| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2009 10:56:53 AM · #526 |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 01:21:58 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
But order? Not a chance. |
C'mon. Leaving the whole other argument aside, this statement is pretty silly. Remind me to talk to you about DNA sometime... |
Recent DNA discoveries... |
What does this have to do with the existence of supernatural beings? The apparent "order" of DNA, crystals, galaxies, atoms or anything else does not require someone or something to put them together like little tinkertoys. If you follow the arrogantly anthropological notion that complex things require creators, then you immediately back yourself into a paradox without resolution: "watches are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by man; man is too complex to be natural, so he must be created by gods; gods are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by... UH, OH!" A god cannot exist to do the initial creating unless complex things can exist without creators... which completely eliminates the need for a god in the first place. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 01:44:56 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
But order? Not a chance. |
C'mon. Leaving the whole other argument aside, this statement is pretty silly. Remind me to talk to you about DNA sometime... |
Recent DNA discoveries... |
What does this have to do with the existence of supernatural beings? The apparent "order" of DNA, crystals, galaxies, atoms or anything else does not require someone or something to put them together like little tinkertoys. If you follow the arrogantly anthropological notion that complex things require creators, then you immediately back yourself into a paradox without resolution: "watches are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by man; man is too complex to be natural, so he must be created by gods; gods are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by... UH, OH!" A god cannot exist to do the initial creating unless complex things can exist without creators... which completely eliminates the need for a god in the first place. |
Aristotle articulated this over 2,000 years ago: The cause of an event must be greater or more powerful than the event itself.
There is no corner to get backed into since God is outside corners. God isn't the created, God is the creator. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:04:43 PM · #529 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The cause of an event must be greater or more powerful than the event itself. |
So much for the butterfly effect...
Originally posted by Nullix:
There is no corner to get backed into since God is outside corners. God isn't the created, God is the creator. |
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner.
Message edited by author 2009-10-19 14:07:15. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:30:55 PM · #530 |
I will fully acknowledge that I have a creator. In fact, I have two of them.
I call them Mom & Dad.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:33:45 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner. |
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? While such a supposition seems unecessary, it gets around the fact that all evidence we currently have points to an actual beginning to our universe. So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse). |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:38:12 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
But order? Not a chance. |
C'mon. Leaving the whole other argument aside, this statement is pretty silly. Remind me to talk to you about DNA sometime... |
Recent DNA discoveries... |
What does this have to do with the existence of supernatural beings? The apparent "order" of DNA, crystals, galaxies, atoms or anything else does not require someone or something to put them together like little tinkertoys. If you follow the arrogantly anthropological notion that complex things require creators, then you immediately back yourself into a paradox without resolution: "watches are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by man; man is too complex to be natural, so he must be created by gods; gods are too complex to be natural, so they must be created by... UH, OH!" A god cannot exist to do the initial creating unless complex things can exist without creators... which completely eliminates the need for a god in the first place. |
Note I left the God part out of that reply and just pointed out to Odyssey that it is silly to say there is no order to the universe. One might hope our mental processes are ordered. One might find order in a skyscraper. One might see order in the motion of the planets. All are products of the universe (from a material point of view) so to outright deny them, as Odyssey apparently did, is ridiculous. The universe is far from pure chaos. While entropy may ultimately reign, there are places where it temporarily loses the battle, sometimes with magnificent results. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:53:18 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner. |
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? While such a supposition seems unecessary, it gets around the fact that all evidence we currently have points to an actual beginning to our universe. So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse). |
In his popular book, Stephen Hawking puts forward the "universe just is" theory, which states that the universe (and time) has neither a beginning nor an end, much like the surface of a sphere. If you traverse the face of the globe, you can never "start at the beginning" and you will never "reach the end", and the history of the universe is posited to be the same way. There is no room for god in such an equation (and the theory would hold an equation and would not be posited from thin air), and certainly not the kind of god that snapped his fingers or sneezed or what have you and begat the universe. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 02:57:44 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner. |
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? While such a supposition seems unecessary, it gets around the fact that all evidence we currently have points to an actual beginning to our universe. So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse). |
In his popular book, Stephen Hawking puts forward the "universe just is" theory, which states that the universe (and time) has neither a beginning nor an end, much like the surface of a sphere. If you traverse the face of the globe, you can never "start at the beginning" and you will never "reach the end", and the history of the universe is posited to be the same way. There is no room for god in such an equation (and the theory would hold an equation and would not be posited from thin air), and certainly not the kind of god that snapped his fingers or sneezed or what have you and begat the universe. |
I'm not going to get into this conversation right now other than to say welcome back Louis! |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 03:08:10 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner. |
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? While such a supposition seems unecessary, it gets around the fact that all evidence we currently have points to an actual beginning to our universe. So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse). |
In his popular book, Stephen Hawking puts forward the "universe just is" theory, which states that the universe (and time) has neither a beginning nor an end, much like the surface of a sphere. If you traverse the face of the globe, you can never "start at the beginning" and you will never "reach the end", and the history of the universe is posited to be the same way. There is no room for god in such an equation (and the theory would hold an equation and would not be posited from thin air), and certainly not the kind of god that snapped his fingers or sneezed or what have you and begat the universe. |
Holy crap Louis! What are you doing here? :) While we've talked about this possibility, I have to say it is as mentally convoluted as any theological position. Time is a one way arrow and while you can always point in the same direction as you travel around a circle, does that mean cause-and-event chains perfectly mesh all the way around the circle? The idea of a yo-yo universe has been ruled out by Hawking himself and best current theory suggests we will end in a Big Freeze (or am I getting the catchphrase wrong there?). |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 03:41:15 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Holy crap Louis! What are you doing here? :) While we've talked about this possibility, I have to say it is as mentally convoluted as any theological position. Time is a one way arrow and while you can always point in the same direction as you travel around a circle, does that mean cause-and-event chains perfectly mesh all the way around the circle? The idea of a yo-yo universe has been ruled out by Hawking himself and best current theory suggests we will end in a Big Freeze (or am I getting the catchphrase wrong there?). |
I snuck in the back. :P I was careful to point out that the theory isn't merely a word theory, or a philosophical position, but a mathematical one. I'm not certain any physicist is comfortable saying that time is a one way arrow, at least theoretically. And the yo-yo isn't quite dead yet, as far as I remember, though not the most favoured explanation anymore. Anyway, I'm no physicist of course, but the scientific requirement of a creator of the universe simply doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 03:44:14 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? |
You answered your own question. If the universe wasn't created, then there's no reason to postulate a creator. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 04:50:14 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? |
You answered your own question. If the universe wasn't created, then there's no reason to postulate a creator. |
You needed to keep reading though. Our best evidence, Louis and Hawkings notwithstanding, does point to a beginning for our universe so the first assumption needs to account for this while the second does not. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 04:51:55 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyway, I'm no physicist of course, but the scientific requirement of a creator of the universe simply doesn't exist. |
Well, I don't disagree with you here. If there was a requirement this argument would all be moot, eh? I'm just saying that likewise the door has not been slammed shut either and personally I do not think either idea can claim a position of being vastly superior to the other. Both have their own strengths and both have definite issues. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 05:08:48 PM · #540 |
Speaking of Hawking, he's filling a visiting research chair at the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, just a pleasant country drive away from me.
I suppose my point was that the explanation for the universe being God, and especially God as cast in the bible, is so profoundly unlikely as to be easily dismissed. And one idea is certainly vastly superior to the other: the one that makes sense, and didn't arise out of a vacuum, but rather out of empirical data. As far as cosmological theorizing having "issues" goes, I think you can attribute theoretical issues to weaknesses in the theory that are addressed by later theory, much like quantum theory addressing issues with relativity. As you know, problems in scientific theorizing aren't addressed by having faith in any particular theory, or filling gaps with faith or dogma or doctrine. The issues with creation-based cosmology are incomparably more glaring than any put forward by physicists, quantum or otherwise. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 05:29:26 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
But order? Not a chance. |
C'mon. Leaving the whole other argument aside, this statement is pretty silly. Remind me to talk to you about DNA sometime... |
Okay, so you found one microscopic bit of order in the universe. You cannot take that instance and enlarge it to encompass the whole - that's a fallacy looking for a place to happen.
We like patterns as humans, and we are very adept at finding them. On the very small scale, the universe does appear to be full of them. But a sense of order overall? No way.
The universe runs on random probabilities. Any order you're you see is there because you want to see it (read "god"). And people generally want to see it because they just can't conceive that they are so vastly small and insignificant; there just has to be something out there to make them feel good about themselves.
If you want to feel good, get a puppy. If you want to really understand your place in the universe, go far from the city lights one night and look up at the stars and forget all about gods and deities. The universe is vast and cold and does not care about you, because it cannot care, because there is nothing there capable of caring. If you can't handle that truth, go back home and hug your puppy. :-)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2009 05:46:35 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You needed to keep reading though. Our best evidence, Louis and Hawkings notwithstanding, does point to a beginning for our universe so the first assumption needs to account for this while the second does not. |
Out of interest, is the "best evidence" the word of god transcribed into any particular holy book, or the images returned by the Planck observatory (and its ilk)? ;-)
|
|
|
|
10/19/2009 05:50:19 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You needed to keep reading though. Our best evidence, Louis and Hawkings notwithstanding, does point to a beginning for our universe so the first assumption needs to account for this while the second does not. |
Out of interest, is the "best evidence" the word of god transcribed into any particular holy book, or the images returned by the Planck observatory (and its ilk)? ;-) |
For the purposes of this conversation clearly it's the latter. ;) Remember I'm one of those slippery fish who's comfortable in both worlds and will move back and forth as it suits the conversation. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 05:54:14 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
But order? Not a chance. |
C'mon. Leaving the whole other argument aside, this statement is pretty silly. Remind me to talk to you about DNA sometime... |
Okay, so you found one microscopic bit of order in the universe. You cannot take that instance and enlarge it to encompass the whole - that's a fallacy looking for a place to happen.
|
Sorry. I guess I mistook your "not a chance" to actually mean "not a chance"... ;P The order of our world, though it be small, shines like a beacon that may illuminate the universe. If we were the only order in the entire universe, would we not stick out like a sore thumb begging for a satisfactory explanation? Isn't the order all the more impressive if it belongs in a cold and empty environment?
Just some philosophical questions... |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 06:11:26 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our best evidence, Louis and Hawkings notwithstanding, does point to a beginning for our universe so the first assumption needs to account for this while the second does not. |
What evidence would that be? AFAIK, the Big Bang refers to a rapid expansion from a single point in space-time (essentially a singularity). It's not that the universe didn't exist, it's just that it was compressed into an extremely compact form. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 06:42:37 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Our best evidence, Louis and Hawkings notwithstanding, does point to a beginning for our universe so the first assumption needs to account for this while the second does not. |
What evidence would that be? AFAIK, the Big Bang refers to a rapid expansion from a single point in space-time (essentially a singularity). It's not that the universe didn't exist, it's just that it was compressed into an extremely compact form. |
Rationally, what would you posit would change to cause the expansion of the singulairty and why would it not have already happened at some point in the infinite past? Where do the laws that govern the expansion and whether it happens derive from and why were they triggered when they did? (Also, I am fully aware that words like "when" may not perfectly describe events before the Big Bang because time may not have existed in the manner we understand. However, if we are invoking natural laws to govern an event like the Big Bang we must rationally invoke cause-and-effect chains which can substitute for "time".) |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 07:52:05 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rationally, what would you posit would change to cause the expansion of the singulairty and why would it not have already happened at some point in the infinite past? Where do the laws that govern the expansion and whether it happens derive from and why were they triggered when they did? |
Very likely the same laws that govern other space-time phenomena, such as gamma ray bursts, quasars, the rapid expansion of red supergiants in their final phases, and the collapse of stellar cores to form neutron stars and black holes (most or all of which were completely unknown a mere 100 years ago). Maybe Big Bang-like events have happened before (the infinite past is a very long time). The triggers for these events may not be completely understood, but there's no reason to invoke magic and superstition to explain them. Heck, we can't even pinpoint the exact trigger for a tornado or earthquake, but only diehard nutjobs still attribute them to divine smiting. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 07:58:42 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rationally, what would you posit would change to cause the expansion of the singulairty and why would it not have already happened at some point in the infinite past? Where do the laws that govern the expansion and whether it happens derive from and why were they triggered when they did? |
Very likely the same laws that govern other space-time phenomena, such as gamma ray bursts, quasars, the rapid expansion of red supergiants in their final phases, and the collapse of stellar cores to form neutron stars and black holes (most or all of which were completely unknown a mere 100 years ago). Maybe Big Bang-like events have happened before (the infinite past is a very long time). The triggers for these events may not be completely understood, but there's no reason to invoke magic and superstition to explain them. Heck, we can't even pinpoint the exact trigger for a tornado or earthquake, but only diehard nutjobs still attribute them to divine smiting. |
THESE ARE NOT LAWS! They are descriptions! We have been positing "laws" for the universe since time immemorial, and many of them have fallen by the wayside. We observe phenomena, we deduce (to the best of our ability) "laws" that can contain these phenomena, but it is all ex post facto. Whenever anything comes along that "breaks these laws" we modify the laws. It's absurd, at a fundamental level. We don' understand but a fraction of what governs the universe. The hubris here is staggering!
R. |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:07:22 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rationally, what would you posit would change to cause the expansion of the singulairty and why would it not have already happened at some point in the infinite past? Where do the laws that govern the expansion and whether it happens derive from and why were they triggered when they did? |
Very likely the same laws that govern other space-time phenomena, such as gamma ray bursts, quasars, the rapid expansion of red supergiants in their final phases, and the collapse of stellar cores to form neutron stars and black holes (most or all of which were completely unknown a mere 100 years ago). Maybe Big Bang-like events have happened before (the infinite past is a very long time). The triggers for these events may not be completely understood, but there's no reason to invoke magic and superstition to explain them. Heck, we can't even pinpoint the exact trigger for a tornado or earthquake, but only diehard nutjobs still attribute them to divine smiting. |
I think you are missing my point. We run into trouble when we start talking about "eternal" or "uncreated" things. Why would something be eternal and then suddenly change? What conditions would evoke that and why would they not have already occured at some point in the eternal past? Even if time does not conventionally exist, cause-and-effect chains should, otherwise no condition should suddenly cahnge to cause the universe to expand if it was eternally a singularity. Does this make sense? |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 08:15:27 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
THESE ARE NOT LAWS! |
You need to read more carefully. I didn't specify what the laws were. Regardless of the current state of our models, natural laws still govern these processes. |
|
