empirical evidence that without constant supervision and laws, my little universe reverts to chaos. You will never be able to convince me that the universe automatically ordered itself to become an efficient and lawful place, where chaos was before, without outside help. THAT IS NOT LOGICAL.
The universe is hardly ordered. It is very chaotic if you look at things from a universal scale.

[quote
Everything in creation reverts to it's simplest form if given enough time. You have contradicted yourself.You have said your house reverts to chaos, but it is part of creation.



If it is natural for all matter to revert to it's simplest form, then what is holding it together? Yes, I know, laws of physics. Who made these laws? We may have discovered them, but we certainly did not make them...these laws themselves are as much a paradox as the God you deny...UNLESS God is in the equation.
What? Why are they a paradox?

*EDIT* lol...the original post is: Does science/logic have a place in religion? NOT: does religion have a place in science? We've been answering the wrong question. *oops*

Your right lol. Guess this was pretty pointless. Still it was good talking with you.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/1/08
There may very well be a paradox to it, Y.A.D, we don’t know. At this point that just depends on rather or not gravity is subject to thermodynamics. If it is, and recent research suggests (we’re still uncertain) it does, then the universe cannot have created itself naturally-at least, not by any means we’ve currently hypothesized.

You say that no scientist supports a claim without evidence. However, when it comes to the origin of the universe that’s really all we can do. Right now there are two theories. Either A-gravity in a thermodynamic equilibrium can convert entropy into usable energy by transferring it from one location to another, or God created it.

Either way we’re creating something. We’re inventing a natural process of rejuvenation for entropy-(which seems to contradict the laws of entropy-but given the nature of a singularity it does not,) or God created it.

Now, if both of these theories were destroyed somehow-then we’d certainly be out there scratching our heads. There truly would appear to be a paradox in the laws, and for obvious reasons.

You are correct, however. We’ve strayed way off the central topic. This thread wasn’t meant to turn into a debate like this.
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 5/1/08 , edited 5/1/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

You are correct, however. We’ve strayed way off the central topic. This thread wasn’t meant to turn into a debate like this.


Of course it was! We all know how you like to post controvesial topics in hopes of sparking a debate, just like this one. Even knowing that, though, we still take the bait. =)

IF the Big Bang happened, then I still need to ask...WHAT WENT BANG? If nothing existed before ka-Blam, from whence all matter sprung...then what-went-bang? I'm not denying that Big Bang happened, I'm just curious how it happened. Now, when answering this, keep in mind that YAD recently claimed that science doesn't chase wild geese (paraphrasing..."no scientist supports a claim without evidence).

*edit...re-read YAD's last post...my house reverts to chaos unless it is controlled by laws and supervised. Without laws and assurance that those laws are followed, chaos reigns. I was also thinking of matter on a micro-scale when talking about organization...atoms, molecules, genes...very small particles creating amazing results due to how they are organized.

Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/1/08 , edited 5/1/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

There may very well be a paradox to it, Y.A.D, we don’t know. At this point that just depends on rather or not gravity is subject to thermodynamics. If it is, and recent research suggests (we’re still uncertain) it does, then the universe cannot have created itself naturally-at least, not by any means we’ve currently hypothesized.

You say that no scientist supports a claim without evidence. However, when it comes to the origin of the universe that’s really all we can do. Right now there are two theories. Either A-gravity in a thermodynamic equilibrium can convert entropy into usable energy by transferring it from one location to another, or God created it.

Either way we’re creating something. We’re inventing a natural process of rejuvenation for entropy-(which seems to contradict the laws of entropy-but given the nature of a singularity it does not,) or God created it.

Now, if both of these theories were destroyed somehow-then we’d certainly be out there scratching our heads. There truly would appear to be a paradox in the laws, and for obvious reasons.

You are correct, however. We’ve strayed way off the central topic. This thread wasn’t meant to turn into a debate like this.

Not quite SeraphAlford. Your objections are all answered to a large degree by string theory. Read up on that, as it's too complex to be explained here.
EDIT: I also should put out your rather obvious false dichotomy. You are correct that the options you present are options on some level (ignoring string theory etc), but not the only ones that there are. For instance we are in an omega point scenario at this time, or a race of super powerful energy beings, which are not gods have done something to have an effect that is artificial etc . There are many more theories than the ones you presented.

The universe consist of everything and all the energy there is, then it must be considered a close system. If this is the case, then the universe must have a constantly increasing entropy. Like an old mechanical clock, it is slowly winding down. Extrapolating backwards, there must be a time when the universe had the lowest possible entropy. The question then is: who wound up the universe? The answer, the theist says, is God. Thus God is defined in the second form of the entropy argument as the “Great Winder Upper”.

This argument while is more sophisticated than the first form of the cosmological argument is also, ultimately, unconvincing. Here we are at the cutting edge of modern cosmology. Physicists are still trying to figure out what actually happened at the origin of the universe. The answer may be near, but at the moment we still do not know. This represent an actual gap in human knowledge. It is no accident that the modern theist postulate his god as the one who “wound up” the universe. This had always been a well known modus operandi of the theist: namely, whenever you find a gap in human knowledge, that’s where you hide your god! Thus, when our knowledge of life’s origins was lacking, the theistic postulate their god as the creator of life. That gap has been filled by the discovery of the process of organic evolution: the true explanation for the multifarious life forms on earth. When it was not known what caused the sun to shine; the theist say it is kept in such a state by God. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century has shown that stars, our sun included, burn due to nuclear fusion in their cores.


However, there are by no means any lack of suggestions and hypotheses as to the actual origin of the universe; none of which need the assumption of the existence of a great “entropy reducer”. One such hypothesis is that suggested by the Cambridge physicist, Stephen Hawking. He combined the General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to suggest what is basically an oscillating kind of universe, where upon reaching its maximum limit of expansion, the universe begins to contract. This contraction would cause entropy to actually decrease. Thus when the universe is completely collapsed -the “Big Crunch” - entropy is once again at its lowest point. The universe then re-expands into the next cycle. In this model there is no beginning and no end, just an endless and infinite cycles of oscillations between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. Thus, even here the gaps for the theist’s god is closing fast.

In summary, this form form of the entropy argument is simply a postulation of an unknown entity that could somehow put the universe in a low entropy state. This is completely unfounded by any evidence and definitely not the only hypothesis available for the entropy problem.


To kimm. I will clarify something about the big bang which is a little complex so bear with me.
1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

This is word for word identical to the argument that Dr. Phil Fernandes made in his debate against Dan Barker. It's wrong though, on at least 3 counts:

1. This argument is applying attributes of set elements to the set as a whole. We know that if an object was at rest and then starts to move, something must have caused that to happen. But the object is part of the universe, we cannot apply the same logic to the universe as a whole. That would be akin to saying: every even number has a distance of 2 to the next even number, therefor the set of even numbers has a distance of 2 to the next set of even numbers. This is nonsensical and so is attributing cause to the universe as a whole. The proper argument should be: everything in the universe that has a beginning, has a cause but that would render the whole cosmological argument out of the water.
2. Not everything in the universe that has a beginning has a cause. Matter and anti-matter are constantly jumping into existence and usually annihilate themselves again. This is just a quantum event. When it happens close to the event horizon of a black hole, we get Hawking Radiation.
3. Cause necessitates a temporal order. It is not possible to cause something to happen yesterday. The cause must always precede the event it causes in time. With the Big Bang, both space and time came into existence. Therefore it is nonsensical to think of `before the Big Bang'. Just as it would be nonsensical to question what happens to matter when it gets colder than absolute zero. Since temperature is defined as the average energy of the microscopic motion of atoms and these stop moving at 0K, there is no 'colder than absolute zero'. The `before the Big Bang' argument is just as silly because time is an integral part of the universe that came into existence with the Big Bang. Since nothing can precede the Big Bang in time, it cannot have been caused and always existed.

Please note that modern cosmological models try to explain the BB, so for them "before the BB" makes sense. However, their explanations are of course naturalistic, and they themselves describe a situation without beginning. So zilch for the CA again. They try to explain the big bang in the terms of "before the BB" but are not actually talking about before it but trying to determine it's nature. It's a very complex subject to be honest. Space time can get very confusing.
-Have a Super day! Y.A.D.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/08

kimmm6 wrote:
Of course it was! We all know how you like to post controvesial topics in hopes of sparking a debate, just like this one. Even knowing that, though, we still take the bait. =)

IF the Big Bang happened, then I still need to ask...WHAT WENT BANG? If nothing existed before ka-Blam, from whence all matter sprung...then what-went-bang? I'm not denying that Big Bang happened, I'm just curious how it happened. Now, when answering this, keep in mind that YAD recently claimed that science doesn't chase wild geese (paraphrasing..."no scientist supports a claim without evidence).

*edit...re-read YAD's last post...my house reverts to chaos unless it is controlled by laws and supervised. Without laws and assurance that those laws are followed, chaos reigns. I was also thinking of matter on a micro-scale when talking about organization...atoms, molecules, genes...very small particles creating amazing results due to how they are organized.



Actually, I had hoped to spark debate-but not of this sort. Actually, I was hoping to argue with fellow Christians about the matter-not to debate the existence of God. The fact is that arguing theoretical physics online is like attempting to teach a small child of the biological profundities found within the cellular development of children suffering from xeroderma pigmentosum.

In many cases I can precisely emulate text-book information and I’m still wrong, because nobody really understands physics and they really don’t want to believe what they don’t want to believe. I’ve become immensely fatigued with the subject.

However, I was hoping to take this from a more spiritual perspective. Logic is a black and white thing-and, in large part I feel that black and white thinking should be largely omitted from this group. This is why I was so utterly reluctant to let this group involve atheism/agnosticism.

Mauz can criticize all he wants, the fact is that I have a purpose for this group, and it’s not to waste all my time justifying God to people who are completely convinced of their own superiority to religious twits like us.

Whatever the case, the claim that no scientist chases something without evidence is not necessarily true. It’s a half-truth. There have been multiple times in the history of science where we are stumped. The solution to this is to make claims. We generate ideas and the analyze them. This is a form of inductive scientific investigation, and it is largely from this that theology is born.

As I noted before, when it comes to the singularity there’s really not all that much we can say. Our laws break apart and we’re forced to go around inventing things. The big-bang, however, is not one of them. There actually is intense evidence. One thing-we can mathematically determine how much heat it would have generated, and then mathematically determine how much of that heat would linger in the universe in the form of vapors. This is a really complicated thing since the universe is constantly and eternally expanding-but essentially it involves dividing and adding until we come to a number specified for a specific area.

Should that number coincide with the quantity of heat vapors that really are within that area, that’s immediately incredible evidence. The odds of it generating to the precise calculation of its own is…well, not likely-to say the least. However, we’ve repeated this for many areas, and it never fails.

The conclusion, we have no reason to disbelieve the big-bang. However, the big-bang is does not disprove God. A well-known tabloid actually claimed the opposite. It claimed it proved god by proving the creation. This, however, isn’t true either.

Like I said, the creation isn’t necessarily the creation. We have two theories. One involves inventing the divine. The other involves inventing a natural mechanism that can recycle entropy. We’ve used gravity to embody that mechanism by applying attributes to gravity. However, recent studies are actually degrading the value of this latter hypothesis by showing that gravity si subject to the laws of thermodynamics themselves.

Essentially debating divinity with physics is useless-for us, anyway. We don’t have the means or the knowledge to go about such an investigation-and the fact is that any non-biased and honest text-book will agree. We don’t know, there is no certainty for or against divinity.

When it comes to evidence of God-there is a great deal of it. Unfortunantly, it’s intensely ambiguous. We can say, “We know that fact A would be true if God existed,” and so-seeing fact A is true, take that as evidence of God-and it is, because it makes his existence more likely. However, it’s not reliable, because there can also be another explanation.

As far as what made the big-bang go bang-it’s generally assumed to be the collision of matter and antimatter, since that’s the only thing that we know of that can naturally generate enough force. This being said-where does matter and antimatter come from? Well, if time rotates in a circle it’s actually possible that it generates itself.

Again, we’re wandering around in mindless circles that serve no purpose. Now then, let us return to the central topic. Any further comment on this side of things should be traded via-PM.

You’re loving Guild Master (:P), Seraph.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.