God is not needed to explain universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ribozyme

Guest
Read this paper:

pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html

Wow, that paper is so enlightening, thank you Sean!!!

Well, God is superfluous and it is best not to invoke him as an explanation for anything.

Thank you Andrei Linde for eternal inflation! Well, with multiverses that fine-tuning argument is rendered useless. With eternal inflation, universes are created eternally, and the process never stops. Some of those universes will possess that properties that allow life.
 
i’m a little dissapointed in you.

that paper was nothing but conjecture and opinion. it offered a sophomore level rant.

Why do atheists, who don’t believe in God, give such wordy testimony to the fact. I don’t believe in unicorns, but i don’t go to pro-unicorn websites and try to tell them they’re all wrong.

In my opinion, one of the best proofs for God is the attention the science based atheists give to him. He has to exist since he’s talked about so much by the people who don’t believe in him in the first place!
 
So where did these eternal multiverses come from? Oh, nevermind. 🙂

Sure, one can conjecture mechanisms that have some of the properties of God (not properties ever seen in the material universe, BTW) to explain the existence of the universe. But I thought science was about evidence, data, proof. Without evidence, data, proof, this is just science-as-religion. In that case, your multiverse God isn’t nearly as interesting or hope-giving as the Christian God.

It also occurs to me that the effort to eliminate God has just made man an even more insignificant speck. It was bad enough when there was one gigantic 15 billion year old universe. Now there is an infinite number of them.

Tell me again why any atheist micro-speck would care about living a moral life? Seriously.
 
ribozyme said:
Wow, that paper is so enlightening, thank you Sean!!!.
Click to expand...
Some of Sean’s other thoughts…
“On its anniversary, Roe v. Wade is threatened as never before. Perhaps it will have to be eviscerated beyond recognition before the American public will make an effort to preserve abortion rights.”

“Guys tend to not quite appreciate how important the right to choose really is to women”

but my favorite quote from this unbiased atheist is:… (and read it a few times to really take in the venom)

“In the long run, the way to squelch the political effectiveness of the intelligent-design movement, the anti-abortion movement, the anti-gay-marriage movement, and so on, is to relegate them to insignificant minority positions within the populace, and one good way to do that is to undermine their supernatural foundations.”

WOW! Thanks Sean, for letting the world see what your intentions REALLY are. political, and not well masked.
Your not as much an atheist as you are a closet liberal in atheist clothing.

you know, that was SOOOOOoooo powerful, i’m going to paste that again. so that no one misses it…

“In the long run, the way to squelch the political effectiveness of the intelligent-design movement, the anti-abortion movement, the anti-gay-marriage movement, and so on, is to relegate them to insignificant minority positions within the populace, and one good way to do that is to undermine their supernatural foundations.”

SO, thanks for that, Sean!

source: cosmicvariance.com/2006/03/19/were-creeping-up-on-you/
 
ribozyme

*Well, God is superfluous and it is best not to invoke him as an explanation for anything.
*
Well, multiverses are superfluous, and it is best not to invoke them as an explanation for anything.
 
Well there is a grain of truth there. God should not ever be used to explain any happening in a scientific context. Science is a field that studies and attempts to explain the cosmos in natural terms, not supernatural.
 
thechrismyster said:
Some of Sean’s other thoughts…
“On its anniversary, Roe v. Wade is threatened as never before. Perhaps it will have to be eviscerated beyond recognition before the American public will make an effort to preserve abortion rights.”

“Guys tend to not quite appreciate how important the right to choose really is to women”

but my favorite quote from this unbiased atheist is:… (and read it a few times to really take in the venom)

“In the long run, the way to squelch the political effectiveness of the intelligent-design movement, the anti-abortion movement, the anti-gay-marriage movement, and so on, is to relegate them to insignificant minority positions within the populace, and one good way to do that is to undermine their supernatural foundations.”

WOW! Thanks Sean, for letting the world see what your intentions REALLY are. political, and not well masked.
Your not as much an atheist as you are a closet liberal in atheist clothing.

you know, that was SOOOOOoooo powerful, i’m going to paste that again. so that no one misses it…

“In the long run, the way to squelch the political effectiveness of the intelligent-design movement, the anti-abortion movement, the anti-gay-marriage movement, and so on, is to relegate them to insignificant minority positions within the populace, and one good way to do that is to undermine their supernatural foundations.”

SO, thanks for that, Sean!

source: cosmicvariance.com/2006/03/19/were-creeping-up-on-you/
Click to expand...
I really like Sean Carroll… could you please address his arguments instead of pointing out his views on political topics.

I just discovered that blog like a week ago. How long have you been reading it?
 
a_cermak said:
Well there is a grain of truth there. God should not ever be used to explain any happening in a scientific context. Science is a field that studies and attempts to explain the cosmos in natural terms, not supernatural.
Click to expand...
Quite true. But when the effort to remove God from the question produces hypothetical material objects with God-like properties such as must be possessed by an eternal infinity of multiverses, then this so-called science has become nothing more than religion by another name.

And the problem with such an infinity of universes is that it gives not more hope but less. It gives not more meaning to human existence but less. It does not raise man up but reduces him further into insignificance and irrelevancy.

If I had my choice between these two Gods, I would find no reason to choose the poorer of the two.
 
ribozyme said:
I really like Sean Carroll… could you please address his arguments instead of pointing out his views on political topics.

I just discovered that blog like a week ago. How long have you been reading it?
Click to expand...
how can you remove his politics FROM his arguments? you should know better than anyone that once opinion taints arguments, the conclusion is never more than opinion.

Do you really like him? or do you really like him backing up your thoughts?

“one good way to do that is to undermine their supernatural foundations.”
**

is that why you come here to discuss atheism with us?
 
thechrismyster said:
how can you remove his politics FROM his arguments?

Do you really like him? or do you really like him backing up your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Well, he is a cosmologist, and HE knows what he is talking about. He does not express his political views in his technical papers.

So how long have you been reading his blog? Or did you google in for something incriminating?
 
ribozyme said:
Thank you Andrei Linde for eternal inflation! Well, with multiverses that fine-tuning argument is rendered useless. With eternal inflation, universes are created eternally, and the process never stops. Some of those universes will possess that properties that allow life.
Click to expand...
,
After the chaotic inflationary model, came the eternal inflationary model, which was set forth by Andrei Linde in 1986. As astronomer John D. Barrow summarized it in his work, The Book of Nothing:
The spectacular effect of this is to make inflation self-reproducing. Every inflating region gives rise to other sub-regions which inflate and then in turn do the same. The process appears unstoppable—eternal. No reason has been found why it should ever end. Nor is it known if it needs to have a beginning. As with the process of chaotic inflation, every bout of inflation can produce a large region with very different properties. Some regions may inflate a lot, some only a little; some may have many large dimensions of space, some only three; some may contain four forces of Nature that we see, others may have fewer. The overall effect is to provide a physical mechanism by which to realize all, or at least almost all, possibilities somewhere within a single universe.
These speculative possibilities show some of the unending richness of the physicists’ conception of the vacuum. It is the basis of our most successful theory of the Universe and why it has the properties that it does. Vacuums can change; vacuums can fluctuate; vacuums can have strange symmetries, strange geographies, strange histories. More and more of the remarkable features of the Universe we observe seem to be reflections of the properties of the vacuum (2000, pp. 256,271).

and

…Linde—as the developer of the eternal inflation model—admitted that there is a chicken-and-egg problem involved here. Which came first—the Universe, or the laws governing it? As Linde put it: “If there was no law, how did the Universe appear?” (as quoted in Overbye, 2001).
 
Stephen Hawking was constrained to say: Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe (1988, p. 174).
 
buffalo said:
,
After the chaotic inflationary model, came the eternal inflationary model, which was set forth by Andrei Linde in 1986. As astronomer John D. Barrow summarized it in his work, The Book of Nothing:
The spectacular effect of this is to make inflation self-reproducing. Every inflating region gives rise to other sub-regions which inflate and then in turn do the same. The process appears unstoppable—eternal. No reason has been found why it should ever end. Nor is it known if it needs to have a beginning. As with the process of chaotic inflation, every bout of inflation can produce a large region with very different properties. Some regions may inflate a lot, some only a little; some may have many large dimensions of space, some only three; some may contain four forces of Nature that we see, others may have fewer. The overall effect is to provide a physical mechanism by which to realize all, or at least almost all, possibilities somewhere within a single universe.
These speculative possibilities show some of the unending richness of the physicists’ conception of the vacuum. It is the basis of our most successful theory of the Universe and why it has the properties that it does. Vacuums can change; vacuums can fluctuate; vacuums can have strange symmetries, strange geographies, strange histories. More and more of the remarkable features of the Universe we observe seem to be reflections of the properties of the vacuum (2000, pp. 256,271).

and

…Linde—as the developer of the eternal inflation model—admitted that there is a chicken-and-egg problem involved here. Which came first—the Universe, or the laws governing it? As Linde put it: “If there was no law, how did the Universe appear?” (as quoted in Overbye, 2001).
Click to expand...
Guth said the inflationary universe is the ultimate free lunch. Well, it is; one universe generates offspring, and those offspring generate more offspring, and so on. I don’t think that eternal inflation can be past-eternal, but it is future eternal. I think a quantum fluctation initated inflation.

From this paper:

arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404546
Alan Guth:
In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it
will happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes
trivial—anything is possible, unless it violates some absolute conservation law. To extract
predictions from the theory, we must therefore learn to distinguish the probable from the
improbable.
Click to expand...
So with an infinite number of possiblities, the fine-tuning argument is rendered useless (for the existence of God, of course).
 
The article cited by buffalo in post #4 emphasizes the continuing retreat of modern science from the view that the universe is most likely eternal. It also emphasizes that scientists, every time they try to find an alternative to a created universe, are blocked in their efforts and have to create elaborate and imaginary scenarios to explain away the need for a Creator.

This is the subject that intrigues me the most. Is there something in the scientific mind that motivates it to find every possible avenue to explain away God?

In other words, why are so many scientists atheists? And why does science not seem to be serving their cause lately?

It doesn’t do just to say that scientists cannot be concerned with supernatural questions. It seems more and more that atheist scientists have an active agenda to explain away a Created universe, and therefore a Creator.

Someone might say you can’t mix science with religion.

But why must anyone mix science with irreligion?

I think maybe God is behind these recent developments in science, and is enjoying a wry moment of humor as the atheists are desparately scrambling to produce creative fictions about how the universe got started.

From nothing? Why not?

But then you would need God to pull that rabbit out of the hat!!!
 
ribozyme said:
Well, he is a cosmologist, and HE knows what he is talking about. He does not express his political views in his technical papers.

So how long have you been reading his blog? Or did you google in for something incriminating?
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of his writings. keep your friends close and your atheists closer, as they say.
Could you google him for something incriminating?
 
thechrismyster said:
I’m well aware of his writings. keep your friends close and your atheists closer, as they say.
Could you google him for something incriminating?
Click to expand...
Well, regarding Sean, he is not a liberal, but a republican atheist (but he is pro-choice and he dislikes Bush). He is not a closet liberal.
 
Gilbert_Keith said:
The article cited by buffalo in post #4 emphasizes the continuing retreat of modern science from the view that the universe is most likely eternal. It also emphasizes that scientists, every time they try to find an alternative to a created universe, are blocked in their efforts and have to create elaborate and imaginary scenarios to explain away the need for a Creator.

This is the subject that intrigues me the most. Is there something in the scientific mind that motivates it to find every possible avenue to explain away God?

In other words, why are so many scientists atheists? And why does science not seem to be serving their cause lately?

It doesn’t do just to say that scientists cannot be concerned with supernatural questions. It seems more and more that atheist scientists have an active agenda to explain away a Created universe, and therefore a Creator.

Someone might say you can’t mix science with religion.

But why must anyone mix science with irreligion?

I think maybe God is behind these recent developments in science, and is enjoying a wry moment of humor as the atheists are desparately scrambling to produce creative fictions about how the universe got started.

From nothing? Why not?

But then you would need God to pull that rabbit out of the hat!!!
Click to expand...
Well, could you refute the hypothesis that the inflationary universe is future-eternal? Or you are going to point out that the inflationary universe is not past-eternal and argue for the God of the Gaps?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top