V
Valke2
Guest
“In the beginning…”
- Status
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
There is a nice letter from Steven Weinberg talking about what science can explain.
nybooks.com/articles/14263
nybooks.com/articles/14263
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
How does just saying “In the beginning…” mean that the universe had a beginning?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Nobody really knows what happened shortly after the Big Bang, at the Big Bang, and whether there was something before the Big Bang (if that even has any meaning).
This is all a mystery. We just don’t know.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Do you have any commentary to that theorem I cited above?
V
VociMike
Guest
I guess you mean describe, right? We can’t explain why electric charge exists, but we can do a very good job in describing how it behaves and interacts. Or did you mean something else?
Quite right. They are two different realms, and require two different understandings. Science can’t explain God, and God (as in “God did it”) doesn’t nearly do justice to His material world. One way that we can look deeper into the mind of God, into the mind of the Creator, the Artist, is by looking at the way He put the world together.
BTW, don’t you find it extremely puzzling that humans can understand what happened in the first 10^-30 seconds of the universe, or the intricacies of DNA and life, or that Shakespeare can write as he did, or Bach compose as he did, or any of a thousand other amazing things? How in the world can such abilities possibly have been necessary to allow hominids to succeed just a short few thousand generations ago? Certainly no other successful life form has needed anything like such an ability. No, our ability to comprehend so very much of our world is completely unexplainable in terms of evolutionary advantage. It is, rather, a part of our divine inheritance. It is also pure and simple a gift that allows us to see God in His handiwork, and to become creators and artists in our own rights. This latter part is important, because God shares every good thing that He is and that He does with us, out of pure love. No eternal multiverse does that.
Because describing physical processes tells us nothing about the origin of those physical processes (as opposed to other possibilities, or complete non-existence), nor does it tell us about the origin of the non-physical component of the human person. And it does not tell us what the point of the play is. The universe certainly has not told us what its ultimate point or meaning is.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Ok, describe. I wasn’t being very precise.
And what method do you have that tells you how and why God created the universe? What can you do to test what learn to see that is actually correct?
I don’t see anything puzzling about it. In fact many of the things we understand cannot be understood intuitively by humans. We have to use mathematical models to understand many things. No human has a basic understanding of quantum mechanics. Even Richard Feynman said, “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics” That is because we just didn’t evolve to understand the quantum world.BTW, don’t you find it extremely puzzling that humans can understand what happened in the first 10^-30 seconds of the universe, or the intricacies of DNA and life, or that Shakespeare can write as he did, or Bach compose as he did, or any of a thousand other amazing things? How in the world can such abilities possibly have been necessary to allow hominids to succeed just a short few thousand generations ago? Certainly no other successful life form has needed anything like such an ability. No, our ability to comprehend so very much of our world is completely unexplainable in terms of evolutionary advantage. It is, rather, a part of our divine inheritance. It is also pure and simple a gift that allows us to see God in His handiwork, and to become creators and artists in our own rights. This latter part is important, because God shares every good thing that He is and that He does with us, out of pure love. No eternal multiverse does that.
What does just saying God did it really tell us? It sounds like nothing more than God of the Gaps.
What part is that? Can you provide evidence that establishes that it exists?
Why assume it has a point?
R
ribozyme
Guest
Well, he wasn’t arguing our knowledge is complete…
No, where is support for your statement about 10e-30 seconds? I think we could peak a little beyond the electroweak epoch with the Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#The_electroweak_epoch:_10-12_s
Well, we still do not understand the origin of life, but to support your point, I will quote one of my favorite scientists who has a large influence on me:
But here is another excerpt from him that makes it seem he does not believe in the supernatural:
debat.ateist.net/showthread.php?p=5207
Well, you could obviously tell Nature has an editorial policy to use British sounding words. In Nature, it is written as “programme” while he writes it as “program” in that communication quoted on that forum. No, I am not that Danish atheist.
V
VociMike
Guest
We don’t have a method, but we do have an account as to why. And we can no more test that account than you can test your alternative (if you had one).
OK, now we’re arguing about what it means to understand. But why are we able to create and manipulate such towering edifices as the theory of quantum mechanics, which describe the world so well? What good did it do our ancestors to develop a brain that can do quantum mechanics and general relativity. The brain is a voracious user of scarce resources which any sensible organism would have put to better use in more muscle, better senses, quicker reflexes, whatever.
It only tells us why we exist, and what our destiny is. Quite important questions for most humans. It only explains our past, our present and our future.
Well, if you really think that this conversation is just your brain chemicals interacting with my brain chemicals, we do have a problem. Again, my evidence is similar to my previous evidence. It is everything, but this time, everything as seen in and by the human person. If you think that everything that is human (good and bad) has a mechanistic explanation, then what can I do but shrug?
Because that is how we are made. It is natural to look for and expect that our existence has a point, and unnatural not to. Human history tells us that as plain as anything. So either evolution has gone badly astray, creating creatures who will be perpetually deceived or despairing, or there is a reason that we believe there is a point, and that reason is because it is true and we have been created to comprehend that truth.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
It seems like you are saying if a desire is natural and we have it as a result of evolution it must useful and good to use. Humans also ntural desires for rape and violence and sex. Should humans just follow these desires, too?
Also, just because we have a desire to find a point, why does that mean that there is a point?
Also, since you see this natural desire in humans to find the point, why cannot religions just be different cultures creations to find an answer to what the point is? Could this all come from an artifact of evolution where human have a natural desire to point or causes of events?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
So how do you know the account is right? There are alternatives (just none I support) that others support, how do you know you are right and they are wrong? Aren’t you just picking the theory you want to be correct?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This is exciting news! If you will be so kind as to give me the name and location of the lab (and the published works) where they reproduced evolution experimentally, I will be very happy to withdraw my assertion. I don’t mean some nonsense where someone bred a red cow to a black cow and got a mix and called it “evolution”, or patched a frog nucleus into a salamander egg or something. I mean real evolution, from non-life to life to species to different species. Oh heck! Let’s make it easy…nonlife to life will do.
I would also be very interested to know where to find the published works of those who determined, experimentally, what all is in the earth, and where, and how it all came to coalesce (if it did) from its constituent parts. Since, by your definition, it’s not “science” unless the results are reproducible, I am particularly interested in knowing where they put the result of the experiment. Again, I’ll admit I’m wrong when you come up with it.
If you don’t, of course, you need to admit you’re wrong.
Oh, yes. You forgot about the black hole. Do we need to fire the astrophysicists if they can’t come up with a black hole in a laboratory? How long do we give them to do it? Three days? Ten thousand years? When can we be permitted to believe them? Same thing with string theory, “branes” and all that. How long do we give them before we declare a pox on those physicists and fire them all?
V
Valke2
Guest
Otherwise it wouldhave read “In the middle…”
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
The theory of evolution makes no claims about how life might have arisen for the first time. That is a different field called abiogenesis. If you want to learn about the experimental tests of evolution, www.talkorigins.org is good place to start.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Could all this atheism come from an artifact of evolution where humans have a natural desire to avoid the
consequences of their behavior?
Please pardon my levity. I’m still reeling from Katie Couric’s failure to report the reproduction of evolution and the composition of the earth in a laboratory. She would have so wanted to.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No good, Ammonius. Red herring. I want YOU to tell us exactly where evolution was reproduced in a laboratory, and where the results were published in a respectable scientific journal after peer review. While you’re at it, you can show us the same for the laboratory that created life.
Now about the experimental reproduction of the composition of the earth…I think we’re all still waiting for that too. Just naming the journal and the date of the publication would help.
Remember that it was you, not me, who said evolution and the composition of the earth were scientifically reproduced in a laboratory. You have the burden of proof.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I did not say reproduced in a laboratory. I said tested experimentally. Do you deny they have been?
Slight Hijack - What do the fives stars after my name on the thread list mean?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, and if you can’t meet your burden, you have two choices:
- Give up everything you believe about evolution and the composition of the earth, or
- Admit you’re taking both on faith.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh, but you are the one who imposed the scientific test to all of this. If you can’t reproduce results and are further reproducible by others, it doesn’t meet the test. “tested experimentally” means nothing. I can test evolution in my pond by touching electrodes to it and seeing if anything strange comes out in the morning. Do this right or give it up. Journal articles, please.
I suppose the five stars mean you are a General of the Army.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding what is necessary for good science.
talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
- Status