God: a failed hypothesis or something more?


#321

Then you would need to show that this universe is all there is and all there has been. From what I have read, no one has evidence one way or the other.


(GJDS) #322

The universe is all that science can observe and experimentally study - I guess if your belief(s) require something outside of science you may consider other things. I am interested in what science shows, not inferring that science has shown “all there is”. Those of us who profess the Christian faith believe there is more than science can show - but you have stated otherwise, so I guess your position is difficult to comprehend.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #323

Yes, we cannot say that Einstein’s theory tells us exactly how the universe will begin, but it does say as I have worked out mathematically, that when mass = 0 then energy = 0. Also in this situation space and time would not exist. What pray tell is a little sphere of high density false vacuum? What is vacuum energy?

Again Carroll is entitled to his opinion and so are others like Hawking. As far as I know Einstein’s theory is well established and might not give us all of the answers, but rules out the claims of Carroll and Krause. That is why it is good evidence that the universe and time have a Beginning. You cannot wish that away.

Yes, before you were born your age = 0. You did not exist Thank God now you do, but before you were born you did not exist, but you were not born out of nothing as was the universe. You know where you came from, while we do not know from where the universe came from.

Einstein is widely quoted as saying, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.” Atheists have used this comprehensibility as an argument against the “god” of the gaps. Now you want to deny this comprehensibility as a defense of the noGod of the gaps against the God of the Facts

I never said that all scientists agreed with me, I think that I brought us Krause before you did. I still understand that mainline science maintains that the universe has a Beginning of matter, energy, space, and time based on Einstein’s theory as I have said and which you have consistently denied. .


#324

My position has always been that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also disagree with the position that a lack of evidence for God is evidence that God does not exist. I also disagree that lack of evidence for something outside of the universe is evidence that there is nothing outside of the universe. Seems pretty consistent to me.


#325

A photon has no mass but it does have energy. How do you explain this?[quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
Again Carroll is entitled to his opinion and so are others like Hawking.
[/quote]

Let’s review what you said to me earlier:

“Now you do not have to agree with what most scientists think the evidence says, but you just cannot deny that it exists.”

It appears that you need to take your own advice.[quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
As far as I know Einstein’s theory is well established and might not give us all of the answers, but rules out the claims of Carroll and Krause.
[/quote]

That is something you have invented from whole cloth. Even Hawking explains how Einstein’s theories are incomplete and fail to accurately describe conditions under regimes of high gravity and high energy:

It is strange that you act as if you agree with all of these physicists, but in the end you disagree with all of them.[quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
That is why it is good evidence that the universe and time have a Beginning.
[/quote]

I fully agree that the universe had a beginning. What I disagree with is your rather strange claim that anything with a beginning had to be preceded by nothing.[quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
Yes, before you were born your age = 0. You did not exist Thank God now you do, but before you were born you did not exist, but you were not born out of nothing as was the universe.
[/quote]

But I had a beginning!!! You can’t deny that!!! My beginning is evidence that there was nothing prior to 1974!!![quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
Einstein is widely quoted as saying, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.” Atheists have used this comprehensibility as an argument against the “god” of the gaps. Now you want to deny this comprehensibility as a defense of the noGod of the gaps against the God of the Facts
[/quote]

What you have is the God of Bare Assertions. [quote=“Relates, post:323, topic:37310”]
I still understand that mainline science maintains that the universe has a Beginning of matter, energy, space, and time based on Einstein’s theory as I have said and which you have consistently denied. .
[/quote]

"The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year. "–Stephen Hawking


(GJDS) #326

My best guess is that while I consider various outlooks within science extremely speculative, while other matters are reasonably well understood, your outlook seems to consider everything as evidentially based, be it scientific or otherwise. Have I got the right idea?


(Marvin Adams) #327

I have yet to find a law that spontaneously generated itself. My experience tells me that a law expresses a rule by which those subject to this rule have to follow. Even evolution as much as the underlying changes/mutations are random events, follows a law that determines its effect on reality.

To me it indicates an intelligence behind the universe. You obviously have a different level of comprehension so you have to give evidence for your argument. That’s how debates work. Do you want to propose that molecules have a mind of their own as to know how to behave or that they democratically voted for the laws that they were to follow?

Now you have a chance to provide evidence that there is no intelligence behind the universe instead of shouting liar liar all the time by ignoring the existential evidence of an intelligent universe. Clearly the “brights” believed to be the superior intelligence as we had other sad manifestations of such deluded people before them, but Atheists making claims to superior intelligence amongst atheists are as clever as Galton.

[content edited by moderator]


(Marvin Adams) #328

Hawkins religiophobia shows nicely in his asay.

However his assay has a number of incoherences. If you want to understand a worldview I suggest you to watch worldview101
Hawkins says:
"I shall deal with these by adopting what is called, the positivist approach. In this, the idea is that we interpret the input from our senses in terms of a model we make of the world. One can not ask whether the model represents reality, only whether it works. A model is a good model if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested and possibly falsified by observation. "

It is however exactly the justification that we can to ask the model to represent reality that allows us to test it to conform to reality. Otherwise it would be of no use.

his statement
"The beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science.“
is priceless incoherence just invisible to those who claim to
”[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:312, topic:37310”]
have knowledge of logical fallacies which is why I am able to recognize them in your arguments.
[/quote]
as they fail to see the logical fallacies of their own arguments as they believe in their knowledge. Intriguingly we can discover the laws of nature, but we can not make them. And after all, they are the laws of nature, not of science as science is the method of systematic investigation of nature. The laws of science are the rules by which science has to be conducted in order to achieve valid results. It appears that Hawkins religiophobia lead him into confusion as to what science is all about.


#329

I also put various outlooks on the same spectrum, from highly speculative to well supported. I don’t discount ideas simply because they are highly speculative, although I may be personally dismissive of some. I also hold subjective opinions and personal preferences, but I also realize that reality is not forced to make those things true simply because I prefer them. In other words, I am human just like you are, and I celebrate all that comes with it, including our flaws (if you want to call them that).


#330

I wasn’t the one who put Hawking forward as an expert. That would be Relates. Perhaps you could talk to him about that.


#331

What physical laws have been shown to have been created by an intelligence? Far as I known, no one has demonstrated the origin of any physical laws.

You claim that laws come from a supernatural deity. It is up to you to present evidence for this positive claim. If you don’t have evidence and it is a personal belief, then that’s fine. I am not here to tell you what you should or shouldn’t believe. However, when I see claims about something being a conclusion drawn from evidence, then I am going to ask for that evidence.[quote=“marvin, post:327, topic:37310”]
Do you want to propose that molecules have a mind of their own as to know how to behave or that they democratically voted for the laws that they were to follow?
[/quote]

Physical laws are not the same as civil laws. They are two different things. That would be a fallacy based on conflation.

Next, you pretend as if it is ludicrous that molecules can spontaneously follow consistent rules. That is an argument from incredulity.

I would suggest that you read up on logical fallacies and learn how to not use them.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

I never called you a liar. I asked you for evidence. Do you not know the difference?

Here is the entry for “shifting the burden of proof” from the list I linked above:

"Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “These days space-aliens are everywhere among us, masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you to prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! You admit it! That means what I say has to be true. Most probably, you’re one of them, since you seem to be so soft on space-aliens!” A typical tactic in using this fallacy is first to get an opponent to admit that a far-fetched claim, or some fact related to it, is indeed at least theoretically “possible,” and then declare the claim “proven” absent evidence to the contrary. E.g., “So you admit that massive undetected voter fraud is indeed possible under our current system, and could have happened in this country at least in theory, and you can’t produce even the tiniest scintilla of evidence that it didn’t actually happen! Ha-ha! I rest my case.” See also, Argument from Ignorance. "


(Marvin Adams) #332

he may be an expert, but you referred to his article that is flawed

indeed, noone has proof how the laws came about, but their existence has been accepted as evidence that the behaviour of matter is under intelligible control pointing at a source of intelligence. This is a reasonable conclusion to draw from experienced reality, based on the evidence that laws are made by intelligent people to order the affairs of mankind. Thus you make a positive claim that this is not the case so you must be able to provide evidence for your claim that the laws we find in nature do not point at a source of intelligence.

indeed, civil laws are a result of human intelligence whilst natural laws existed prior to humanity and are discovered by human intelligence. However the meaning of law is consistent between the laws of men and the laws of nature, e.g. that they are rules that exist that keep those who are subject to the law to order.

considering that I do not believe molecules to have free will I would expect them move according to the forces they are submitted to, but then you might as claim I want women to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove:-)
That you do not understand the concept of shifting the burden of prove is obvious. It is the same reason that you fail to be embarrassed by the claim to have an invisible dragon in the garage, e.g. a lack of reason.


#333

Relates is the one referring to Hawking’s views. Perhaps you should tell Relates that.[quote=“marvin, post:332, topic:37310”]
indeed, noone has proof how the laws came about, but their existence has been accepted as evidence that the behaviour of matter is under intelligible control pointing at a source of intelligence.
[/quote]

However, you can’t present a reasoned and evidenced argument to support that acceptance.[quote=“marvin, post:332, topic:37310”]
This is a reasonable conclusion to draw from experienced reality, based on the evidence that laws are made by intelligent people to order the affairs of mankind.
[/quote]

Conflation fallacy. Natural laws and civil laws are not the same thing.[quote=“marvin, post:332, topic:37310”]
That you do not understand the concept of shifting the burden of prove is obvious.
[/quote]

Let’s recap the argument.

You: There is evidence that natural laws came from God.

Me: Where is that evidence?

You: You can’t prove they came from something else, so my claim stands.

That is a shift in the burden of proof.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #334

My strange claim is that according to current scientific evidence there was no time before the beginning of the universe. Now that may be strange because the absence of time is beyond the experience of all humans, but it is the consensus of the intellectual community in the West.

Steven Hawking as he explains in his book, A Brief History of Time, first wrote a paper with others which said that The universe began with a singularity, based on Einstein’s theory among other things, and then changed his mind saying that the universe and time did not have a beginning and there was no singularity.

The reason why Hawking said that there was no beginning of time and the universe is for theoretical reasons, not for proven scientific reasons. I basically agree with his first view, but not the second. Theory is helpful, but should not be the basis for science, unless backed by clear scientific, factual evidence, which is the case for most people. Rhetoric does not change the facts.


#335

I think you need to review both the evidence and the scientific consensus:

"At a slightly less ambitious level (although still pretty darn ambitious, as things go), we have attempts to “smooth out” the singularity in some semi-classical way. Aguirre and Gratton have presented a proof by construction that such a universe is conceivable; essentially, they demonstrate how to take an inflating spacetime, cut it near the beginning, and glue it to an identical spacetime that is expanding the opposite direction of time. This can either be thought of as a universe in which the arrow of time reverses at some special midpoint, or (by identifying events on opposite sides of the cut) as a one-way spacetime with no beginning boundary. In a similar spirit, Gott and Li suggest that the universe could “create itself,” springing to life out of an endless loop of closed timelike curves. More colorfully, “an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.”–Sean Carroll


(John Dalton) #336

No time in this universe. But we can’t perceive its limits either in time or space, so how can we say what else exists, has or will exist? It seems hard to base any larger conclusions on limited factual evidence.

[quote=“Relates, post:334, topic:37310”]
Steven Hawking as he explains in his book, A Brief History of Time, first wrote a paper with others which said that The universe began with a singularity, based on Einstein’s theory among other things, and then changed his mind saying that the universe and time did not have a beginning and there was no singularity.

The reason why Hawking said that there was no beginning of time and the universe is for theoretical reasons, not for proven scientific reasons. [/quote]

His former reasons sound awfully like theoretical reasons as well (note my bolded part)–though I will ask what the other things are. The book is going onto my reading list.

This writer asserts the singularity seemingly cannot be described by the laws of physics (and explains how various attempts to avoid the idea have failed) which makes it sound pretty theoretical:

The moment of infinite density is a cosmological singularity. At that point, the mathematical expressions appearing in the equations of general relativity become ill defined, and evolution cannot be continued. This would seem to suggest that the universe did have a beginning, but not one describable by the laws of physics.

I thought this was an interesting piece–the parts I could understand lol. I happened to come across it during a parallel conversation on another forum this week. Well, I’m getting a crash course in this stuff anyway–the highest value of forum debate on many occasions for me.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #337

We can’t perceive the limits of the universe, but we know in various ways that they exist, because we and our world is finite. We need to understand our universe and how it works. We have no need or purpose to understand what might be beyond our universe and how it works.

We are not God and we do not need to be God. The existence of God is the flip side of our finitude. We need to live within our limits and allow God to do God’s work of governing the universe. [quote=“John_Dalton, post:336, topic:37310”]
His former reasons sound awfully like theoretical reasons as well (note my bolded part)-
[/quote]

My point if it was not clear is that Einstein’s Theory has been around for more than 100 years and has been tested in many ways. If we would have to throw it away now, our picture of the universe would be shattered. The theories he is proposing have not been tested and probably cannot be tested. They are still theory.

These are the points that I was trying to make, so I want to thank Hawking for supporting these ideas. 1. The universe has a Beginning. 2. This conclusion is supported by general relativity, even though it does not fully describe it. 3. The Beginning of the universe means that matter, energy, time, and space began at the some time.

There should be no problem that a singularity cannot be explained fully be describable by the laws of physics because this is a one time event. I have heard that the Big Bang was caused by a matter and anti-matter explosion of energy which does not fit into other models.

The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.

This essay by Alexander Vilenken is very good and of course he is one other creators of this understanding of the universe. I would certainly agree that there are clear limits to our scientific understanding of precisely how our universe came into existence. Our understanding of the Beginning is not dependent on science, or theology or philosophy, but all three of them.

The issue for me is not the existence of God. God exists. Nothing can change that. For me God is not First Cause, God is not the universe, but God is the Source of the universe. God created the universe out of nothing, no matter, no energy, no space, and no time, but God did exist before the Beginning.

There are three basic questions about the universe that we need to address. 1. The Scientific question, How does it work? 2. the Philosophical question, How and why can we understand the universe? 3. The Theological question, What is the meaning and purpose of the universe?

They are interrelated therefore we cannot answer one of them without answering the others. This is why all disciplines need to work together to have intellectual integrity. If we fail, as we appear to be failing with climate change, then the forces of ignorance and fear could well take over.

Hawking quotes the words of Laplace to demonstrate the old Newtonian cause and effect cosmological view, and then demonstrates why it is not valid. The problem is that as best I can determine, a replacement view has not been found.

If that is true, I suggest the Einsteinian relational holistic view of cosmological change. This view enables us to integrate the three aspects of Reality, physical, rational, and spiritual into one system that we call can work within without being uniform.


(Juan Romero) #338

This actually got interesting. I was just expecting a few replies and/or opinions about Stenger’s book and ideas and I got about 300 replies!


(Marvin Adams) #339

me: there is evidence from experienced reality that laws are created by an agent to control the elements that are subject to the law.
you: no there isn’t
me: do you have evidence that explains why you belief no intelligence is needed to generates a law?
You: No but you can’t proof that they did not cause themselves so my claim stands

That is an argument from ignorance in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I am sorry,but all my experience of rules and regulations and laws in my reality point on intelligent sources (even if some of the rules turn out not to be logically coherent due to the limits of intelligence by those who made them)

"Law: a general rule that states what always happens when the same conditions exist.
special case:
Civil law: a rule, usually made by a government, that is used to order the way in which a society behaves

thus it suggests that the law is a concept of authority over reality, something difficult to accept for those who want to reject the existence of authority over their own self as in the state of puberty when trying to claim authority based on one’s own self. Thus it is understandable that people in the state of puberty want to reject the existence of an authority they are subject to. It comes with age and particularly the experience of death that you learn to understand the concept of a higher authority and to gain the ability of projecting your self and seeing your own existence,e.g. that what you think to be the essence of your “self” in others. It is easier to follow when you have children of your own who show traits of your personality but difficult for those who are materialists who can only see their self in theri material presence. As such, the idea of the laws of nature coming from a higher authority, as they were seen to be in the beginning of the scientific revolution as a way of better understanding of said authority, became silently rejected by the atheist scientists based on their rejection of authority, but not based on reason.


#340

I have never said that there isn’t any evidence. I have asked you to present that evidence, and when I do you try to shift the burden of proof.

I am still asking for that evidence. Where is it?[quote=“marvin, post:339, topic:37310”]
thus it suggests that the law is a concept of authority over reality, something difficult to accept for those who want to reject the existence of authority over their own self as in the state of puberty when trying to claim authority based on one’s own self.
[/quote]

It suggests that civil law is the concept of human authority over how human society operates. Natural laws are human descriptions of how nature works. Natural laws are not humans ordering nature to act a certain way. When we find that nature does not obey the natural laws we have written we change the description of our laws to fit nature, not the other way around. You have seriously misunderstood what each term means and how it is used. One is not the other.