Hiding in science?

[traillius]

I will quote my reply, which I always use for this question. (From another post of mine)

"Haha, I knew this question would come. Nevertheless, I shall answer it.

The short answer is; “I don’t know.” And before you start jumping for joy in your chair, I will tell you that you don’t know either. You say that god created it. But you don’t have any proof that god actually created it. You say it is because we don’t know anything that could have created the universe, so it must have been god. Well…no. You only presume god created the universe. As long as you have no proof, of the specific thing that created the universe, your ‘god’ does not mean anything.

Let me explain. Scientists don’t know what created the universe. They only say; “Something created it.” You say that that something is ‘god’. But as long as you don’t define your god, and give proof why it must be that particular god, you are also saying; “something created it.” Why? Because god can mean so many different things. I can say my socks are god! God can be defined as anything, therefore it does translate to; ‘something created it’.

In short; As long as you don’t define your god, and give proof to this definition, I could as well say that fairies created the universe. (they both have equal amount of proof) Both were also discovered by man about the same time . (I think invented)

And also, not knowing something, does not give an excuse to say; “Well, we don’t know what did it, so…god must have done it…yes!” This is how religion began to exist…to explain things that seemed supernatural. (stars, fire, etc.)

If you have further questions, I’ll be happy to reply."

From what I understand of your argument, temporal ignorance doesn’t allow for affirmative statements of a religious nature. But I guess you allow for your own hypocrisy when you can claim that temporal ignorance will allow for you to believe that any future discoveries must negate religious principle. Perhaps you believe you can predict the future( a non-scientific claim, by the way) but I cannot, and I don’t believe your implicit claim of foreknowledge, partly because of ‘no proof,’ but mostly because such knowledge would only be available to those operating outside of physical law.( heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for one, shows the necessity of this.) Since I doubt you even believe in anything outside of physical law, its doubtful you would be able to do so, or even make such a claim. Since temporal ignorance is disallowing of religious assumptions, it is also disallowing of scientific assumptions. i.e. “God did it " is no less likely than 'God didn’t do it” or “There is no God” if any such argument is based solely on what one knows or doesn’t know at the time.

 

[NotReligous]

From what I understand of your argument, temporal ignorance doesn’t allow for affirmative statements of a religious nature.

That was a part of it, yes.

But I guess you allow for your own hypocrisy when you can claim that temporal ignorance will allow for you to believe that any future discoveries must negate religious principle.

So far this has been true.

Perhaps you believe you can predict the future( a non-scientific claim, by the way) but I cannot, and I don’t believe your implicit claim of foreknowledge, partly because of ‘no proof,’ but mostly because such knowledge would only be available to those operating outside of physical law.( heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for one, shows the necessity of this.) Since I doubt you even believe in anything outside of physical law, its doubtful you would be able to do so, or even make such a claim. Since temporal ignorance is disallowing of religious assumptions, it is also disallowing of scientific assumptions. i.e. “God did it " is no less likely than 'God didn’t do it” or “There is no God” if any such argument is based solely on what one knows or doesn’t know at the time.

Err…"“God did it” is no less likely than 'God didn’t do it"" Yes it is. Why? Same reason as it is more likely that fairies didn’t do it, rather than fairies did it.

 

[NotReligous]

Ah, but we can know a lot about the Cause of the Big Bang by evaluating observable evidence in the physical world. And that is all I did on my link above. If the Big Bang is an observable phenomena, all observable phenomena have a cause explainable through science, conservation of energy and E=mc^2 are true and the universe is constantly expanding, then:

The Cause must be singular, exempt from the limitations of time, and infinitely powerful.

That’s not an “excuse.” That is science.

Nope, that is an excuse. “And also, not knowing something, does not give an excuse to say; “Well, we don’t know what did it, so…god must have done it…yes!” This is how religion began to exist…to explain things that seemed supernatural. (stars, fire, etc.)”

Also think of this;

“But as long as you don’t define your god, and give proof why it must be that particular god, you are also saying; “something created it.” Why? Because god can mean so many different things. I can say my socks are god! God can be defined as anything, therefore it does translate to; ‘something created it’.” (even if you say that it was something powerful, what was that powerful thing?)

How do you know what this powerful thing was? Again just because we don’t yet know what it was caused, does not give you an excuse to say that god did it. What made god? He always was., you say.

Yes, the big bang was caused by something powerful, but just because we don’t yet know what that was, you can’t say it was god. And again, there are sooo many things called an all powerful god, you have to be a lot more precise.

 

[traillius]

Err…"“God did it” is no less likely than 'God didn’t do it"" Yes it is. Why? Same reason as it is more likely that fairies didn’t do it, rather than fairies did it.

If something is completely unknown at any given time, then all explanations are equally likely. But even so, culture at large supercedes the narrowest possible scientific viewpoint of something that is fully not-known. Appeal to majority may be considered a logical fallacy, buts not a reality fallacy.

 

[NotReligous]

If something is completely unknown at any given time, then all explanations are equally likely.

If none of them have any proof, then yes. But because there are loads of options, all equally likely, one particular option is very unlikely… Why? Say we there are one million options for the cause of big bang. What is the likelihood of a certain one of them? 1/1 000 000.

But even so, culture at large supercedes the narrowest possible scientific viewpoint of something that is fully not-known. Appeal to majority may be considered a logical fallacy, buts not a reality fallacy.

I didn’t understand what you were trying to say. Sorry.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Nope, that is an excuse. “And also, not knowing something, does not give an excuse to say; “Well, we don’t know what did it, so…god must have done it…yes!” This is how religion began to exist…to explain things that seemed supernatural. (stars, fire, etc.)”

I just gave you solid conclusions based on empirical data and well established laws of physics. You rejected them, so let’s look at your excuse…

“But as long as you don’t define your god, and give proof why it must be that particular god, you are also saying; “something created it.” Why? Because god can mean so many different things. I can say my socks are god! God can be defined as anything, therefore it does translate to; ‘something created it’.” (even if you say that it was something powerful, what was that powerful thing?)

Well, the empirical evidence says God has infinite energy and is outside of time.

Your socks have finite mass, ergo finite energy and are subject to time and therefore cannot be God, just as the Hindu and Greek gods cannot be God. Nontheistic religions are likewise disproven by the Big Bang. Science narrows it down to Deism and the three monotheistic faiths. We can go even farther on science alone by looking at relics like Lanciano and the Shroud of Turin.

How do you know what this powerful thing was? Again just because we don’t yet know what it was caused, does not give you an excuse to say that god did it. What made god? He always was., you say.

Time began at the Big Bang and yet the Bang must have had a Cause, so mine is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

**Yes, the big bang was caused by something powerful, but just because we don’t yet know what that was, you can’t say it was god. And again, there are sooo many things called an all powerful god, you have to be a lot more precise.

I have been very precise. You’re the one talking about socks and fairies.

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, the big bang was caused by something powerful, but just because we don’t yet know what that was, you can’t say it was god. And again, there are sooo many things called an all powerful god, you have to be a lot more precise.

You admit that “something powerful” created the universe. By saying that, you are also agreeing that “something powerful” exists outside the universe–is transcendent. That “something powerful” created a universe that is not random and chaotic, which can be understood in the fixed parameters or “universal constants”, e.g., the speed of light constant, fixed quantities like the charge of a proton, etc. . . If the values of these constants were a little higher or lower, the universe would not be what it is. Obviously, whatever/whoever created it must be intelligent and have a purpose.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You admit that “something powerful” created the universe. By saying that, you are also agreeing that “something powerful” exists outside the universe–is transcendent. That “something powerful” created a universe that is not random and chaotic, which can be understood in the fixed parameters or “universal constants”, e.g., the speed of light constant, fixed quantities like the charge of a proton, etc. . . If the values of these constants were a little higher or lower, the universe would not be what it is. Obviously, whatever/whoever created it must be intelligent and have a purpose.

Exactly. :clapping:

More precisely, the “something powerful” must be outside of time because the acceleration of the universe is expanding despite the fact that the Big Bang is creating matter and therefore should be losing energy. But it isn’t.

“Something powerful” is constantly gassing up the Bang despite the fact that the Bang’s radius is billions of light years wide.

 

[lemondiesel]

Not quite, given that there is a first mover it’s quite easy to deduce the attributes of this first mover as God.
That a first mover exists can be found by reasonable arguments, even if not everybody finds them compelling. I myself don’t find them compelling. But I wouldn’t say that people who do are out of their minds or something. So it’s not, as you say, a 100% faith claim.

Doesn’t the Big Bang theory start after the creation? It doesn’t explain why, just how it happened. Your first mover as God, is based on the creation story of the Bible, written by man. We can argue that both sides are faith claims.

Everything we experience through our senses is changed or moved by another agent. This cannot go on infinitely. Therefore, a first unmoved mover exists that moves all subsequent agents.
This argument is founded on experience. The only faith needed is believing that our senses can tell us about the world around us.

If the first mover exists to move all subsequent agents, then he has influenced this physical world, therefore making himself a measurable agent. Explain to me why our senses do not explain the world around us?

In order to answer this rationally you would require a commitment to rational principles, such as, out of nothing comes nothing. If you think rationally about it, it cannot possibly be the case that physical reality came out of nothing; an absolute absence of being and reality. Thus the cause of their existence would have to be a non-physical existence; that which has no physical dimension.

Does an actual nothing really exist, or is it like a mathematical potential infinite? Does something acquire consciousness after being created, or does consciousness create physical existence? The non-physical existence would have to have some form of conscious in order to create physical existence, otherwise its ability to exist in a non physical dimension has no purpose. That sounded extremely confusing, sorry. Hopefully you at least understand what I am asking you to explain to me

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Does an actual nothing really exist,

No. Nothing is the opposite of existence. No-thing.

or is it like a mathematical potential infinite?

Does that even have any meaning?

Does something acquire consciousness after being created, or does consciousness create physical existence?

Some kind of non-physical intellect or mind created physical reality. The Ultimate Reality is a perfect mind and will.

The non-physical existence would have to have some form of conscious in order to create physical existence,

Agreed.

That sounded extremely confusing, sorry. Hopefully you at least understand what I am asking you to explain to me 

I understand what you are saying. What I don’t understand is why you find me confusing. I never said that the cause was unconscious. I merely gave a minimal description. In other words, the cause has to at least be non-physical.

 

[lemondiesel]

I understand what you are saying. What I don’t understand is why you find me confusing. I never said that the cause was unconscious. I merely gave a minimal description. In other words, the cause has to at least be non-physical.

I just want to understand your thoughts because they are very nice

If the cause is non-physical, does that mean above the material plane, there is a conscious plane of existence? This is really starting to sound like a Hermeticist point of view, which is what I consider myself to be. So maybe we are agreeing on this issue, just not with the same vocabulary?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Doesn’t the Big Bang theory start after the creation? It doesn’t explain why, just how it happened. Your first mover as God, is based on the creation story of the Bible, written by man. We can argue that both sides are faith claims.

Except that the Catholic take on the creation story (as opposed to the Fundamentalist one played up by the media) is compatible with the Big Bang. Also, we believe that the human authors of the Bible were inspired by and spoke for God. So there are certain principles that go along with that, like that the Bible and the laws of nature don’t go against each other.

If the first mover exists to move all subsequent agents, then he has influenced this physical world, therefore making himself a measurable agent. Explain to me why our senses do not explain the world around us?

There’s a quirk in the Big Bang theory which my atheist interlocutor in another thread brought up. The Big Bang emerged from a singularity, and so there is (at least in this universe) no perceptible data from before the Bang. With that said, we can know certain things about the Bang (and the First Mover) from measuring, for example, redshifting of galaxies and background radiation. By applying the principle of conservation of energy and E=mc^2, we get to look behind the Bang: we can know that the First Mover has infinite energy and is outside of time, and in fact omnipresent, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating while the Bang should be losing energy but isn’t.

Does an actual nothing really exist, or is it like a mathematical potential infinite? Does something acquire consciousness after being created, or does consciousness create physical existence? The non-physical existence would have to have some form of conscious in order to create physical existence, otherwise its ability to exist in a non physical dimension has no purpose. That sounded extremely confusing, sorry. Hopefully you at least understand what I am asking you to explain to me

My interlocutor posited separate universes as a solution for this, but then it begs the question of where the other universe comes from.

I think that, since we can demonstrate that time began at the Bang and that the First Mover (Cause of said Bang) is outside of time, it necessarily follows that the First Mover is uncreated, has always existed and will always exist.

So, since the First Mover has always been here, there has never been “nothing” in the strictest sense.

 

[lemondiesel]

Except that the Catholic take on the creation story (as opposed to the Fundamentalist one played up by the media) is compatible with the Big Bang. Also, we believe that the human authors of the Bible were inspired by and spoke for God. So there are certain principles that go along with that, like that the Bible and the laws of nature don’t go against each other.

Did you just imply that you believe everything in the Bible?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Did you just imply that you believe everything in the Bible?

We believe everything that the Bible asserts to be true.
Catechism of the Catholic Church#109:

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

For example, the Bible does not assert that the world was created in six twenty-four hour days. If you think it does, read Psalm 90:4.

 

[4Horsemen]

Exactly. :clapping:

More precisely, the “something powerful” must be outside of time because the acceleration of the universe is expanding despite the fact that the Big Bang is creating matter and therefore should be losing energy. But it isn’t.

“Something powerful” is constantly gassing up the Bang despite the fact that the Bang’s radius is billions of light years wide.

So . . . does that have something to do with entropy being low after the Big Bang? (I’m trying to wade through Fr. Spitzer’s book). Also, if you don’t mind my asking, but I read that the standard Big Bang model allows for both the possibility that the universe is finite in size, a “closed universe,” and also that it is infinite in size, “open universe.” I understand that the finitude of past time has been proven, but would an Intelligent Being continue to create the universe infinitely? Or was that already accomplished but we’re still first seeing the effects of the Big Bang? In other words, is God still in the process of creating the universe or was it done at the first moment of space/time?

Then, too, if time is a measurement of motion, then how can it be physical (p.19) “like atoms or light?”

 

[Cat_Herder]

So . . . does that have something to do with entropy being low after the Big Bang? (I’m trying to wade through Fr. Spitzer’s book). Also, if you don’t mind my asking, but I read that the standard Big Bang model allows for both the possibility that the universe is finite in size, a “closed universe,” and also that it is infinite in size, “open universe.”

See the Wikipedia article on the ultimate fate of the Universe.

Here’s the abridged version: There was some debate about whether the total amount of matter in the Universe meant that the expansion would eventually decelerate to nothing (flat universe) or even cause the Universe to start contracting into a Big Crunch (closed universe). However:

1. Probability models have put the amount of matter just below that needed to make the Universe flat (stop expanding)–therefore it will continue expanding (open universe)
2. Recent models not only show that the Universe is still expanding, but that this expansion is speeding up. This is interesting because all of that Big Bang energy has to come from somewhere (or Someone, eh?)

I understand that the finitude of past time has been proven, but would an Intelligent Being continue to create the universe infinitely? Or was that already accomplished but we’re still first seeing the effects of the Big Bang? In other words, is God still in the process of creating the universe or was it done at the first moment of space/time?

According to the above, He is still at His canvas, painting.

Then, too, if time is a measurement of motion, then how can it be physical (p.19) “like atoms or light?”

As I understand it, time is the expansion of the Universe (specifically its increasing entropy). So time is not energy, matter or motion except in that limited sense. We measure motion by time, but in doing so we’re not measuring time itself.

 

[lemondiesel]

We believe everything that the Bible asserts to be true.

For example, the Bible does not assert that the world was created in six twenty-four hour days. If you think it does, read Psalm 90:4.

Then how do you know which stories to take literal and which to take metaphorical/symbolical?

 

[NotReligous]

I just gave you solid conclusions based on empirical data and well established laws of physics. You rejected them, so let’s look at your excuse…

No…"The Cause must be singular, exempt from the limitations of time, and infinitely powerful. "

That is an assumption. It is based on something yet unknown. (the cause of big bang)

IWell, the empirical evidence says God has infinite energy and is outside of time.

But that is till an assumption. You still only assume the cause was infinitely powerful, just because we don’t know anything else that has caused it.

Time began at the Big Bang and yet the Bang must have had a Cause, so mine is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

The cause is still unknown. You must present evidence for your own cause. Just saying that something powerful did it doesn’t cut it. For all we know, this something powerful could be a result of incredibly complex physics yet unknown, but completely natural.

I have been very precise. You’re the one talking about socks and fairies.

You base your arguments on assumptions, which is what I have been trying to point out.

PS. Sorry for the slow reply.

 

[NotReligous]

You admit that “something powerful” created the universe. By saying that, you are also agreeing that “something powerful” exists outside the universe–is transcendent. That “something powerful” created a universe that is not random and chaotic, which can be understood in the fixed parameters or “universal constants”, e.g., the speed of light constant, fixed quantities like the charge of a proton, etc. . . If the values of these constants were a little higher or lower, the universe would not be what it is. Obviously, whatever/whoever created it must be intelligent and have a purpose.

The universe is pretty random and chaotic. There is hardly any order. It is 99.99% inhabitable, and unsuitable for life. But it is so big, that life pretty much has to form at some point. It is incredibly unlikely, and takes billions of years, but because of the size of the universe, it would be really unlikely for life not form.

And, as I have stated before, I have no idea what created the universe. But until you give me solid reasons to think it was god, you are only guessing. You define god as something powerful, and outside of time. But how do you know that such things don’t exist, but just not as something of a being. (as in atoms, etc.) From what I have seen anywhere in the universe, there seems to be no reason to assume that the creator was a thinking being.

Edit;

Here is a great video on this matter;

(watch it to the end)

youtube.com/watch?v=ANfvjNob3Qo

PS. A part of this directed to creationists.

 

[vz71]

No…"The Cause must be singular, exempt from the limitations of time, and infinitely powerful. "

That is an assumption. It is based on something yet unknown. (the cause of big bang)

But that is till an assumption. You still only assume the cause was infinitely powerful, just because we don’t know anything else that has caused it.

OK, the cause being singular is provided us by current scientific theory.
Exempt from limitations of time likewise is a product of the qualities necessary to kick off the big bang.

As for infinitely powerful, well that is an assumption.
It may not have been. But then, if it was not then there is going to be a prime mover beyond that. And all we have done is push the question back a step.
I believe Hawking is an authority on pushing the question back.