A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[TimAllen]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, he offered the Big Bang up as a religious theory in his role as priest, or a scientific on in his role as methematician. Did he offer it up for scientific review? Has it been researched and expounded upon in a scientific way, or a religious one?

I think Nuclsack is running in circles, I just read alot of the articles about Lemaitre and his work and all of it was using his research, to prove what Genesis already says, that one thing happened to create the Universe. That one thing was God, He used Science and Math to come to his conclusion, Einstein even agreed with him.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

Not quite. I'm saying that your "why" would really be a "how." In strict scientific terms, the idea of a designer behind a natural event would be like the idea of a natural cause for a natural event. The former is less probable because it rests on the assumption of a designer and because there is no evidence for the designer.

Okay, sort of. Again, it's like watering a garden with rain (happenstance), or with a hose (intentionally done by a motivated action). What I understand you to be saying is that God's motive is where we need to go back to, and that can't be scientifically broken down into equation and law, therefore it's not likely to be true. Do I read you correctly?

No, to the will of people who claim to act on behalf of such beings. That is a huge difference, and one of the chief objections to supernaturalistic religion. Plus, my point would also apply to deism, even though deism doesn't define its god as a moral authority.

Now, when you talk about the people involved, you're going from the Authority, the Creator, to "the church" that claims to fully and comprehensively represent that Creator. This is where I'll agree, that we do not need to bow to the religion, but the Creator. I'm not suggesting that we listen to the other followers of religion, but to the Creator Himself.

No question that a disregard for morality in science can be dangerous. But that is not the fault of science, which is a tool for knowing the physical universe.

My idea for a naturalistic religion is that true morality is not about submission to authority, whether it's an earthly authority or an alleged heavenly authority. That is simply doing what one is told. (To be clear, I'm talking about submission and not simple respect for authority, because with the latter we retain our will. True morality involves valuing others, considering the consequences of our actions on others.

Maybe not the fault, but it still doesn't make sense to dismiss the possibility, regardless of the perceived probability.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

I didn't ignore it, there were more links than I noticed.I think perhaps we're both saying the universe came from nothing, and that is both a scientific and religious concept. Where is your argument?

As far as the universe goes, the Christian religion does not make the claim that there is no beginning nor end - we really believe there is both a beginning and an end. I'm not sure where you're disagreement is.

Selective reading, Hawkings, the person you interjected because you thought he proved your point, is also on record as claiming the Universe has always been, there was no need for a "creation/creator"

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

No you said these are questions of science not philosophy...Causal determinism is a philosophical theory not a scientific theory.

Fair point. I'm trying to articulate a distinction between knowledge based on observation of the physical universe and ideas based on faith. I said earlier that "philosophy" is not quite the right word.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The evidence in this claim is history. There is plenty of archeological proof as well as written accounts.

Please present any archeological proof of the existence of the supernatural.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

We have thousands of years and billions of people as believers in this God as historical proof.

It's a mistake to treat the question as simply God or no god, since many religions throughout history have claimed the existence of many gods or of other types of supernatural entities. This suggests that belief in a single god is not necessarily innate or intuitive. What would make the existence of a single god more likely than the existence of many? Plus, it leaves out the idea of "God" being a metaphor instead of an actual being, a reference to the best side of human nature or to the concept of goodness.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Why can’t God be part of the very nature He created? Here is the problem with wanting to prove God through science… What if God doesn’t want to be?

While those are all possibilities, there appears to be no basis for them, other than try to show ways that the universe could include a god.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What I meant by “you’re relying on science to answer everything” is that you seem to want a scientific explanation for God in order to believe. I think simple observations of our surroundings answers that.

What aspects of our surroundings support the concept of gods?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But don’t interpret what I’m saying as we shouldn’t seek out this knowledge. Absolutely not!

I appreciate you saying that. I didn't make that interpretation. I was saying that many supernaturalistic religions have opposed that seeking out, mostly in principle, sometimes in practice.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You mean sort of like eggs are bad for us, no they are good for us, no they are bad for us, no now they are good for us again.

Oh, I understand that feeling. That is mostly a problem of journalism and not science. Too many studies are turned into sexy headlines that miss the caveats and nuances. The reporters do not understand that a study's conclusion, or even the conclusion reached by a series of studies, does not necessarily amount to a claim of fact. (I've made a bet with myself that we will someday discover that optimal diets differ based on genetic profiles.)

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Can we expect astronomers to come back on a later date and tell us they were wrong that Pluto is indeed a planet? So now, us lay-people do what? Believe whatever they tell us.

Sounds like you see astronomers as making judgments for everyone. The issue was really one of classification. It makes for a fascinating topic, but it really doesn't affect our daily lives all that much. Same as whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. Knowing that tomatoes are in the nightshade family doesn't prevent me from enjoying good homemade spaghetti sauce.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Which gets to my central point… these things will never be proven except through theory; unless deep space travel becomes a reality. You simply believe it or not. Just as with God these things come with faith.

Again, a scientific theory is an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Proposal or acceptance of a theory does not mean that the scientist "believes" in the theory, or claims that the theory has been proven. It's a mistake to view any scientific theory as either proven or disproven. The true question is about usefulness. Does a theory adequately explain observed phenomena? When applicable, does it allow the prediction of phenomena? It's not about belief, because the scientists are comparing the theories against the phenomena.

[TimAllen]

Tonio I have noticed a couple of things about you, 1. You are very well educated. 2. I noticed that you always refer to God with a capital G and refer to other gods with the lower case. Do you believe in God the one who created the Heavens and the Earth or are you using the capital G out of respect for others beliefs or to differentiate between the true God and false gods? From what I am reading you don't believe in the Bible or the creation because it lacks scientific proof. Just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Selective reading, Hawkings, the person you interjected because you thought he proved your point, is also on record as claiming the Universe has always been, there was no need for a "creation/creator"

Maybe, but that's not what he thinks:

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking

The Beginning of Time

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.

This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.

There were attempts to explain away this number count graph, by claiming that some of the faint radio sources, were within our own galaxy, and so did not tell us anything about cosmology. This argument didn't really stand up to further observations. But the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965. This radiation is the same in all directions. It has the spectrum of radiation in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of 2 point 7 degrees above the Absolute Zero of temperature. There doesn't seem any way to explain this radiation in the Steady State theory.

Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time, was the suggestion, that maybe all the galaxies didn't meet up at a single point in the past. Although on average, the galaxies are moving apart from each other at a steady rate, they also have small additional velocities, relative to the uniform expansion. These so-called "peculiar velocities" of the galaxies, may be directed sideways to the main expansion. It was argued, that as you plotted the position of the galaxies back in time, the sideways peculiar velocities, would have meant that the galaxies wouldn't have all met up. Instead, there could have been a previous contracting phase of the universe, in which galaxies were moving towards each other. The sideways velocities could have meant that the galaxies didn't collide, but rushed past each other, and then started to move apart. There wouldn't have been any singularity of infinite density, or any breakdown of the laws of physics. Thus there would be no necessity for the universe, and time itself, to have a beginning. Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.

Need more? I got more, do you need it?

[Tonio]

PsyOps, thanks for sharing your story. I absolutely agree that science does not currently understand everything about the origin of the universe and of life. My point about naturalistic religion is about accepting those gaps and not trying to fill them with belief.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Maybe, but that's not what he thinks:Need more? I got more, do you need it?

Why? it proves my point, be careful of who you use to support your argument.
i can post just as many from him from the same Book, stating the Universe always was. There is no need for a creator/creation

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

PsyOps, thanks for sharing your story. I absolutely agree that science does not currently understand everything about the origin of the universe and of life. My point about naturalistic religion is about accepting those gaps and not trying to fill them with belief.

Psy, I agree. Excellent job with the reflection on why you believe.

Tonio, as for me (and I think a few others here), we're not trying to say it simply has to be the way religion describes and that's it period. I think we're all just trying to say that what we believe is valid, and there has been no proof to the opposite. It may not have the same level of probability for all people, but it's a valid belief system, and science is not working against our beliefs, but daily providing scientific justification for what we believe.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Why? it proves my point, be careful of who you use to support your argument.
i can post just as many from him from the same Book, stating the Universe always was. There is no need for a creator/creation

What I quoted was a more recent lecture by him, going into great explaination of why he believes that there is a start of time, that the universe has a beginning of time. He may have once believed differently, but he's since come to the conclusion, and argues the scientific reasons why he came to that conclusion, that the universe has a beginning point in time.

How does showing you that what he says, and his scientific arguements for what he says, agrees with me hurt my point?