A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Actually you need to reread, In this post i stated (in relation to the "Big Bang" creation event)

This is completely false. The Big Bang came out of Doppler's observations that things moving in a certain direction has predictable effect on waves. This was applied to light and it was discovered way back in the early 1900s that there was a spectrum shift (called a redshift) in objects. Einstein's belief was that the universe was expanding (and not static as conventionally believed) through these observations as applied by his relativity model. Although the term Big Bang is atttributed to Georges Lemaitre who was a Catholic priest and a physicist. His theory was not religious in base but scientific. This led to the study of another cosmic find called the Three Degree Background Radiation (read "The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg). This is still being studied by top scienctists at NASA to include nobel winner John Mather and considered to be the most recognized explanation of the current state of the universe: it is expanding therefore orignated from a single point.

Your contention that because it was a priest that discovered this phenomenon that it has to be religiously based is completely baseless. The Big Bang is a scienctific theory not religious.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

This_person then posted Hawking belief in a flavor the the (Christian theory) of the "Big Bang" creation event.

In his/her mind this was proof that the (Christian theory) of the "Big Bang" was believed also by secularlists.

But Hawking (does not require an apostrophe) also has stated that while the universe/cosmos/space is expanding, there wasnt a begining/creation/big bang event. The universe/cosmos/space always was.

It may be a dificult concept to grasp, but there is just as equal theory that there isnt a beginning/creation/big bang to the universe/cosmos/space it has always been there.

Hawking supports an expanding/contracting theory where the universe is currently expanding but once was contracting and will again. I don't find it any more impossible to believe the universe always was anymore than there always was a God. In the grand scheme of things, at least for me, to say the universe always was or to say it has some sort of beginning doesn't disprove God. One could argue that Hawking was trying to say, devoid of having to answer the "where did it all come from” question, is to just say it was always there when in reality there is nothing scientifically to prove it. One could also argue that the eternal universe theory explains God, as God is eternal. Perhaps God is this eternal universe and not some mishmash of matter swirling around out there. And we are in the belly of it. For me it doesn’t change a thing. I have this sense that God is there and have provided my testimony as to why I believe this. Let me lastly say, contrary to the goal many in this forum and elsewhere, science was not intended to be a tool to disprove God. It should be insulting to the scientific community that it is being used this way.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

What I mean with all of this is that I think it is truly, scientifically, specifically beyond what we can do. A mosquito can't just learn calculus - it's beyond its ability. That does not mean that calculus doesn't exist, or isn't bound by it's own rules. It doesn't even mean to the mosquito that calculus doesn't exist. It just means it doesn't have the ability to comprehend and manipulate the numbers.

It is certainly possible that there may be things in the universe that may be forever beyond human ability to detect or comprehend. However, any ideas about such things are simple speculation. It's not just that there is no evidence for such things. It's also that there is no evidence showing that one particular piece of speculation is any more probable than any other piece of speculation. There's no reason to treat claims of a single god as any more probable or credible than claims about many gods or claims about other types of spirits. The difference between this speculation and scientific fields such as astrophysics is that the latter extrapolates from current scientific knowledge to attempt to explain observed phenomena.

Originally Posted by This_person

Just because the pope, or a person's rabbi, Tom Cruise, the Dhali Llama, or bin Laden says something about religion does not mean we have to act on it. Just because science proves one point or another that stays within the bounds of what religion teaches doesn't mean we suddenly need to follow the rules a church sets out.

But the churches believe that people need to follow their rules. Why else would they postulate eternal suffering for nonbelievers?

Originally Posted by This_person

It just goes to prove that maybe the people who wrote it down in the first place may have gotten the story right, and how people act with that information is up to them.

Sure, they could have gotten the story right. But the burden of proof is on them and their supporters.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I guess, once again, this is where faith has to come into play. You’re trying to define something that is on a spiritual plane with physical limitations.

We don't know that there even is a spiritual plane, or if such a plane has different limitations than the physical.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And in reality, I don’t’ find one’s faith in scientific theory to be much different than faith in a God simply because they both have yet to provide a physical proof of the truth.

Scientific theories are not about faith because they stand or fall based on observed phenomena. The very concept of faith treats such phenomena as irrelevant.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I’ve given it to you. Us!

How so? That seems to assume that we could only have been created by a conscious entity.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

There is plenty in our history records.

Would you provide an example?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And our universe should be proof enough.

Again, that seems to assume that the universe required a conscious entity to come into being.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I believe this to mean that God is several entities but one spirit.

Are you suggesting that the authors of Genesis thought of their god that way? Or are you saying that you believe this to be the proper interpretation? I find your suggestion to be theologically fascinating. It would be foreign to the vast majority of Christians, but not so to some scholars of Judaism.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You can think of God being a metaphor for nature but this still leave a void in the question of intelligence and can we have an intelligent universe without a central “brain” calling the shots?

What void would that be? That seems to assume that the universe has intelligence.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And here is the fallacy of your argument in regards to God… The universe doesn’t include God, God includes the universe. The universe is not, except for God.

A better way to rephrase my original sentence would be "...other than to show ways that a god could exist." What makes God-includes-the-universe any more likely than the-universe-includes-God?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Now, how does nature know how to do this over and over again with each individual? That’s just a single example. There are millions of other examples on this earth.

Again, that assumes that the examples are only possible if the universe has intelligence. For that assumption to have any credibility, one would first have to establish the existence of the intelligence, and one would also have to rule out any natural causes for these examples.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Given this, how can we trust what science tells us if the scientists themselves may not really believe it?

Because belief has nothing to do with it. If scientists said they "believed" in a theory, that automatically implies that they don't care whether the theory is supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And given the “usefulness” of these things (scientific theory and belief in God)

What is useful about belief in any gods?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

isn’t it arguable that there is a usefulness in God as it 1) fills that void that science doesn’t (i.e. answers that question “where did it all come from”)

Filling that void with religious belief implies that empiricism has no merit, that any phenomenon can be explained by belief alone. Why is there a need to fill the void in the first place? Why not simply accept the void for the time being?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

and 2) gives us hope (which I believe we all need) of some sense of spiritual eternity?

Hope that is conditional is no hope at all. I'm referring to the Christian and Islamic concepts of heaven and hell, where one earns eternal reward based on pleasing a god.

I understand completely the desire for a spiritual eternity. But again, it's existence is a matter of evidence and not belief. My idea of a naturalistic religion would address the likelihood of human impermanence, addressing ways that humans can make the most of the time they have for themselves and for others. It would probably include a secular variant of the ideas in the Serenity Prayer, but with people working to develop the strength, courage, and wisdom individually and by learning from others. The idea of these things being granted seems to imply that we need not take responsibility for how we deal with life.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

isn’t it also fair to use human behavior as a phenomenon to derive certain theories about things like God?

How would that be done?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Perhaps there is another plane out there that hasn’t been discovered that explains our spiritual connection to things. Perhaps we haven’t been studying the right things.

What spiritual connection do you mean?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Tonio

It is certainly possible that there may be things in the universe that may be forever beyond human ability to detect or comprehend. However, any ideas about such things are simple speculation. It's not just that there is no evidence for such things. It's also that there is no evidence showing that one particular piece of speculation is any more probable than any other piece of speculation. There's no reason to treat claims of a single god as any more probable or credible than claims about many gods or claims about other types of spirits. The difference between this speculation and scientific fields such as astrophysics is that the latter extrapolates from current scientific knowledge to attempt to explain observed phenomena.

The whole idea of theory is based on speculation. I said this before that we apply math based on what we are limited to on this earth. And this science does not necessarily extrapolate from current knowledge. Energy from most of the objects observed in space is billions of years old by the time it reaches us. It’s quite possible conditions changed over those billions of years. It’s quite possible the math we use to develop our theories isn't applicable 700 billion light years away. You can’t even be sure anything is really that far away. Perhaps there is a warp in the universe that gives us the impression objects are as far away as they are.

Our perception – our human comprehension – of such things are limited to what we know on this earth can always be argued with speculation. Just as the scientific community can’t agree as to whether the universe is static, expanding or contracting; has always been in existence or “began” with a big bang; whether global warming is a result of man or nature or even exists at all; whether our exitence is a result of random chemical reactions or has some sort of intelligence behind it, the human community can’t agree as to whether there is one God or many. It’s going to boil down to what you choose to believe.

Try to consider the “observed phenomenon” of belief. Perhaps there’s more to it than just a simple matter of choice or desire to explain the unexplainable, but rather a level of consciousness that no one has, from an observation standpoint, tapped into yet.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The whole idea of theory is based on speculation.

Theories drawn on observed phenomena and current knowledge. Speculation doesn't draw upon anything but human imagination.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You can’t even be sure anything is really that far away. Perhaps there is a warp in the universe that gives us the impression objects are as far away as they are.

While such a warp is a possibility, it would seem to be merely an interesting intellectual exercise, since its existence or non-existence would make no difference in the phenomena we are observing. You seem to be suggesting that the human ability to observe and made deductions is not only imperfect and limited, but fundamentally untrustworthy. Is this the case? If we cannot trust these abilities, what's the point of having any curiosity about the universe at all? I have grave misgivings about that concept of untrustworthiness because tyrants throughout history have sought to convince their subjects to distrust their own senses. I'm not saying that we should blindly trust our senses either - I'm talking about a healthy skepticism somewhere between the extremes of assumed trustworthiness and assumed untrustworthiness.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Just as the scientific community can’t agree as to whether the universe is static, expanding or contracting...

Of course there is always going to be disagreement among scientists, because they are human. But they are still capable of reaching general consensus on answers when observations continue to confirm those answers. The fact that scientists often disagree does not invalidate the entire concept of science. If science were all about belief, there would be no such thing as laboratory experimentation or astronomical observation.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Try to consider the “observed phenomenon” of belief. Perhaps there’s more to it than just a simple matter of choice or desire to explain the unexplainable, but rather a level of consciousness that no one has, from an observation standpoint, tapped into yet.

Of course there may be something more to belief. Again, the burden of proof is on any claim that there is more to it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

It is certainly possible that there may be things in the universe that may be forever beyond human ability to detect or comprehend. However, any ideas about such things are simple speculation. It's not just that there is no evidence for such things. It's also that there is no evidence showing that one particular piece of speculation is any more probable than any other piece of speculation. There's no reason to treat claims of a single god as any more probable or credible than claims about many gods or claims about other types of spirits. The difference between this speculation and scientific fields such as astrophysics is that the latter extrapolates from current scientific knowledge to attempt to explain observed phenomena.

They both (science and religion) take observable data and extrapolate to explain. They both take the origins of life and the universe with the same amount of proof. Thus, the theories are equals.

But the churches believe that people need to follow their rules. Why else would they postulate eternal suffering for nonbelievers?

That's fin for the churches and the people that choose to follow them. That bounds the rest of humanity in no way whatsoever. Bona fide proof, today, that Jesus was the son of God would not subsequently require all Jews to convert, all Muslims to convert, and all Protestants to become Catholics. I'm guessing if that proof were to show itself as soon as I'm done typing, Jesus Himself would provide us with the answer to that question (what religion to follow).

Sure, they could have gotten the story right. But the burden of proof is on them and their supporters.

And, that burden is no more nor less on the people who put their faith in science. So far, they all have the same proof (well, as described above, there's some scientific verification of Biblical stories, but that's not really proof for anybody, is it?).

[TimAllen]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Your arguing semantics, Lemaitre "Discovered" the Theory of the Big Bang.

The Catholic Church approved the Theory.

So let's say for the sake of arguement that you believe in The Big Bang Theory. Which would mean that we all arrived here by chance random processes. Correct? That in essence would be the Big Bang Theory?

Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don't know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. You don’t know if you are making correct statements or even whether you are asking the right questions

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Your arguing semantics, Lemaitre "Discovered" the Theory of the Big Bang.

The Catholic Church approved the Theory.

So does the scientific community.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

They both (science and religion) take observable data and extrapolate to explain. They both take the origins of life and the universe with the same amount of proof. Thus, the theories are equals.

What observable data do you see religions using? Religions don't theorize. They don't revise their claims based on new evidence. Instead, they claim to possess certain knowledge, and many of them brand skepticism of their claims as blasphemous.

Originally Posted by This_person

That bounds the rest of humanity in no way whatsoever.

While that's technically correct, the fact remains that the religions believe that the rest of humanity is so bound, and they've often gone to war with each other over such notions.

Originally Posted by This_person

And, that burden is no more nor less on the people who put their faith in science.

Science is about skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. When looking at any theory, if new evidence showed that the theory to be false, science would drop the theory in a second. The same applies to the scientific method itself. That method has lasted because it has given more useful results than any scripture or any religion's claims. If it ceased to do so, the entire method would almost certainly be discarded in favor of another one more useful. If science was really based on nothing more than personal convictions, it's likely we would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

Obviously, no scientific theory about the origin of the universe can be proven. It doesn't need to be because it's not presented as fact, whereas religions do present their claims as fact. That's the key difference - religions present false certainty while science presents true uncertainty.

Originally Posted by This_person

(well, as described above, there's some scientific verification of Biblical stories, but that's not really proof for anybody, is it?).

I couldn't find the post in question. Which one was it?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

What observable data do you see religions using? Religions don't theorize. They don't revise their claims based on new evidence. Instead, they claim to possess certain knowledge, and many of them brand skepticism of their claims as blasphemous.

I sort of agree with what you're saying here. The theory was provided to us as a truth, and the consistent work of millions of people throughout time has been to discredit the information provided (as truth). So, the observable is life itself, the information was provided to us (not our own theories), and the revisions are really in the understanding of the information - not the information itself. So, I kind of agree with your distinction here.

While that's technically correct, the fact remains that the religions believe that the rest of humanity is so bound, and they've often gone to war with each other over such notions.

True, but churches are not leaders. Bin Laden believes he should kill us because we don't follow his version of his religion, or follow religion the way he wants, or whatever. That doesn't make him right.

Science is about skepticism, which is the opposite of faith. When looking at any theory, if new evidence showed that the theory to be false, science would drop the theory in a second.

Albeit reluctantly, in many cases. Many a time a scientist's (or group thereof) ego is more in play than the actual information. It takes a long time to discredit popular theories.

The same applies to the scientific method itself. That method has lasted because it has given more useful results than any scripture or any religion's claims. If it ceased to do so, the entire method would almost certainly be discarded in favor of another one more useful. If science was really based on nothing more than personal convictions, it's likely we would have never advanced beyond the Stone Age.

The method is good. No doubt. And, if ID were viewed as the scientific theory it is (not specifically Creationism, which is tied to a specific religion, but ID as an all-encompassing theory), it could be proven or disproven with that same process.

Obviously, no scientific theory about the origin of the universe can be proven. It doesn't need to be because it's not presented as fact, whereas religions do present their claims as fact. That's the key difference - religions present false certainty while science presents true uncertainty.

"False" in what sense - that it's not scientifically proven? While I agree it cannot be proven in a laboratory setting, dismissing it as "fairy tale", "myth", "untrue", etc., is equally false. Claiming a thought process as "false" (not the false certainty you describe above, but the accusations that ID is "impossible", "illogical", etc., that type of claim) has no more foundation that claiming it scientifically true.

I couldn't find the post in question. Which one was it?

I was referring to the concepts of an expanding universe - implying that all of time, space, and matter originated at a single point, and everything has not "always been there", but that there must have been a single point of initiation of everything. Sort of like "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" concept - there was nothing (including time), and then there was time, and matter and space. This is a scientifically backed theory.