The priniciple of Causality, Logic & Scientific Observation.

[warpspeedpetey]

Well your fudging the math ALOT, there is no math, we have no real variables. It’s like the Drake equation, sure we now have less of a margin of error, but were still eating a pile from Sir Drake.

We can like the drake equation dictate variables that would constitute for this probability. But most of it would be made up.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I started reading big bang theory at talkorigins.org I don’t have time to understand it atm. If you could find some sort of peer reviewed journal article with a sufficient extract or conclusions it would go a long way to swaying me. Off the top of my head the theory doesn’t say anything definitive about the origins of the universe just the evolution of the universe.

sorry i dont have the time or inclination to search the journals. no it doesnt say anything concerning the origins, it shows only a sudden expansion of everything. we have no rational reason to say that the sudden appearance of matter and energy wasn’t the creation, and no, there is no empirical evidence that there was ever a monobloc, or singularity. i have a physicist admit it on the forums, if you dont believe me, i can find the link after mass.

If there was no time before the big bang I don’t see why the energy could not have “always” been there since there was no time there was no always, it just was… Get my thinking? I’ll read and understand the theory after Wednesday because I probably don’t, Oh History channel has that documentary I’ll get that.

 

[Abbadon]

sorry i dont have the time or inclination to search the journals. no it doesnt say anything concerning the origins, it shows only a sudden expansion of everything. we have no rational reason to say that the sudden appearance of matter and energy wasn’t the creation, and no, there is no empirical evidence that there was ever a monobloc, or singularity. i have a physicist admit it on the forums, if you dont believe me, i can find the link after mass.

Otherwise we might still be believing that Zeus/Thor/Wotan creates the thunder with his anger.

i like the definition of G-d that says -he who can create matter and energy.
further, we see it in the BB. unless there is a rational argument against that, i think thats the best bet.

Yea see I just don’t know, I am yet to see any evidence for this claim that god can create matter and energy, especially such a specific god.
Stop saying that no we do not see that in the big bang, no it is not a safe bet, your just assuming that is what happened.

i understand the BB and my knowledge is current. i simply apply rational skepticism to popular science.

I apply skepticism to everything accept I will admit what my lecturers tell me to know that isn’t related to cells or genetics or plants. Plus I trust that my university has a duty and a goal to teach me the best they can with the best data they have at the time, why would they lie to me since Melbourne University has such a fine reputation and would like to keep it that way. And on top of that my lecturers per section are experts in their field on their section (they know diddly squat about anything outside thier field though)

there are huge differences between what we actually know, and what the discovery channel or physics 101 tells you.

Great and that is something that I will never ever learn properly and I have come to accept that.

rational skepticism is a great tool for that. you would be suprised how much of popular science is so much BS based on some professors ideas or theories.

Well my lecturers all do research work here at the university and nothing they teach us is their current experimental theories they are working on but is the fundamentals of the field that has become currently accepted through peer review.​

Maybe we should leave religion out of this discussion for now, There is alot already.

 

[Abbadon]

since we dont know what level of intelligence is necessary to create this universe, especially as ‘intelligence’ is a purely physical standard to which we cant reasonably apply to what is a necessarily non-physical being. i think we can assign, reasonably, a near infinite value to that variable, after all this universe may be the most simple structure of which such a being couuld concieve.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4814853:

We have no reason to say that it was either. Oh no really an entire physicist on the catholic forums really ADMITED it? By the gods then you must be right. =.=

he wasn’t the first, i just happen to have that in writing.

If we do not have anything to work with from the origins we cannot say anything definitive about it. Only hypothesize for kicks

.

we can amake logical inferences from observation the same way any other intellectual endeavor does.

No it’s actually not bad, watched an episode entitled the life and death of a star, was very well done.

thats a relatively settled subject, wait until you see the one on m-theory.

My rational is that if energy is never created nor destroyed… I don’t know what form does energy take now? So there we go we have an action that occurs outside of space time.

as to the always existing mattter, check out the second law of thermodynamics, refutes it pretty clearly.

why do you think spooky action at a distance occurs outside spacetime?

as far as i know it seems like that because the mechanism isn’t understood, not because there is a mathematical model of it.

“anything prior to that moment is just unfounded conjecture”
Exactly your absolutely right. I cannot agree with you anymore.

“until roughly 1x10(-35) seconds after” + “there was no time” = contradiction. There is 1x10(-35) seconds of time left to account for you forget about.

hey, its not my theory! i think thats messed up too, but they claim that is the amount of time, if time had been present that a period of no time lasted.

I don’t really understand what energy is exactly, my lecturers say don’t bother your little biologist head about it, you don’t need to know. I’ll leave it at that. But I read things like spooky action at a distance and it confuses me even more.

thats physics code for we dont know, they do the same thing in QM too.

technically energy is either kinetic, or potential, but im sure you know that.

it can be subdivided further, but thats adding complication with no benefit.

Sure but sometimes your belief may not be as rational and reasonable as it first seems, for when you compile the data together a different answer emerges.

Let me give you an example of atomic sub shells since that is what I’m currently studying atm. Okay now subhell structure has this order 1s 2s 2p 3s 3p 3d 4s 4p 4d 4f etc…
and I would need to do more study in quantum chemistry to understand it (no thankyou mam)

We need all the data we can get before we truly understand what is more reasonable and rational than what.

Otherwise we might still be believing that Zeus/Thor/Wotan creates the thunder with his anger.

logic and quantum theory are not ealways the best friends.

that said we have all the information that we are likely to get, you may always recieve info that crashes your system, but thats no reason to not begin an inquiry. you just rebuild the hypothesis.

and there is a limited amount of information of any one subject, in this case, we are coming close to the end i think, because now physicists are arguing about whether or not we can know more.

Yea see I just don’t know, I am yet to see any evidence for this claim that god can create matter and energy, especially such a specific god.
Stop saying that no we do not see

that in the big bang, no it is not a safe bet, your just assuming that is what happened.

thats just my fave definition, thats all, but the BB is creation, unless there is a rational argument that says it is not creation, it would seem to be empirical evidenc.

do you have a reason to say its not creation?

sure looks like it to me. i could be wrong, but i dont see any counter evidence.

I apply skepticism to everything accept I will admit what my lecturers tell me to know that isn’t related to cells or genetics or plants. Plus I trust that my university has a duty and a goal to teach me the best they can with the best data they have at the time, why would they lie to me since Melbourne University has such a fine reputation and would like to keep it that way. And on top of that my lecturers per section are experts in their field on their section (they know diddly squat about anything outside thier field though)

its not that they lie, its that academic culture excludes viewpoints that suggest anything other than an atheist worldview. start asking your professors about G-d and see how uncomfortable they get.

ive been in 3 universities and 2 colleges and thats the way it has been here in the states

they dont lie, they just automatically exclude anything related to G-d or the possibility of G-d.

and that is a huge handicap. i refer you back to that ‘infinite moment’ in the BB

Great and that is something that I will never ever learn properly and I have come to accept that.

no, you will, its about experience and critical thinking skills. give it time. your probably still pretty young.

Well my lecturers all do research work here at the university and nothing they teach us is their current experimental theories they are working on but is the fundamentals of the field that has become currently accepted through peer review.

peer review can be great for catching error, or it can accumulate error, after all, everyone was convinced at one point that life spontaneously erupted from rotting meat. give the word ‘phlogiston’ a google, to see how long that lasted.

 

[Abbadon]

I just watched the William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert debate and all I can say is there is no point in us debating this. It will go nowhere, like it always does.

All I say is I don’t know and you don’t know either so stop pretending. Believe whatever you want to believe, infer and make up whatever probabilities you want to but without evidence stop saying your claim is better than the other persons claim. You can say well sir logically mine is better, humbug I say, you don’t really know that, your just asserting it.

And no I will not learn physics, I’ll stick to cells and genetics, things I can actually see, I work best when working with pictures thank god we model so much in chemistry otherwise I would never make it out of there alive. So no matter how much time I will never be a physicist and I will remain ignorant to the technicalities of it. But that does not mean I do not know what is happening in science.

And of course my lecturers say nothing on god, their all agnostics or atheists or their religious beliefs do not interfere with their science. I’m a science student not an arts student.

 

[reggieM]

If the intelligence was created, then it wouldn’t be the First Cause. So, the intelligence has to be non-created. If it is non-created, then it could not have a beginning (because it would then have an origin and come from something else – a prior Cause).
So, the intelligence has no beginning and is therefore infinite.
One problem here is whether an infinite intelligence (being) can lack anything (or any “good”). If it lacked something, then where does that thing it lacks come from?
The classical argument proposes that the Intelligence cannot lack any good, and is therefore the fulfillment of all good and all being. Part of this has to do with an infinite or eternal state of completion, where nothing can be added or deleted.

This is explained somewhere in St. Anselm’s argument but I have to research that more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;4814771:

You value of infinity is not reasonable at all. You just want it to be infinity so your saying, okay my made up number will be… infinity think you can trump that with your made up number?

ok so make up a number of universes you think are possible?

after some thought i think you may come to the same conclusion…there are almost an infinite number of possibilities. in fact the only one that limits it, is the possibility that no universe formed. so how bout infinity -1?

I’m saying I don’t know what the odds are and I don’t know how you know either.

take every particle in the universe move it one planck length, do that for each particle, then subtract or add one particle, stepping up or down by one every computation, etc…yada yada yada.

you reach huge unprintable numbers before you complete that operation on every particle on the head of a pin, much less every single particle in the universe.

thts why i just say near infinite, though thats somewhat of a misnomer, there is no such thing as near infinite.

but im not trying to get the nobel in math here, im just pointing out how low the likely hood of a random act creating this particular universe is, while an independant actor could just choose to create it this way

But it might not be a random act it might be a reaction and reactions are not random. I think you have come to the false dicotomy that there is either random act of creation or guided supernatural act of creation there is also non random natural act of creation. If we assume creation, which I cannot definitively say.

i get that dichotomy from the continual claims of creation from vacuum fluctuations, as a way to void causality, as though a vacuum, can exised without a cause.

if you mean a chemical reaction of or something like it, then that assumes a set of laws by which the reaction could occur, and things to react. in that case it doesnt see anydifferent than claiming a pre existing universe that would need a cause itself.

Time and time again we were shown that jumping to assumptions and conclusions without evidence can lead us into a false sense of what is most rational and logical.

nothing physical can create itself, therefore the only logical possibility is a non-physical first cause. been a solid argument for 800 years. ill stick with it until some one proves self causing matter.

If something created our universe existing outside of space time I’m not sure what to expect. But perhaps our research into communications between photons will show us the way.

something non-physical, not something in a specific location like outside spacetime

But your right we have no idea what the variables are either. So how are you jumping to these probabilities where one is definitively greater than the other?

because a random act has millions of equally possible universes, while a independent actor can choose among them.

basically its a coinflip create/dont create vs. a die with an almost unlimited number of side.

thats a crude analogy, i hope it helps to explain my thinking

For me there seems to be natural causes for everything else in our universe and we have been jumping to supernatural causes for such a very long time. I’m just skeptical about… Well everything important to me… And most of all I am skeptical of my own reasoning.

i understand, i started as an atheist as a kid, after a long journey 20 years later i am a skeptical, rational theist.

i just go where the logic leads.

ok warcraft time

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I just watched the William Lane Craig vs Lewis Wolpert debate and all I can say is there is no point in us debating this. It will go nowhere, like it always does.

i havent seen that one. apparently you arent impressed

All I say is I don’t know and you don’t know either so stop pretending.

we have barely scratched the surface, how can you say i dont know?

Believe whatever you want to believe, infer and make up whatever probabilities you want to but without evidence stop saying your claim is better than the other persons claim

.

i gave you the reason i choose those probabilities in my last post, i dont make them up, i encourage you to find differrent numbers and support tha with argument

You can say well sir logically mine is better, humbug I say, you don’t really know that, your just asserting it.

i can give logical arguments, thats not an assertion, you can find all my posts, i rarely assert anything without a reason

And no I will not learn physics, I’ll stick to cells and genetics, things I can actually see, I work best when working with pictures thank god we model so much in chemistry otherwise I would never make it out of there alive. So no matter how much time I will never be a physicist and I will remain ignorant to the technicalities of it. But that does not mean I do not know what is happening in science.

im not sure what you are refering to here?

And of course my lecturers say nothing on god, their all agnostics or atheists or their religious beliefs do not interfere with their science. I’m a science student not an arts student.

dont worry, liberal arts proffesors are no different, ive been on both sides of that line, and seen no real difference.

though i am curious about the implication that religious beliefs could interfere with science? its not the 1500’s, is that something you worry about?

 

[1holycatholic]

And no I will not learn physics, I’ll stick to cells and genetics, things I can actually see, I work best when working with pictures thank god we model so much in chemistry otherwise I would never make it out of there alive.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

 

[Abbadon]

@ 1holycatholic - What else would I have said? I usually say by the hammer of Thor, just to avoid this response. Or by the bolt of Zeus.I was raised catholic it’s that which flows most easily for me. I’m sure if I was a Hindu I would have said something else.

@ warpspeedpetey - How about this, since you go on and on about the math, you publish in a reputable math journal and refer me? Because right now all you do is make assertions and pretend they are not.

And of course I can say you don’t know because no one has any evidence to work with. We can use all the logic in the world but we will no closer come to real a probability value than we can for a probability value for the drake equation.

A chemist and transubstantiation may have some issues, biologists and current catholic teaching etc… And then of course the constant demands for evidence and imperial data… But if you compartmentalize the two and seperate those two parts of your life it’s all honkey dory.

And thankfully your right, this isn’t the 1500’s we don’t have to fear the catholic church putting us under house arrest any more. Or the inquisition burning us at the steak. So for the most part phew.

Okay how about this. Rather than referring me to a paper. You write the equation for me out right here and show me where you get your values from for variables?

Pr(Intelligent Creator)= <Insert equation here (define variables in brackets)>

And just look at your self how many values you make up.

 

[Abbadon]

The criticisms given in wikipedia for the drake equation are the same ones I have with yours (I know realize). I will post it here.

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As T.J. Watson states:[13]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

Likewise, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated:[14]

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. ...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

One reply to such criticism is that experiments by SETI scientists do not attempt to address the Drake equation for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations anywhere in the universe, but are focused on specific, testable hypotheses (i.e., “do extraterrestrial civilizations communicating in the radio spectrum exist near sun-like stars within 50 light years of the Earth?”).

Another reply to such criticism[15]is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it stimulates dialog on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally.

In the case of the drake equation I agree with the final reply to the criticisms but how now to proceed experimentally with the question of an intelligent creating force.

 

[1holycatholic]

@ 1holycatholic - What else would I have said? I usually say by the hammer of Thor, just to avoid this response. Or by the bolt of Zeus.I was raised catholic it’s that which flows most easily for me. I’m sure if I was a Hindu I would have said something else.

@ warpspeedpetey - How about this, since you go on and on about the math, you publish in a reputable math journal and refer me? Because right now all you do is make assertions and pretend they are not.

And of course I can say you don’t know because no one has any evidence to work with. We can use all the logic in the world but we will no closer come to real a probability value than we can for a probability value for the drake equation.

A chemist and transubstantiation may have some issues, biologists and current catholic teaching etc… And then of course the constant demands for evidence and imperial data… But if you compartmentalize the two and seperate those two parts of your life it’s all honkey dory.

And thankfully your right, this isn’t the 1500’s we don’t have to fear the catholic church putting us under house arrest any more. Or the inquisition burning us at the steak. So for the most part phew.

Okay how about this. Rather than referring me to a paper. You write the equation for me out right here and show me where you get your values from for variables?

Pr(Intelligent Creator)= <Insert equation here (define variables in brackets)>

And just look at your self how many values you make up.

Why are you arguing against something that you obviously don’t understand?

 

[Abbadon]

Why are you arguing against something that you obviously don’t understand?

Because I understand enough to know when people make up stuff and assert things without evidence. I know this debate this is a common debate, I’ve heard it all before. And if there was evidence for creation in current scientific data I would know about it or my friends would, or my lecturers would, or I would be able to easily Google it. Because it would be huge.

I guess at this point I could make a joke about (most) Christians and evolution.

But I can’t be bothered. I was just hoping to read the equation proposed, I have my last semesters probability lecturer near by we’ve been making chit chat waiting for a response.

 

[1holycatholic]

Because I understand enough to know when people make up stuff and assert things without evidence. I know this debate this is a common debate, I’ve heard it all before. And if there was evidence for creation in current scientific data I would know about it or my friends would, or my lecturers would, or I would be able to easily Google it. Because it would be huge.

I guess at this point I could make a joke about (most) Christians and evolution.

But I can’t be bothered. I was just hoping to read the equation proposed, I have my last semesters probability lecturer near by we’ve been making chit chat waiting for a response.

If all you bring to the discussion is scientism, then it’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand science or natural theology. :coffeeread:

 

[Abbadon]

If all you bring to the discussion is scientism, then it’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand science or natural theology. :coffeeread:

If you understood my points the main contetion I am holding is you can’t just make up assertions based on logic and claim to know deffinitively that one probability is greater than the other.

My main point is uncertiantiy and as scary as that is, in this case it is all there is.

And what upon the green meadows of Valhalla is Scientism?

I’m pretty sure I understand Science. Well I better if I want to pass Wednesdays exam. >.<

 

[1holycatholic]

If you understood my points the main contetion I am holding is you can’t just make up assertions based on logic and claim to know deffinitively that one probability is greater than the other.

My main point is uncertiantiy and as scary as that is, in this case it is all there is.

The law of non-contradiction must give you fits. :hypno:

And what upon the green meadows of Valhalla is Scientism?

I’m pretty sure I understand Science. Well I better if I want to pass Wednesdays exam. >.<

You haven’t demonstrated an understanding of science here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

@ 1holycatholic - What else would I have said? I usually say by the hammer of Thor, just to avoid this response. Or by the bolt of Zeus.I was raised catholic it’s that which flows most easily for me. I’m sure if I was a Hindu I would have said something else.

you have to admit it was funny, dont take yourself so seriously.

@ warpspeedpetey - How about this, since you go on and on about the math, you publish in a reputable math journal and refer me? Because right now all you do is make assertions and pretend they are not.

i asked you to create your own model, supported by argumentation.

i told you the rationale for my model, that i cant think of any limiting factors on the number of universes, other than the possibility that no universed formed from a random act.

but you didn’t propose a competeing model, in fact you just say i am wrong and that i couldn’t possibly be right. why then?

you will be challenged with similar situations throughout a scientific career. someone will propose a model or theory you dont like, you may even think is stupid, but if you dont have a reason to back up those arguments, it wont matter.

And of course I can say you don’t know because no one has any evidence to work with. We can use all the logic in the world but we will no closer come to real a probability value than we can for a probability value for the drake equation.

what evidence is necessary to decide how many possible universes there are? unless there is some limiting factor? if you want some one else to tell you the same thing here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

as you can see, a nearly infinite number of possible universes is a common idea in cosmology.

now what was that about all the logic in the world?..

A chemist and transubstantiation may have some issues,

i dont, why should i?

biologists and current catholic teaching etc

they do? which teaching?

And then of course the constant demands for evidence and imperial data…

constant demands for evidence?

i assure you when i recieve the eucharist, as often as i can, im not wondering why the wafer isn’t warm from the chemical reaction, im thankful for the Sacrifice that gives a very wicked man like me the grace to live my faith out loud.

maybe you would, but thats missing the whole point of the experience.

But if you compartmentalize the two and seperate those two parts of your life it’s all honkey dory.

yup, it sure is, and there is nothing wrong with that, because i dont assume that i am capable of understanding everything, i know that i have physically finite processing capabilities. i know my senses are very limited, in what chemical combinations i can discriminiate from, what frequencies i can hear, and what wavelengths of radiation i can see, etc

you cant do calculus on a wristwatch calculator, so to speak.

so the best we can do is to apply the tools of logic to the evidence we can observe.

as we have a limited intellectual capacity, and limited ability to percieve evidence, it must follow that we do not and cannot know everything.

And thankfully your right, this isn’t the 1500’s we don’t have to fear the catholic church putting us under house arrest any more. Or the inquisition burning us at the steak. So for the most part phew

.

yeah, after the last century of atheistic regime murdering more than a hundred million people, im sure glad i dont have to worry about 400 year old trials…

Okay how about this. Rather than referring me to a paper. You write the equation for me out right here and show me where you get your values from for variables?

youve got the wrong subject, we are discussing how many possible universes a random act can cause, not how many possible intelligent creators there are.(though now i understand why your freaking out)

Pr(possible universes)= <infinity -1>

the (-1) represents the possibility that the random act occured and no universe formed. though that obviously didn’t happen as we are here. but if we were to rerun the creation, it would be a random act.

as we mentioned before, you cant assign variables to an independent actor. any independant actor would exclude the the random act from among the possible options.

And just look at your self how many values you make up.

if you dont like that, then propose a new model

give rational arguments for your position, dont just make statements with no backing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the case of the drake equation I agree with the final reply to the criticisms but how now to proceed experimentally with the question of an intelligent creating force.

we dont. you keep trying to use the drake equation. its not working because, First cause is not an alien, or part of this or any other universe.

first cause *must necessarily *be non-physical.

as physical matter cannot cause itself.