T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Yes. Forces are useless unless acting upon matter. Time concerns states of change, radiation emits from matter, the laws of physics apply to things that can be measured, etc.
Needing Help to Disprove an Atheist Claim about the Big Bang
- Status
N
Neithan
Guest
It really does depend on interpretation in either case. The major difference being that science is based on reliable (name removed by moderator)uts that everyone uses (our powers of observation), but there are very different religions with very different bases. Only Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same metaphysical foundations as science; from there, we can use science as a powerful tool against superstition.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
In my experience, I’ve known YEC health care workers and not believing in evolution doesn’t make them a worse employee.
There are a lot of people, however, who worry that “science” (meaning some of the data which is popular, while other data which contradicts the narrative gets ignored) gets used as a weapon to promote political ideas or punish dissenters
There are a lot of people, however, who worry that “science” (meaning some of the data which is popular, while other data which contradicts the narrative gets ignored) gets used as a weapon to promote political ideas or punish dissenters
O
otjm
Guest
You cannot disprove the claim, just as he cannot prove the claim; the Big Bang is a theory, and it may or may not be true.
If I were in a discussion with him, my answer would be “Ooohhh” and then I would do something else. That might or might not include talking further with him, but not about that. Unless and until he wants to know about God, you are dealing with a brick wall, and without the knowledge of why it was built - a point he is not particularly likely to reveal, and may not even be able to articulate - you are going to be spinning your wheels.
I admire your desire to share the faith with him; he does not appear to be interested in it.
M
Mmarco
Guest
I am a physicist and I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong and convincent arguments supporting the existence of a personal intelligent Creator.
In fact, all what science shows about the universe is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. Also all the hypothesis about mutiverses etc. are based on asbstract mathematical theories. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical universe) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.
Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
Personally I think that atheism does not account for the existence of our mathematically structured universe and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.
There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.
F
Freddy
Guest
Consciousness didn’t switch on at some point. It evolved. And we can see various stages of it in organisms now. From us all the way down to a point where we could argue whether there is anything at all that could be considered consciousness.
So can we honestly say when a simple chemical reaction becomes an instinct? When instinctive behaviour becomes something controlled. And from there to what we could describe as sentience to self awareness? Can we honestly say that there aren’t various stages between all these points up to simple consciousness.
There is a direct line of mental ability from an Einstein or a Beethoven all the way back to that which we wouldn’t consider to have anything more than the basic characteristics of life. So at what point did it become miraculous?
M
Mmarco
Guest
This is a very common opinion, but if you analyze more rationally this issue, you will understand that it is only an hypothesis you cannot prove.
F
Freddy
Guest
The only other option, unless I’m mistaken, is that it did switch on at some point. Unless you believe in creationism then I’m not sure how that could occur. Can you tell me how it happened?Freddy:
This is a very common opinion, but if you analyze more rationally this issue, you will understand that it is only an hypothesis you cannot prove.
M
Mmarco
Guest
I am not sure to understand your question.Mmarco:
The only other option, unless I’m mistaken, is that it did switch on at some point. Unless you believe in creationism then I’m not sure how that could occur. Can you tell me how it happened?Freddy:
This is a very common opinion, but if you analyze more rationally this issue, you will understand that it is only an hypothesis you cannot prove.
The point is : we know we are conscious beings and consciousness is not riducible to the laws of physics. Therefore there is in us an unphysical principle which is not originated by our biological organism.
Do we really know whether other biological organisms (animals) are consocious or not?
W
Wesrock
Guest
There are a couple of points of difference on the issue of consciousness. I don’t want to speak for Mmarco’s point, but I’d just like to highlight these because (for me, anyway) they sometimes get muddled. And honestly, one of the points extends beyond consciousness and to life in general.
The first is that the metaphysics of material things pushed by naturalism are really insufficient to account for consciousness and immanent causality in general. I’m not claiming either of these things are immaterial or that they couldn’t emerge from material, this is again just a criticism of the account of material that naturalist metaphysics provides. Consciousness is also, by Thomists anyway, used to refer to the awareness pretty much all animals possess to varying degrees.
Intellection is a faculty that is unique to humans among animals. This is considered irreducible to material operations and not simply a difference of degree.
I’m not writing my best here, but to sum up.
(1) Consciousness and immanent causality are a material operations, but are not explicable by the metaphysics of naturalist philosophy on material things, which gives no proper account of intentionality in material.
(2) Intellection is a distinct faculty that is irreducible to material operations, given the universality of concepts abstracted from their conditions of matter.
The first is that the metaphysics of material things pushed by naturalism are really insufficient to account for consciousness and immanent causality in general. I’m not claiming either of these things are immaterial or that they couldn’t emerge from material, this is again just a criticism of the account of material that naturalist metaphysics provides. Consciousness is also, by Thomists anyway, used to refer to the awareness pretty much all animals possess to varying degrees.
Intellection is a faculty that is unique to humans among animals. This is considered irreducible to material operations and not simply a difference of degree.
I’m not writing my best here, but to sum up.
(1) Consciousness and immanent causality are a material operations, but are not explicable by the metaphysics of naturalist philosophy on material things, which gives no proper account of intentionality in material.
(2) Intellection is a distinct faculty that is irreducible to material operations, given the universality of concepts abstracted from their conditions of matter.
F
Freddy
Guest
Any mammal can be considered conscious. Some of them such as apes, dogs, dolphins etc quite intelligent into the bargain. And you could place any creature or any organism of a line from us (definitely conscious and self aware) down through the animal kingdom to organisms which are definitely not.Freddy:
I am not sure to understand your question.Mmarco:
The only other option, unless I’m mistaken, is that it did switch on at some point. Unless you believe in creationism then I’m not sure how that could occur. Can you tell me how it happened?Freddy:
This is a very common opinion, but if you analyze more rationally this issue, you will understand that it is only an hypothesis you cannot prove.
The point is : we know we are conscious beings and consciousness is not riducible to the laws of physics. Therefore there is in us an unphysical principle which is not originated by our biological organism.
Do we really know whether other biological organisms (animals) are consocious or not?
There’s no point on that line where you can say one organism on one side has conciousness and another on the other side has not. It’s just a matter of degree. So it appears obvious that an evolved characteristic like this didn’t suddenly appear one Tuesday afternoon some time in the past.
If you take Homo sapien and work backwards, can you tell me the point at which consciousness occured?
M
Mmarco
Guest
The point is that it must not necessarily considered conscious. What I mean is that we know that we are already able to used authomatic algorythms to reproduce their behavior. We cannot exclude the possibility that animals’ behavior is determined by a “biological software”, which doesn’t imply any kind of consciousness.
The common belief that animals are conscious could be only the result of an antropomorphic process.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that some species have some kind of consciousness would imply that also these species have some sort of “soul”, since consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics.
I strongly disagree. For example, I think that human consciousness is essentially different from animal consciousness (e.g. the capcity to conceive the idea of God and intellectual capacities in general).
I think that the idea that our mind is the product of evolution is unteanable.
F
Freddy
Guest
It beggars belief that someone can acknowledge intelligence in other creatures and yet question whether they are actually conscious.
And if consciousness is not the result of evolution then when was it created? At what point did it appear? If your solution is creationism then please let’s have that out in the open asap so we don’t waste each others time on this discussion.
M
Mmarco
Guest
When God gave an immortal soul to the first human being.
I do not know when this happened and it is not a relevant point to me. What I know is that a biological organism without a soul is not a human being.
F
Freddy
Guest
OK, now we have a specific answer. You correlate consciousness with a soul (and to be fair, you made that claim in an earlier post) and you believe that a soul was granted to Man at a specific time. At a moment in history. So someone at some time possesed consciousness whereas their parents didn’t - and it can’t have evolved.Freddy:
When God gave an immortal soul to the first human being.
I do not know when this happened and it is not a relevant point to me. What I know is that a biological organism without a soul is not a human being.
N
Neithan
Guest
Did you forget our whole discussion (actually more than one) about recursion, novel imagination, and how even Richard Dawkins agrees (from the Oxford debate with Sir Anthony Kenny and Anglican Abp. Rowan Williams) there was very likely a point-in-time at which modern human cognition manifested in one generation through nested linguistic complexity?
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s an interesting concept. And I remember the discussions. But it’s not a position to which I hold. Notwithstanding that I recall it being in relation to language as opposed to consciousness. One would need the latter in order to develop the former.Freddy:
Yes you do, @Freddy. Did you forget our whole discussion (actually more than one) about recursion, novel imagination, and how even Richard Dawkins agrees (from the Oxford debate with Sir Anthony Kenny and Anglican Abp. Rowan Williams) there was very likely a point-in-time at which modern human cognition manifested in one generation through nested linguistic complexity?
If one holds that consciousness was created then you may as well go the whole way and say that language came as part of the deal. But if you accept that man evolved then it makes absolute sense to suggest that all the characteristics and abilities that we have evolved as well.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
The big bang is not evidence of an absolute beginning. But at the same time the idea that there is no absolute beginning to physical reality is not evident either and certainly isn’t something that can in principle be proven with the scientific method.
The idea that an actually infinite universe is possible is just a belief, and there is really nothing to justify that belief.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
There is no evidence. But there is plenty of maths that show it’s possible.JordanAccount:
The big bang is not evidence of an absolute beginning. But at the same time the idea that there is no absolute beginning to physical reality is not evident either and certainly isn’t something that can in principle be proven with the scientific method.
The idea that an actually infinite universe is possible is just a belief, and there is really nothing to justify that belief.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
My point is that, to a physicist, matter is only particles with rest mass. Therefore, if you don’t clarify the philosophical statement, someone whose background is in science will think you’re only talking about the part of the universe consisting of particles with rest mass, leaving out the massless particles, fields, and spacetime itself.
- Status