A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[TimAllen]

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]

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.

 

[Tonio]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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]

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:

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.

 

[This_person]

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]

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?

 

[TimAllen]

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?

I was wondering the same thing when he tried to use Lemaitre as an example and that backfired on him as well. All of those theories agree that there is a beginning, and they all agree that it was a single event. They do not want to admit that one individual "God" could have done it. At least that is my un-educated geuss.

 

[Tonio]

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.

Thanks for your praise.

My capitalization acknowledges that beliefs in gods vary among religions, with some believing in a single god and others believing in many, but with neither belief having any greater likelihood. When I capitalize the word, I mean the Abrahamic deity simply out of linguistic convenience when I'm answering the posts here.

Regarding the Bible, there's no evidence that any god wrote it or caused humans to write it. There's no compelling reason to treat it any differently from the Iliad or the Elder Edda, as a historical and cultural artifact. Certainly the ethical teaching attributed to Jesus may have contemporary value in a naturalistic context.

Creationism is that it attempts to define the physical universe around a belief. And that belief is that humanity is to blame for all suffering, even suffering not caused by humans or suffering among animals. Creationists such as Duane Gish claim that meat-eating among animals began after the Fall of Man. Not only is this no support for this in Genesis, it also doesn't explain how animals with teeth suited for meat-eating would be able to subsist on plants.

 

[Tonio]

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?

That's part of it. We would need evidence for not only the god's existence but also the existence of the god's consciousness. Partly because some deists believe in a First Cause that was not a conscious entity.

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.

But the only alleged sources for the words of such a creator are the religions themselves.

 

[This_person]

That's part of it. We would need evidence for not only the god's existence but also the existence of the god's consciousness. Partly because some deists believe in a First Cause that was not a conscious entity.

When I think of this, and I read Hawking's conclusion to his lecture quoted above, I can only realize a few things

• God's plan is beyond my human comprehension

• Man's comprehension of the concept is beyond my comprehension

When Hawking speaks of a finite universe, but without boundaries, I've gone beyond my comprehension level. When trying to imagine God's consciousness, I've gone beyond my comprehension level. I think of dimensions, we understanding three (or, four, if you include time). The shere concept of a fifth dimension that's not a singing group is really beyond the scope of what we could do, what we could prove. A two dimensional being could not imagine a third. 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.

But the only alleged sources for the words of such a creator are the religions themselves.

And, this is where free will comes into play. 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. 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.

 

[PsyOps]

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.

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. 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. And the only physical truth I would be able to provide is myself and my testimony.

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

I’ve given it to you. Us! There is plenty in our history records. And our universe should be proof enough.

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.

Here’s what’s interesting about this. If you read Genesis 1, the first 25 verses talk about God in the singular until the creation of man, then suddenly you see it is “Us” creating man in “our” own image. But still the Bible refers to God in the singular. I believe this to mean that God is several entities but one spirit. Then there’s Lucifer. Was he a God? Well, perhaps but not having the authority of the One God we know as Yahweh. Do I claim to completely understand this? No! 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?

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.

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.

What aspects of our surroundings support the concept of gods?

I’ve used it before in other threads… the conception and growth of a human life. How does a single cell know how to split in half, then again, and over and over; how does it know through this process where to place every cell in its proper place AND so each part knows how to function as a whole organism with an intelligent brain? 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.

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.

I think astronomers believe what they are studying. But they are limited to the natural world confined on this earth and only have that to rely on to establish their thinking. The math could be completely different 700 billion light years away. The structure of the universe could look completely different somewhere else. I accept that it’s a growing and learning process but I also look at everything that comes out of the scientific community with skepticism. Global warming is one of them. I believe there is an agenda there rather than a real concern for our climate (another subject though). I don’t trust them any more than I trust the media.

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.

Given this, how can we trust what science tells us if the scientists themselves may not really believe it? And if it has been proven, then it’s no longer a theory. It’s a fact. And given the “usefulness” of these things (scientific theory and belief in God) 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”) and 2) gives us hope (which I believe we all need) of some sense of spiritual eternity? And you cannot be dismissive about the phenomena of human belief as an observable phenomenon. Just as scientists think they see objects in space, billions of light years away, reacting a certain way, isn’t it also fair to use human behavior as a phenomenon to derive certain theories about things like God? I don’t think our belief is some inanimate response to some emotional desire to need or want a higher being. 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.

 

[PsyOps]

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"

This doesn't prove anything. If it has always been how did it get here?

 

[PsyOps]

I wasnt trying to "prove" anything, This_person brought up Hawkings as proof that he believes in the Big Bang theory (which was brought up only because its a Christian theory).

This_person was selective in his Hawkings quotes, by only showing that he believes in a flavor of Big Bang, but ignoring the quotes where Hawkings has also stated that the Universe always Was, and didnt need a creator.

The point being, if your going to use Hawkings as your proof of the validity of the (Christian theory) of the "Big Bang" then Hawkings comments about the Universe always being is equally justified.

You're trying to prove that, because TP selected some info about Hawking (as you are doing), he is wrong because he didn't include other quotes by Hawking. I think one big thing to consider about Hawking is he caused a huge fight within the scientific community and at the root of all of this Hawking turned out to be wrong. This alone, in my mind, places serious doubts about any theory he conjures up.

And just to be correct it's Hawking not Hawkings.

 

[PsyOps]

How did it backfire? :shrug: Unless your claiming Lemaitre wasnt the one who created the theory of the Big Bang. I never stated nor claimed it was an invalid theory. I just commented on the "Nothing from Something" (the Big Bang) belief was one put forth by the Catholic Church, it is not a secular creation.

Considering the "it's always been there" theory (which is unprovable) has to beg the question "how did it get there". How can Hawking support such a theory of an eternal universe but reject the thought of an eternal God? Is the belief in a creator that unspeakable?

 

[TimAllen]

How did it backfire? :shrug: Unless your claiming Lemaitre wasnt the one who created the theory of the Big Bang. I never stated nor claimed it was an invalid theory. I just commented on the "Nothing from Something" (the Big Bang) belief was one put forth by the Catholic Church, it is not a secular creation.

Lemaitre did not create the theory of The Big Bang. His research merely resembled it. The Catholic Church did not put forth The Big Bang Theory. Lemaitre stated that a single event took place to create the Heavens and the Earth, hence justifying his belief in God and that the sinlge event was God creating all things. The Big Bang Theory is a secular theory on how the universe was created.

 

[This_person]

I wasnt trying to "prove" anything, This_person brought up Hawkings as proof that he believes in the Big Bang theory (which was brought up only because its a Christian theory).

This_person was selective in his Hawkings quotes, by only showing that he believes in a flavor of Big Bang, but ignoring the quotes where Hawkings has also stated that the Universe always Was, and didnt need a creator.

The point being, if your going to use Hawkings as your proof of the validity of the (Christian theory) of the "Big Bang" then Hawkings comments about the Universe always being is equally justified.

Unless, of course, his final determination after research and reflection is that the Universe was not always around. This is what he's said, long after the things you mention. So, it's not just the words, but the context and conclusions that really matter. Hawking is on God's side in this matter. From the point of view of science. Hmmmmmmm

 

[This_person]

No, there isnt an unspeakable aspect to it, although it may be unspeakable for someone to believe that there isnt a God.

Your asking for a why, when (to a non-believer) there is the possibility that Space always was. Because then the concept that the universe/space/cosmos didnt have a begining that would then negate a need for Creator or creation event, that the concept becomes intolerable.

Actually, it kind of begs the question as to why things don't follow the laws of nature if it's "always" been here. There would be no energy left - everything would have slowed and equalized out to a minimal energy state.

 

[This_person]

And you ignore that Hawking's has always stated that if the "Big Bang" creation event did happen, it both could be argued there was a Creator involved and also that it negates the need for a Creator (he has always argued out both sides his mouth). That was my point about using Hawking as your "Gotcha"

Actually, his point by saying both things IS my point. Neither is any more nor less likely than the other, and the physical evidence does not minimize the likelihood of a creator.

I'm not looking for a "gotcha". That's not my point at all. I'm trying to demonstrate that science and religion are NOT exclusive. The "Big Bang" theory is neither religious nor scientific alone.

But then Hawking's isnt an Atheist either, he's more an Agnostic or Deist (like our Founding Fathers), so you'd expect him to have a belief that could be attributed to some type of Creation/Creator event.

As a scientist (like Lemaitre), his opinions on science are based upon science. Unless, you're trying to imply that scientists base their research upon their personal convictions, NOT on pure science (which is what you've put forth before).