God Is Not Dead

[Sochi]

Science good, religion bad!

It is so easy to go one way or another on this dualism when it is a useless and counterproductive contrast. The same mind can do both. And do both usefully for good, or the opposite. Hitler promoted religion, for instance, and did monstrous things with science and medicine.

The best explication of why this is a poor contrast is, as far as I know, found int the four quadrants idea put forth by Ken Wilber. The difficulties we have when the two appear to clash is a matter, such as we might have in many kinds of relationships, of boundaries. Religion is primarily a matter of meaning. Science, of measurement. Conflating the two is like mixing vinegar and baking soda. Each is useful on its own, gut you get a foaming mess if you mix them. And that is only good for clearing drains.

And asking if God is dead is to talk about concepts, not whatever the word God refers to. Both sides of that argument are in the realm of belief, not measurability, or we wouldn’t be having it. Treating beliefs as if they have measurability is a useless endeavor. Substituting measurability for meaning is empty.

Unfortunately, the methods of critical thinking and reason seem to be misapplied in much of the meaning realm, as the biggest struggle has been to credibly put meaning into a useful language. All that has happened in all save one set of cases, (sorry, not the Church) is rationalization from assumed premises. Yes, it can be said that science does that with hypotheses, but the purpose is different: in religion the end is meant to be “proof.” In science it is meant to be that as well, but it is to the end of teleological change. So the religionist says “this is my logic, I’m right, you’re not.” The scientist says “This is my logic, let’s see if it works in Nature. Yes? great, it can be used, or change what we thought. No? On we go to the next one.”

Religion usually has the stance that it already knows what IS, science knows it doesn’t know what IS and wants to find out. But those two still operate in realm that by definition don’t cross over. So God is not dead, or God is alive, that is not a science question and not finding God through measurement only says that science is about measurement. Finding God through faith may have meaning, but to give an interior experience a cloak of meaning acceptable as measurement is impossible.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hitler promoted religion, for instance, and did monstrous things with science and medicine.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Hitler

Hitler found the Catholic Church to be his enemy and incarcerated many priests and nuns in his concentration camps. Near the end of the war he ordered the kidnapping of Pope Pius XII. This order was disobeyed.

What you’ll find is that many atheist websites put Hitler squarely in the religious camp.

This is to collaborate with HItler’s lie, that he was a religious man. He used a phoney pretext of supporting religion early in his regime in order to make the public think God was on his side, or he was on God’s side. Liar-in-Chief! As well the last years of his regime proved.

I’m not trying to start a discussion here, as that would hijack the thread. But your remark cannot be left unanswered. So if you plan to debate this, I suggest starting a new thread and I’ll meet you there.

 

[Sochi]

He used a phoney pretext of supporting religion early in his regime in order to make the public think God was on his side, or he was on God’s side. Liar-in-Chief! As well the last years of his regime proved.

I’m not trying to start a discussion here, as that would hijack the thread. But your remark cannot be left unanswered. So if you plan to debate this, I suggest starting a new thread and I’ll meet you there.

No debate there, CIII, just the point that the concept of God is hijacked to many ends by many folks, religious or not. So when someone says “God” is alive or dead, what’s the referent of that word in context, of fundamentally?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ok, the short answer to your question is that noone who actually understands the physics denies that physics can at least potentially provide an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence. So attacking the physics is a waste of time.

First it is not true that all who " actually understand the physics " agree with either/or/and that the physics ( and exactly which physical theories, you failed to specify ) potentially provides an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence. And we should stipulate that we are dealing with actual scientific theories, falsefiable as required by all good science and not wild specualtions. Now what real scientific theories do you have in mind?

At best you can argue that the laws of physics themselves require, or at least imply, the existence of God. But that requires accepting that postulating the existence of an omnipotent, immaterial, perfect, omniscient, trascendental sentient entity who ‘exists outside of time and space’ (yet still cares about what we eat or who we have sex with) is an improvement on just postulating the basic minimalist set of the laws of physics - which get simpler and more elegant all the time.

My dear Dr. Taffy, when scientists say and /or suggest they know how the universe began they have stepped beyond physics and are in the realm of philosophy. And I have no objection to that. But when they do they cannot limit their inferences simply to those they might themselves have or that we must limit ourseleves to what Aristotle called Physics or the philosophy of material, changing substances having real natures. They must also, then, be willing to discuss all the other aspects of Physics, as understood by Aristotle, and Metaphysics as well. They cannot arbitrarily limit the discussion to the material and composed essences of nature, they must consider valid inrerences leading to transcendent Being, the possibility of an Unmoved Mover similar to that of Aristotle’s description or after that of Thomas Aquinas’ description, which I have, elsewhere, argued are essentially the same Being.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

By all means, take all the aid you feel that you need!

I always welcome help, there are good men and women here. I’m glad you approve.

‘Graviton’<>‘gravity’

Sorry Doc., I don’t know what your notation means.

We can measure gravity very easily. I did it myself yesterday in the process of working out how long the duck needed to be in the oven.

Of course. But that only tells you what the effect of gravity is, it does not tell you what gravity is.

Whether or not there is a ‘graviton’ is a different matter, but is not obviously related to the topic of this thread. General relativity does not posit a ‘graviton’, after all!

Well actually it is the central point of the discussion. If there is no " graviton " then we are dealing with a power that cannot originate from this universe, because everything in this universe is some derivative form of matter/energy and therefore can be specifically detected. or will be susceptible, per force, to being seen on some scientific instrument, as waves and ultimate particles are commonly detected.

Newton also speculated that he could turn lead into gold and that he could predict the future based on codes in the Bible. This is why science, at least, rejects the argument from authority. I don’t care who said it, I want to know what his evidence was.

So Newton is a hero of science as long as he agrees with some modern cosmologists? However my point stands. He made his comments becuase he could not define the nature of gravity, since science was and still is opposed to " action at a distance. " So if gravity is not a physical thing, it is not beyond reason that it is a transcendent power and does not originate in or from this universe. You must rememer, unlike today’s scientists, Newton knew a great deal about both philosophy and theology. No, his remark is spot on. You reject it and snear at it because you have a natural aversion against and bias against any transcendent power or being.

Prove it. Centuries of theist philosophers, scientists and creationists have failed to come up with one convincing proof of, or even evidence for, God.

Come now Doc., you know very well that you can’t prove to a blind man that the sun is a piercingly bright yellow planet in the sky? Nor can you prove to one born deaf that Motzart and Bethoven are two of the greatest masters of Classical Music. Nor can you prove to the prejudiced that what they hate to admit is true.

You see Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church have been saying for centuries that the universe is the Effect of God’s creative power. Our arguments are certainly more reasonable than to suggest that the universe caused, guides, and sustains itself by its own creative power. That proposition requires an act of faith that surpasses credulity - and reason.

And you might want to consider the possibility that your interlocutors are familiar with Aquinas, but just are not impressed. Try reading something from later than the 13th century.

Just tell me exactly what you have read from Aquinas and I will indeed be impressed. Perhaps I can give you a little quize, wouldn’t that be fun. Oh yes, there are plenty of good men and women who came after Aquinas, the Scholastic School is alive and well today, so is Aristotle and Plato. As regards the others, I have little respect for them.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

Prof. Sir Roger Penrose and Fr. Robert Spitzer both say that this hasn’t been proven “yet”.
“Yet” implies that Hawking my be found correct somewhere down the road.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Prof. Sir Roger Penrose and Fr. Robert Spitzer both say that this hasn’t been proven “yet”.
“Yet” implies that Hawking my be found correct somewhere down the road.

Faith, it’s comforting to know that almost anything we can imagine may be found correct somewhere down the road.

 

[Faith1960]

Faith, it’s comforting to know that almost anything we can imagine may be found correct somewhere down the road.

?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

?

God and heaven!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Prof. Sir Roger Penrose and Fr. Robert Spitzer both say that this hasn’t been proven “yet”.
“Yet” implies that Hawking my be found correct somewhere down the road.

No he won’t. Nothing in this world will be proven which contradicts Cathlic Doctrine, as I have explained. So " yet " does not imply that they may be proven correct down the road. You must remember that Catholic Doctrine comes directly form Divine Revelation. God does not lie.

I think Fr. Spitzer meant " yet " as a tongue in cheek denial of such a possibility. The reason I say that is because Fr. Spitzer is a very orthdox Catholic Priest, that is he is absolutely loyal to Catholic Doctrine.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Dude, Newton strutted his stuff 350 years ago. Science has moved on. This is the “argument from ancient scientists who got a couple of things right” - it doesn’t mean he was right about everything. And Newton didn’t “show” the existence of God at any point. He speculated - during a time of almost total religious obsequience amongst the populace - that God might be involved. Who knows whether he was worried about a “Galileo moment” when he said that?

Well Dude, I thought you knew everything? What you say here does not disprove what Newton said, as I have explained to Dr. Taffy. The fact is he made such comments in a number of his scientific works. He was simply being honest, since he had no proof, any more than any one today has proof to the contrary.As to his fear of a " Galileo moment, " England had long berfor jettisoned the Roman Church.

So what would be the basis of such a fear? Further more, Newton was the one who demonstrated the validity of the theory of gravity. And, just in case you are interested in historical truth ( which may be a stretch), the " Galileo moment " had nothing to do with gravity.
It had to do with the fact that Galileo was warned to stop teaching and writing publically that he had demonstrated the validity of the Copernicus heliocentric theory. And when he finally got around to writing a retraction, he insulted the Pope publicaly in writing. And of course this was not the only time Galileo fudged his facts ( i.e. his explanation of the leaning tower of Pizza ).

Linus2nd

 

[DrTaffy]

Now you are playing the pity card.

No, I am objecting to gratuitous ill manners.

 

[DrTaffy]

First it is not true that all who " actually understand the physics " agree with either/or/and that the physics ( and exactly which physical theories, you failed to specify ) potentially provides an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence.

Sure it is. Provide one counterexample.

Noting carefully first what it is that I am claiming - only that the physical explanation “provides an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence”.

My dear Dr. Taffy, when scientists say and /or suggest they know how the universe began they have stepped beyond physics and are in the realm of philosophy.

Since physics was always considered to be a part of philosophy, so what? Nor are they in any way ‘beyond’ physics: what they are doing is clearly and unequivocally physics.

The only difference between what they are doing and what ‘Philosophers’ and ‘Theologians’ do is that the Physicist’s claims are mathematically detailed and (at least in principle) falsifiable.

Nor do physicists claim to know how the universe began, they only suggest theories, and do so in enough detail to allow those theories to be tested. And, indeed, to show that they are at least internally consistent.

‘Graviton’<>‘gravity’

Sorry Doc., I don’t know what your notation means.

Well, the notation is hardly unique to me, but by all means.

“<>” means “is not equal to”

So failure to detect a graviton is not equivalent to failure to measure gravity. Nor do anything like all theories of gravity predict a graviton.

Of course. But that only tells you what the effect of gravity is, it does not tell you what gravity is.

Gravity is the effect. We have theories about what causes it, mathematically detailed and falsifiable theories, but we don’t claim to know which if any is true.

Can you show me one equivalently mathematically detailed and falsifiable theory for God?

Well actually it is the central point of the discussion. If there is no " graviton " then we are dealing with a power that cannot originate from this universe, because everything in this universe is some derivative form of matter/energy and therefore can be specifically detected. or will be susceptible, per force, to being seen on some scientific instrument, as waves and ultimate particles are commonly detected.

Gravity is “susceptible to being seen on some scientific instrument”, nor does your conclusion that “we are dealing with a power that cannot originate from this universe” follow from failure to detect a ‘graviton’.

So Newton is a hero of science as long as he agrees with some modern cosmologists?

No, the mere fact that Newton says something does not make it true, or even ‘science’. His work on optics, mechanics and calculus make him a hero of science. His belief in alchemy and biblical codes do not thereby become science. Sorry.

DrTaffy;12035086:

Linusthe2nd;12032502:

Oh come now, the entire universe is the Effect

of God’s action and presence.

Prove it. Centuries of theist philosophers, scientists and creationists have failed to come up with one convincing proof of, or even evidence for, God.

Come now Doc., you know very well that you can’t prove to a blind man that the sun is a piercingly bright yellow planet in the sky?

There you go. You cannot prove it. It is an unsupported assertion, an unprovable purely subjective belief.

So why bring it up in this debate?

Our arguments are certainly more reasonable than to suggest that the universe caused, guides, and sustains itself by its own creative power. That proposition requires an act of faith that surpasses credulity - and reason.

What ‘caused, guides, and sustains’ God? Why is it more reasonable to posit the existence of a sentient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity without evidence than it is to merely accept the existence of the universe that we see all around us?

Just tell me exactly what you have read from Aquinas and I will indeed be impressed. Perhaps I can give you a little quize, wouldn’t that be fun.

No, I don’t think I will submit to a ‘little quize’ from someone who cannot even spell ‘quiz’ correctly!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Gravity is the effect. We have theories about what causes it, mathematically detailed and falsifiable theories, but we don’t claim to know which if any is true. . . . No, I don’t think I will submit to a ‘little quize’ from someone who cannot even spell ‘quiz’ correctly!

Seeing that you no more have your Dr in physics than I do, why not have a meeting of minds on the subject of gravity. I’ve got my spell-check on so I won’t needlessly be losing points.

Here goes:

Gravity is not an effect; it is a part of the natural world that science seeks to explain.
Scientific explanations do not deal with the causes of universal phenomena but rather with those of specific events.
For example, no one is seeking the cause of force, the cause of space-time, or the cause of energy.
We can ask about why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; that is specific - the answer being the rotation of the earth.
Bear in mind that the rotation of the earth does not cause the sun to rise. The event has to do with the behaviour (this is not a spelling error - I am not American) of space-time, of which gravity is a quality.

I hope you can follow this because it’s basic.

What is gravity?

Newton described it as a force. When I step on the scale and push down with 830 N., it pushes back with the same force, registering my weight as 83 kg. Now this all makes sense when things are in contact, but what about at a distance. This is what Einstein addressed. I can fall off the roof, not because forces act “at a distance” (if that meant there were no connection, no relationship between them), but because space-time “bends”, actively pushing me down. The force is in space-time, which is not nothing, but something that “bends” and can hurl me to the ground. In the end, you have not found the cause of gravity; you have clarified how it all works.
FYI: the cause is God.

 

[utunumsint]

My friend and I saw this movie yesterday and something’s been bothering me ever since. At one point the college professor quotes Stephen Hawking and his belief that the universe created itself from nothing. Can anyone link me to anything written by people qualified after his comments that refutes this belief?

As far as I understand it, both Krauss and Hawkins just redefine nothing to be something. Krauss more or less admits this at the end of his book. He even rejects the very notion of nothingness as philosophy understands it. So at the very least, they can be criticized for their choice of words. It should rather be, the universe was created by some property rich quantum stuff (insert theory here, but my point is simply that it isn’t nothing and they themselves admit this).

Still, that is an issue for physicists to discuss. Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God have nothing to do with the origin of the universe. They are arguments for the existence of God, but they are not arguments for the origins of the universe. In fact, Aquinas says explicitly, that he does not think we can ever conclusively know whether the universe had a beginning or not.

I think what physics is showing us about the universe is fascinating, but I agree with others that it does become annoying when physicists start philosophizing (badly) about what they have discovered. One really annoying example is the so called God particle. Why it was named this way is anyone’s guess since it has absolutely nothing godlike about it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sure it is. Provide one counterexample.

Certainly. Dr. Anthony Rizzi, Fr.John A. Weisheipl, Fr. William A. Wallace and I’m sure we can count on Fr. George Lamaitre ( were he still living ), Fr. Robert Spitzer come immediately to mind.

Noting carefully first what it is that I am claiming - only that the physical explanation “provides an internally consistent description of the universe and how it came into existence”.

Exactly the source of our disagreement. What " physical " explanation are you talking about for Pete’s sake? And how does that provide an " internally consistent " description of universe and how it came to be? Horse feathers!!

Since physics was always considered to be a part of philosophy, so what? Nor are they in any way ‘beyond’ physics: what they are doing is clearly and unequivocally physics.

Come on Doc. That idea died with Newton. It certainly wouldn’t be accepted by modern science. But if you insist, then science should actually require the study of " philosophical " physics and metaphysics modeled after Aristotelian studies. If that had been the case, then we wouldn’t be having so much wild speculation in physics today.

The only difference between what they are doing and what ‘Philosophers’ and ‘Theologians’ do is that the Physicist’s claims are mathematically detailed and (at least in principle) falsifiable.

First, since you claimed that physics was a branch of philosophy, then you cannot arbitrarily throw out the kind of reasoning engaged in by Aristotle and Aquinas. And I disagree, the current theories claiming that the universe started itself are not " in principle " falsifiable.

Nor do physicists claim to know how the universe began, they only suggest theories, and do so in enough detail to allow those theories to be tested. And, indeed, to show that they are at least internally consistent.

I don’t know what you mean by " internally consistent, " I guess you can say whatever fits the agenda. That doesn’t make it true. And of course many disagree with you and your heroes.

End Part 1

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Part 2

Well, the notation is hardly unique to me, but by all means.

“<>” means “is not equal to”

So if there is no " there " there, then we can infer that gravity is a power not of this universe, though it guides the universe. Could it be the " hand of God " at work . Heaven forbid! Run every body, its God again!!

So failure to detect a graviton is not equivalent to failure to measure gravity. Nor do anything like all theories of gravity predict a graviton.

And I profoundly disagree, so does Willam A. Wallace and John A Weisheipl ( you could read both to great advantage, but they are deep, deep, and deeper ). Well there has to be a physical aspect to gravity, if not then it is a power not of this world.

Gravity is the effect.

Oh really Doc.! The motion of the planets and objects falling are the effect. I am very surprized you made such a comment.

We have theories about what causes it, mathematically detailed and falsifiable theories, but we don’t claim to know which if any is true.

Well, that is not factual. I will wait until the facts are discovered. In the meantime people like Hitchings, Krauss, and Dawkins should restrain themselves. Well, if they aren’t claiming these " theories " as facts, they certainly aren’t doing anything to discourage their accolytes from spreading such fantisies.

Can you show me one equivalently mathematically detailed and falsifiable theory for God?

Of course not. But if science can infer something to be true which is not falsifiable, then philosophy should have the same privilege.

Gravity is “susceptible to being seen on some scientific instrument”,

Really, and just when did this occur and what did gravity look like. Can you provide a link that explains this? Funny no one on our side has mentioned it, for it would surely be an earth shaking event.

nor does your conclusion that “we are dealing with a power that cannot originate from this universe” follow from failure to detect a ‘graviton’.

I offered it as a possibility, not a fact. But if gravity cannot be proven to be a derivative of matter, then it would surely be valid to make that inference. So there must be a detectable as pect to the nature of gravity. Is it a wave, a particle, or some more subtle form of energy? At this poing it has proven to be as elusive as the boson particle.

No, the mere fact that Newton says something does not make it true, or even ‘science’. His work on optics, mechanics and calculus make him a hero of science. His belief in alchemy and biblical codes do not thereby become science. Sorry.

Except Newton wasn’t stirring the cauldron when he made the remarks. You interpret it in your typical biased manner and I will interpret it as Newton gave it. As he directed his editor to write it in his scientific works, especially in his Optics.

There you go. You cannot prove it. It is an unsupported assertion, an unprovable purely subjective belief.

Of course, if a student failes to open a book, and fails to attend a lecture because he hates the subject, he is as the blind and the deaf. You are averse to God and anything which might point to him, so you refuse to listen or learn. You have become as one who is blind.

So why bring it up in this debate?

Listen Doc. you are in our house and we write and debate to the profit of all and we will use the " tools " we have for the benefit of all. No one is twisting your arm to come here.

What ‘caused, guides, and sustains’ God?

Nothing, he has always existed and will always exist, that is why we happen to be here.

Why is it more reasonable to posit the existence of a sentient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity without evidence than it is to merely accept the existence of the universe that we see all around us?

First of all God has reaveld himself firstly in nature, secondly by his Divine Revelation by the word of Moses, the Fathers and the Profits, and finally by his own Son, Jesus Christ, and lastly by his One, Holy, Catholic Church. This represents nearly five thousand years of Kings, prophets and saints who have verified the truth of what they believe by the exemplary lives they lived.

His natural revelation is of course explained by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, even Plato and the great Muslim and Jewish philosophers.

With all this backing us, we naturally and quite frankly tell you and others like you, that you are absolutely wrong. So yes, the universe is the effect of God’s own creative, providential action. We detect God in the nature of the universe. And intellectually, it is much more logical to appeal to a Divine Cause than to place credence in a " theory " which says, in effect, that a clump of mud caused itself. That is what you are suggesting you know. You can dress it up and call it gravity or the laws of gravity, or whatever. What you are saying essentially is that a clump of mud can cause itself. And that just won’t fly, at least not with sane men and women.

No, I don’t think I will submit to a ‘little quize’ from someone who cannot even spell ‘quiz’ correctly!

I will note your objection, so humorously expressed .

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

My friend and I saw this movie yesterday and something’s been bothering me ever since. At one point the college professor quotes Stephen Hawking and his belief that the universe created itself from nothing. Can anyone link me to anything written by people qualified after his comments that refutes this belief?

I am here late, but from stock knowledge he says that because there is a law of gravity something like that, then God is not needed, implying that gravity brings about the whole universe.

Of course that is one very silly way of reasoning notwithstanding that the man has a good mind for mathematics.

It seems that he prefers to keep quiet about where does the law of gravity come from.

The thing is to get him to debate with you, and you ask him how he did experience the process by which he did produce babies with his wife, therefore God exists – unless he wants to go into infinite regress which he knows is not a valid concept – it is all in the mind.

When you get to debate with him on the basis of his experience of marriage and women and bearing babies, he will make corny jokes and get people to not anymore continue with the question: how do you explain from your experience that because there is a law of gravity you become a sex oriented human male, if there is no Power in charge of the whole program of creation and the operation thereof in the whole universe.

The whole basis of a good debate is to always eventually if not right at the beginning, go to the experience of mankind and of course start with yourself and your opponent.

KingCoil

 

[Peter_Plato]

The only difference between what they are doing and what ‘Philosophers’ and ‘Theologians’ do is that the Physicist’s claims are mathematically detailed and (at least in principle) falsifiable.

Well, no. What physicists do when they detail events mathematically is descriptive but what philosophers and theologians do is explanatory. Both are falsifiable, but mathematical models are much more amenable to the identification of error.

Not only are philosophical and theological claims much broader in scope and more general in applicability, but they address divergent realities. Theology and metaphysics are focused on the reason or explanation for why reality is as it is, physics on how (the causal means by which) change occurs. Change (efficient causality) can be measured and mathematically depicted; the reason for which change occurs (final causality) cannot be measured unless the teleological reason for which things occur (explanation) can first be identified clearly.

Explanations are end and future oriented; descriptions are past-causal oriented, which is why they can be mathematically depicted and easily falsified.

 

[Jerbear]

I may be wrong so if anyone knows that to be the case, just don’t be too hard but I believe the theory is that if you were to add all of the matter and anti-matter and cancelled all that stuff out then you would get zero. I’ve heard them talk about how the universe is flat instead of a saddle shape which confirms it somehow?

The way I took it is that if you have two things that are equal and opposite then they can cancel out to become nothing, something became nothing. So they look at it in reverse order, nothing becomes something by becoming two equal and opposite things.

I always thought it of as the laws of physics say that something spontaneously being created doesn’t necessarily break the laws of physics, but that’s not saying that it for sure happened that way. I personally have a hard time believing the universe just appeared. I’ve witnessed in nature two opposites become nothing (two boxes going in opposite direction, collide, and stop once they meet and going to zero kinetic energy) I can’t say I’ve ever seen the opposite happen in nature (two boxes are butted up right against each other and then spontaneously they shoot off in opposite directions with equal kinetic energy)