B
Bluegoat
Guest
Yes and no. The problem of infinite regression is the same whether we talk about the first cause being a who or a what. Whether it is a force, being, or physical reality, it must be self-existent.
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well yes, but I guess that is the point. The fact that there is any reality we can know at all is a metaphysical problem. Even if there is no God it is a metaphysical problem - the lack of God would not mean that there was no metaphysics. There is nothing physics or science can really do with that. So when scientists say their ideas about the physical universe show God isn’t absolutely necessary, I think they are stepping outside of what science can actually assert. And I start to wonder about their grasp not only of philosophy but the philosophy of science.
It kind of freaks me out when people who are supposedly good scientists say things like that. Not because I am worried about philosophy or theology, but because it makes me worry about science.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Ok, but what about the “STEM” that existed before the Big Bang, if everything didn’t come into existence then?A bunch of excellent remarks from different posters, and this one is especially good. It points to the parallel between the theistic and atheistic beliefs. They both are founded on a basic principle: “there is some unexplained and unexplainable foundation for all existence”. The word “explanation” means to reduce someting to a “more” basic entity, and the ultimate foundation (obviously) cannot be reduced any further.
For the theists this basic explanation is “god” (not necessarily the Christian God), but some entity, which “transcends” or surpasses the “natural, observable world” - the usual word is “supernatural”, (though it could and should be called “unnatural”, after all there is no “sub-natural”, is there?).
For the atheists it is the universe. The word “universe” is STEM - space, time, energy, matter (energy and matter are actually the same). For the atheists the questions: “where did the universe come from?”, or “what existed before the universe?”, or what exists outside the universe?" are nonsensical questions, just like the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” would be a syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless utterance.
When comparing the theistic and atheistic “basic” stance, it is obvious that the atheistic one is more “parsimonous”. It looks at the “stuff” we all experience, and is content with it. Of course a parsimonous answer is not necessarily a valid answer. It may well be that the atheistic view is incorrect. However, there is nothing that would necessitate the assumption of a “transcendant” or “supernatural” explanation. Theists don’t like this. They insist on some “mystical” approach. For them the idea that “this is all there is” is “dirty materialism”.
But hard as they try, they cannot come up with anything that does not have a “natural” explanation. They try questions: “without God where does love (or justice, or morality, or whatever) come from?”. When there was no real science, everything was attributed to some “god”. The lightning was imagined as God’s flaming sword. Illnesses were imagined as something caused by “demons”. Etc… As science evolves, the so called “supernatural” explanations become unnecessary and superfluous. And observe, that the so-called supernatural “explanations” were anything but explanations: they all say: “an unknown being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - which is the antithesis of an explanation.
When it comes to the Big Bang, and the so-called “beginning” of the universe, there is a false assumption, saying that the universe “started” with the Big Bang. That is yet another incorrect assumption. Rather, the current form of the universe started at that point. What was the nature of the singularity is unknown.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I’m not sure I would agree with your ultimate conclusion here. Aristotle, for example, who I wouldn’t really think of as mystical, felt that there was a first cause or unmoved mover who was separate from the actual physical universe. Plato did as well, and although he had a real mystical side, I think that particular insight was a result of particular philosophical problems that come about when we say the universe itself the underlying foundation. His separation of the physical universe from a non-material underlying source seems to be very much a philosophical, and even mathematical, act. Not some sort of mystical fluff, or argument from morality. And it really is not because they thought that science could not adequately explain the generation of the material universe - they thought that was eternal and they were not looking for a “god of the gaps”.A bunch of excellent remarks from different posters, and this one is especially good. It points to the parallel between the theistic and atheistic beliefs. They both are founded on a basic principle: “there is some unexplained and unexplainable foundation for all existence”. The word “explanation” means to reduce someting to a “more” basic entity, and the ultimate foundation (obviously) cannot be reduced any further.
For the theists this basic explanation is “god” (not necessarily the Christian God), but some entity, which “transcends” or surpasses the “natural, observable world” - the usual word is “supernatural”, (though it could and should be called “unnatural”, after all there is no “sub-natural”, is there?
For the atheists it is the universe. The word “universe” is STEM - space, time, energy, matter (energy and matter are actually the same). For the atheists the questions: “where did the universe come from?”, or “what existed before the universe?”, or what exists outside the universe?" are nonsensical questions, just like the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” would be a syntactically valid, but semantically meaningless utterance.
When comparing the theistic and atheistic “basic” stance, it is obvious that the atheistic one is more “parsimonous”. It looks at the “stuff” we all experience, and is content with it. Of course a parsimonous answer is not necessarily a valid answer. It may well be that the atheistic view is incorrect. However, there is nothing that would necessitate the assumption of a “transcendant” or “supernatural” explanation. Theists don’t like this. They insist on some “mystical” approach. For them the idea that “this is all there is” is “dirty materialism”.
But hard as they try, they cannot come up with anything that does not have a “natural” explanation. They try questions: “without God where does love (or justice, or morality, or whatever) come from?”. When there was no real science, everything was attributed to some “god”. The lightning was imagined as God’s flaming sword. Illnesses were imagined as something caused by “demons”. Etc… As science evolves, the so called “supernatural” explanations become unnecessary and superfluous. And observe, that the so-called supernatural “explanations” were anything but explanations: they all say: “an unknown being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - which is the antithesis of an explanation.
When it comes to the Big Bang, and the so-called “beginning” of the universe, there is a false assumption, saying that the universe “started” with the Big Bang. That is yet another incorrect assumption. Rather, the current form of the universe started at that point. What was the nature of the singularity is unknown.
So to say that non-atheist (a nasty construction but I think the best one here) explanations are based on no metaphysical necessity is, I think, misrepresenting the history of philosophy significantly.
S
starsmurf
Guest
You asked me as a scientist, this is not self-limitation, it is the fact that we have to study a lot of different areas to get our degrees (eg mathematics, physics, planetary formation, cosmology etc). This does not leave time for classes on metaphysics and philosophy. As professionals, most astrophysicists or cosmologists who spent their time pondering such questions would quickly find themselves without a job. In their personal lives, many scientists are spiritual or religious, it is far more common to find scientists with an understanding of these matters than it is to find philosophers or theologians who understand science. I find it just as hard to understand why someone would limit their horizons by not learning about science.
Our universe did not have to exist the way it does. It could have been very different and therefore would not have allowed life to form. The universe looks the way it does because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to do the looking. The Big Bang can indeed explain the origin of gravity, matter etc, it doesn’t “push the question back”, as the Big Bang may not have needed a “cause”.
F
followingtheway
Guest
One, where’d the gravity come from, and two how can something create itself out of nothing? Why couldn’t a conscious form of infinite energy (God) have created it? Everything had to come from somewhere but God by definition is eternal (no beginning and no end) and always there. We can know how the universe was made, God.
I see your religion is stated as “Atheist, but wavering” hopefully you will know the truth.
God bless :byzsoc:
David
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, that’s not quite true. If the singularity or the universe is it’s own first cause, that is a metaphysical statement. It has certain metaphysical ramifications, and philosophers who believe the universe is self-existent have written whole books about them.
I agree that it is not necessarily reasonable to expect scientists to be deep in philosophy, or vice versa (though it is nice when it happens.) But I do think scientists should have a good working grasp of the philosophy of science.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You are saying that God is eternal and exists of his own accord. But many people would say to that - nothing can create itself - who created God?
Similarly, it is possible that the universe is in a sense eternal, and the laws that move it, in just the same way you think God is. It may be that the universe is self-existent.
Why do you think that God can be self-existent, but not the physical universe and its laws?
F
followingtheway
Guest
GOD WAS ALWAYS THERE. NO BEGINNING. ETERNAL. Energy can not be CREATED or destroyed. That’s in the law of thermodynamics. This guy is saying however that the universe created itself. That it came out of nothing. That it is not eternal and not always there and required a beginning. Come on, Bluegoat this is in sunday school 101
God bless :byzsoc:
David
B
Bluegoat
Guest
God isn’t energy, my friend. Theology 101. God is immaterial (unless you are a pantheist.) God is not bound by the law of thermodynamics.
The reason I ask is because the answer is just what a person who did not believe in God would answer to your question.
You are getting confused, I think, because you are imagining the universe as suddenly appearing from nothing. But that isn’t really the claim. It is entirely possible that before the Big Bang and the singularity, there was another universe that eventually collapsed in to the singularity that resulted in our universe. And this has been going on eternally, in the same sense that we can talk about God being eternal. That there has always been a physical something.
But you can’t defend God as eternal based on the law of thermodynamics. It is part of God’s creation. In fact, from a Christian perspective, energy is created, and perhaps one day destroyed, by God.
S
starsmurf
Guest
If you’re saying that scientists should have a working grasp of philosophy, why shouldn’t philosophers have a good working grasp of science? As I said, there is so much we have to study just to be able to do our subject that fitting in classes on philosophy would be a huge and unnecessary burden. There is no advantage to being able to make statements about the metaphysical aspects of the Big Bang, as I said it is not our job to defend the metaphysical consequences of the theory. That is the job of theologians and philosophers. You are in essence saying that because our theories have ramifications in philosophy that we should be able to defend them. That is nonsense.
I have told you of what the science tells you about “causes” of the Big Bang and the origins of matter, forces etc. I am not a philosopher so I do not feel that I am qualified to get into a debate on the metaphysical implications of the theory.
S
starsmurf
Guest
As this would be a very long post if I went into the whole Big Bang theory, could you tell me what it is you want explained? Is it where the Big Bang came from? the process of creating matter? If you pop some questions up I’ll be happy to answer them.
S
starsmurf
Guest
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. If another universe did exist, it has no bearing because you can’t talk of before the Big Bang, time did not exist, so it’s like asking what is North of the North Pole.
S
Spock
Guest
The word “before” is not applicable for the singularity, just like the expression “to the north” is meaningless at the North Pole. For the atheist’s worldview the Universe simply “exists”, it is the existential primary, it needs no “explanation”. To paraphrase the Biblical expression (“I am who am”): “IT IS WHAT IS”.
S
Spock
Guest
Well, my only conclusion was that atheism is simpler than theism, and that seems to be obvious.
And what does it matter if he “felt” that way? Back in those times there was practically no knowledge about the structure of the universe. He probably imagined it as a huge billiard table with many stationary balls, which needed an external “cue-stick” to set everything in motion. Of course we know that this kind of speculation is inaccurate. Einstein’s special relativity proved that linear, non-accelerating motion cannot be told apart from stationary existence. Motion (for example) cannot be separated from STEM. There is no need to assume a “prime mover”. No one thinks that there is a “divine electron-pusher”, who set the electrons in motion, or some “god” who gave a kick-start to the planets to rotate and revolve around the suns. This kind of speculation - which came from ignorance - really should be abandoned, since it is sheer nonsense. I am constantly amazed that those old guys are so revered today. No question, they were very smart people, but they were totally ignorant, too. Their empty speculations are just that - empty.
Philosophy consists of several parts, one of them is metaphysics - which is (and always has been) pure speculation. Theists speculate that there is something “outside” the physical universe, atheists speculate that there is no need for that speculation. Indeed I did not enumerate all the theistic speculations (prime mover, first cause, sustaining cause, etc.) because there is no need to enumerate all of them (here is a funny list of them: Hundreds of proofs for God’s existence). Fact is that all those speculations are unnecessary. The physical universe is perfectly self-sufficient.
S
Spock
Guest
Triple cheers!
That is exactly my pet-peeve, too. Philosophers (usually) have no idea about the reality of the physical universe, and they concoct some speculative theories about it, while they don’t even know that their theories are contradicted by science. If someone wishes to deal with metaphysics, the first requirement should be that he learns about actual physics. If they did, they would know that motion, causation, etc. cannot be separated from STEM, and would not present a “prime mover” (or something equally nonsensical) as a viable “explanation” to a question which cannot even be asked!
J
Joan1969
Guest
Hi Starsmurf,
You make a good point about time limitations of scientists (though those limitations didn’t seem to stop Hawking), but I was talking more about science restricting itself to exclusively naturalistic causes without any “why” questions. It may be good to define “science” with such restrictions, but that doesn’t mean that human beings, as they react to the facts about their world (including scientific ones), do not need to grapple with “why” questions complete with their religious and moral implications. We are all human beings, with an origin that was meaningful and not accidental. To suppose that it (our origin) is mere accident is not a scientific assertion, but a philosophical one, which just happens to be very degrading to the human person.
I am puzzled as to why the extreme order in our universe and our world is so often not considered to have any further implications. Perhaps as professionals, scientists are only in a position to describe what they can see and prove in a scientific sense. Yet for human beings in the broader sense the order in the universe, which did not have to exist, demands an explanation in a very big way. I don’t see how scientific theories about the Big Bang really affect this reality; what matters is that we see meaning and intentionality in our world which is not logically necessary but contingent. The best explanation for meaning and intentionality (by far) is an intelligence.
God Bless,
Joan
L
Luke_K
Guest
I find it annoying as well. Some people seem to think they can prove truths about the operations of the universe by just sitting in a chair and thinking about it for 10 minutes. It turns out you actually have to go out of your living room, study the world in a detailed and rigorous manner, using special instrumentation and advanced mathematics in order to understand it. Who would have thought?starsmurf:
Triple cheers!
That is exactly my pet-peeve, too. Philosophers (usually) have no idea about the reality of the physical universe, and they concoct some speculative theories about it, while they don’t even know that their theories are contradicted by science. If someone wishes to deal with metaphysics, the first requirement should be that he learns about actual physics. If they did, they would know that motion, causation, etc. cannot be separated from STEM, and would not present a “prime mover” (or something equally nonsensical) as a viable “explanation” to a question which cannot even be asked!
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No, I said they should have a working grasp of the philosophy of science.
From Wikipedia:
The thing is, if you don’t understand the kind of truth claims that science can reasonably make, and its foundations (or lack of them depending on your POV) in philosophy, you don’t really understand what you are saying when making a scientific claim.
And you get people making philosophical claims and thinking they are science.
I wouldn’t limit it to just scientists though. There is a good reason that until recently, no one was considered educated without some basic familiarity with the liberal arts.
And no, I am not saying that any scientist should be able to defend or discuss metaphysical implications of a scientific theory. I am saying that when a scientist says that in a particular model, there is no need for God, he is making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. If he doesn’t know that, then he doesn’t know the limits of his own subject.
- Status