| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2010 12:49:23 AM · #1451 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I would have no problem discussing them individually with you sometime (despite their being written to support the christian view and are incredibly 'loaded'.) |
What he said. Many of them demonstrate ignorance and/or logical fallacies (surprise, surprise). For an obvious example, look no further than question 1: "The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past."
The statement is patently false and demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the theory. Space is expanding at every point, so an observer anywhere in the universe sees himself at the center of expansion. Current cosmological theories do NOT assume a single point of infinite density. |
BS. Current accepted cosmological theories DO assume an origin to our universe. Is it a singularity? a brane? I dunno, but the question is still relevant. Why not just name the theory instead of saying something nebulous like "current cosmological theory"? I think it signifies chicanery.
Wiki:
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day.
Care to offer your side? Certainly "patently false" is a bit strong, eh? Are you misunderstanding the word "point"? They mean point in time.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 00:58:02. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 01:09:37 AM · #1452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. |
Ahem... you're assuming a one-word explanation for all of them.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Care to offer your side? Certainly "patently false" is a bit strong, eh? Are you misunderstanding the word "point"? They mean point in time. |
It says "point of origin." That's a place, not a time, and cosmological models describe an earlier state, not a beginning point (a "primordial hot and dense initial condition" isn't nothingness). I think I'll stick with patently false, thanks.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 01:11:51. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 01:15:39 AM · #1453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. |
Ahem... you're assuming a one-word explanation for all of them.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Care to offer your side? Certainly "patently false" is a bit strong, eh? Are you misunderstanding the word "point"? They mean point in time. |
It says "point of origin." That's a place, not a time, and cosmological models describe an earlier state, not a beginning point (a "primordial hot and dense initial condition" isn't nothingness). I think I'll stick with patently false, thanks. |
Gimmeabreak. Let's put it all out here so we can analyze it Shannon style (this is where you get really frustrating).
The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe. In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Where did it all come from?"
A) We see the phrase "a finite point in the past". This is followed by "point of origin". You don't think one has to do with the other? That the point is meant in time? Especially when their question talks about a beginning? Does the actual shape of the initial condition of the universe matter if there was, in fact, an initial condition that was separated from time?
B) You still fail to link or name your current theory which makes all this patently false.
C) Does your point even matter to the questions posed? The question speaks to a "beginning" (time again) and you do not speak at all to the other two questions posed.
As far as my one-word answers, for the purposes of this conversation we will assume that Christianity is a wreck of conflicting and contradictory views. I made the statement that other views were the same, so you do no good to further point out the ruins of Christianity. You need to show how your own view is not similarly ruined or bankrupt.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 01:21:05. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:46:29 AM · #1454 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For a moment I'm going to be channeling the spirit of Louis and speak in assertive, blunt words (so forgive me), but if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. |
Why? Just because the answers to YOUR questions don't suit you? Guess what? There are questions every day that the answers aren't right to hand. That's the way it works out here with a lot of us. The answers simply aren't readily apparent, and they don't have to be.
Originally posted by yanko:
I guess you didn't actually read a word of my post did you? If you did you might have gotten the distinct impression that I wasn't trying to answer them because they have little to do with how I live my life as a non-believer. Perhaps you should ask what questions the non-believer feels are important to their choices rather than posing ones the believer thinks are relevant. |
Not only to a non-believer, but to someone who believes differently than you. The premise of most of them leave a lot to be desired. The general tone is that without a premise such as your worldview, there is nothing but chaos. It would stand to reason that they're just questions.......whether the answers are inmportant or relevant is up to the individual.
I for one, don't really care how the world came into existence. What possible relevance is that to me? I'd be interested to know that purely as a knowledge enthusiast, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:56:52 AM · #1455 |
I went to church yesterday and the sermon very much reflected some of the concerns recently expressed here.
The vicar decided to criticise atheism, commenting on how poor a life experience it offered in various ways. He then went on to explain in great detail various life affirming stories - but (probably unwittingly) stories that were completely compatible with atheism.
No-one in the congregation seemed to spot what seemed to me to be the obvious contradiction. I got a sense that everyone was content to listen to the stories as if they were somehow special to Christianity - and felt reassured and reaffirmed in the justification for their faith. In fact, I felt a bit offended and a bit annoyed - because the vicar was: (unknowingly) taking cheap shots at me; and misleading his congregation. His message that Christians were somehow exalted in life was just plain wrong.
On reflection, I can see why the vicar needs to push this message at the expense of misleading the congregation that their lives are richer and somehow more blessed than others. It is one of the church's main "unique selling points" (along with eternal life after death): the church has to push these messages very hard, because without them the church would be an irrelevance.
Church-goers are "sold" this message in much the same way as they are also sold the "unique" thirst quenching qualities of Coca Cola and the "unique" suction of a Dyson - except that the religious message can use the advertiser's full toolbag of dirty tricks because there is no advertising standards agency keeping a watch over what is being said.
Atheists do not have the same toolbox - they have to rely upon brutal logic and self-evident nature of their message to combat the madness of organised religion.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:03:31 AM · #1456 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe. In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Where did it all come from?"
. . .
As far as my one-word answers, for the purposes of this conversation we will assume that Christianity is a wreck of conflicting and contradictory views. I made the statement that other views were the same, so you do no good to further point out the ruins of Christianity. You need to show how your own view is not similarly ruined or bankrupt. |
How is an honest acknowledgment that our current scientific understanding is not perfect in any way "conflicting or contradictory" to the meaning, method and process of science? My understanding of the current theories of cosmological origin are more in line with Doc's representation of it than Shannon's, although if Shannon has a link I would be very interested to read up on it. Those theories contain a large gap of knowledge when it comes to the early universe and what, if anything, existed before the "big bang." From what I am told, we do not even have the math (or at least the processing power to run the math) to estimate the immediate conditions following the "Big Bang" (although scientists are always working on this: New Math).
But the fact that our knowledge in this area is imperfect in no way casts doubt on the scientific process or necessitates that a god exist. Science makes no such claims to perfect knowledge, and it is because of science that we know these areas of imperfect knowledge exist in the first place. As I have stated before, science is a process. We have the theories and hypotheses we have because of the best evidence and mathematics all point to our current understanding, most decidedly not because science felt a need to support any pre-conceived notion of the manner in which the universe works (which is the religious/faith-based approach).
You are right, we don't know what was here before there was "nothing" - although, I do think Shannon is right in that the idea of "nothingness" appears to be passing out of favor based on better and more recent evidence and mathematical discoveries. The question may indeed be unknowable - given the nature of our position in the physical universe it may be impossible for us to know or even hypothesize about what, if anything, was here before the universe.
The believer wants to point to this gap (and other existing gaps) and say "God!". (And frankly, that would be that, faith is the death of inquiry.) But what reason is there to do that beyond the believers own pre-conceived notion? Indeed, it would appear to be the worldview that has to continually look for gaps in humanity's current understanding of the universe in which to wedge justification for its existence which is the worldview that is "ruined and bankrupt."
One can craft a deistic conception of God that fits within known scientific knowledge, and I know several deists who do. But this is not a god that has any concern or interaction with humanity, and it is certainly not the Christian God of the Bible, which is - incontrovertibly, I believe - incompatible with our current understanding of science.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 10:29:50. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:03:49 AM · #1457 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gimmeabreak... |
Nice try, but it doesn't work. Here, I'll reduce the complexity for you: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" From your own link, the Big Bang describes the expansion from "from a primordial hot and dense initial condition," and that's not nothing. It's actually impossible for "nothing" to have ever been the condition of the universe because a moment of creation would require your proposed point in time, and time itself is a dimension of something. Any assumption of creation from nothing is an absolute contradiction because something had to exist to do the creating, which would also mean there was never nothing. If you can assume that God always existed, then you can also assume the universe always existed because you're already allowing for the possibility of eternal existence... but that also eliminates the need to use God as an explanation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. ...for the purposes of this conversation we will assume that Christianity is a wreck of conflicting and contradictory views. I made the statement that other views were the same, so you do no good to further point out the ruins of Christianity. You need to show how your own view is not similarly ruined or bankrupt. |
"God did it," is a sentence each, so by your own assertion you're a fool. Of course, the assertion is fallacy and there's not really any correlation between brevity and foolishness. The claim that other views are the same is also fallacious. Try using statements you can actually support. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:21:37 AM · #1458 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
You are right, we don't know what was here before there was "nothing" - although, I do think Shannon is right in that the idea of "nothingness" appears to be passing out of favor based on better and more recent evidence and mathematical discoveries. |
From his biography at TED: "Neil Turok works on understanding the universe's very beginnings. With Stephen Hawking, he developed the Hawking-Turok instanton solutions, describing the birth of an inflationary universe -- positing that, big bang or no, the universe came from something, not from utter nothingness."
From his biography at the Perimeter Institute, which he directs (and which Hawking will be "Distinguished Research Chair" of): "Most recently, with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, he has developed a cyclic model for cosmology, according to which the big bang is explained as a collision between two 'brane-worlds' in M-theory. In 2006, Steinhardt and Turok showed how the model naturally allowed the cosmological constant to relax to very small values, consistent with current observations."
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:31:17 AM · #1459 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My understanding of the current theories of cosmological origin are more in line with Doc's representation of it than Shannon's, although if Shannon has a link I would be very interested to read up on it. |
If you're referring to my statement that current cosmological theories do NOT assume a single point of infinite density, then the Wiki Big Bang article that Jason quoted from will suffice. "Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant."
Even if you DID consider the popular notion of a Big Bang resulting from a true singularity of infinite density at the beginning of time (t=0), you'd eliminate the possibility of an earlier state because that would be the beginning of time/spacetime itself. There can be no "before time" because time wouldn't exist to quantify it. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 10:39:58 AM · #1460 |
Originally posted by Louis:
"...big bang or no, the universe came from something, not from utter nothingness." |
The definition of "nothing" itself makes this a mandatory requirement. Any starting time or place for the universe would create a boundary between something and nothing, and "nothing" cannot have a boundary without it becoming something. Try wrapping your mind around that one! |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 11:19:45 AM · #1461 |
Sorry, guys. Looking at the schedule this week it's probably far too busy to support a conversation like this. Totally lame, I know. Getting all ramped up and then leaving. But I've given you food for thought. If you go over those topics, make sure to look at the questions in italics. They are the important part. For the first one the questions are:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Where did it all come from?
I'm guessing the honest people in the group will say, "I don't know" (because we don't). The first three questions are scientific in nature. They point out that a worldview underpinned by science cannot currently answer basic fundamental questions we have about our universe and life. (Topic seven is in this category as well.)
Topics five and six and important philosophical questions. Ultimately it asks whether one wants to live with the real ramifications of relative morality and whether the concept of free will is compatible with materialism. Those are both excellent questions.
Topic four is interesting and I have to think about that one for a while. I'm not sure I have thought it through myself and how much of a problem it represents.
Topics eight and nine you can take or leave. They are the most "loaded" (as someone said) toward Christianity and while I think they are good questions, there is plenty of meat up above.
So have fun. I'll be around now and then, but not to the level where I can respond to five or six people. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 11:37:53 AM · #1462 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The first three questions are scientific in nature. They point out that a worldview underpinned by science cannot currently answer basic fundamental questions we have about our universe and life. (Topic seven is in this category as well.) |
Again, you are going to have to show how gaps in current scientific understanding equal a "conflict[] or contradict[ion]" or that science is somehow "bankrupt" because it cannot immediately answer every single question about the universe that we can currently conceive. This attitude about the "gaps" in science appears to be a particularly Christian/faith-based perspective, as believers (whose philosophy does, inherently, purport to "explain it all") seem deeply troubled by the changing and expanding nature of scientific knowledge and appear to see this aspect of science as somehow a "gotcha" moment. Honestly, this leaves scientists and scientific thinkers scratching their head as the idea that we should be able to provide answers to everything right now is just absurd given how long humanity has been engaging in true scientific inquiry.
Also, the believer has to provide some reason beyond tradition for their assertion that any "gap" should be filled with their particular conception of God. Why not the guy across the street's conception of God, why not no God?
When viewed outside of the particular preconceptions of any one particular religious persuasion, there appears to be no objective means by which to preference any particular faith-based belief system over the other, and highly objective means by which to reject them all.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 11:40:39. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 11:39:27 AM · #1463 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why is there something rather than nothing? |
If there was nothing, we wouldn't be around to question it. Since we are, there obviously must be something. Why does it matter?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where did it all come from? |
It was always there in some form. Again, this should be self-evident because something cannot be created from nothing. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 11:48:19 AM · #1464 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry, guys. Looking at the schedule this week it's probably far too busy to support a conversation like this. Totally lame, I know. Getting all ramped up and then leaving. But I've given you food for thought. If you go over those topics, make sure to look at the questions in italics. They are the important part. For the first one the questions are:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Where did it all come from?
I'm guessing the honest people in the group will say, "I don't know" (because we don't). The first three questions are scientific in nature. They point out that a worldview underpinned by science cannot currently answer basic fundamental questions we have about our universe and life. (Topic seven is in this category as well.)
Topics five and six and important philosophical questions. Ultimately it asks whether one wants to live with the real ramifications of relative morality and whether the concept of free will is compatible with materialism. Those are both excellent questions.
Topic four is interesting and I have to think about that one for a while. I'm not sure I have thought it through myself and how much of a problem it represents.
Topics eight and nine you can take or leave. They are the most "loaded" (as someone said) toward Christianity and while I think they are good questions, there is plenty of meat up above.
So have fun. I'll be around now and then, but not to the level where I can respond to five or six people. |
My answer to both those main questions is actually "I don't care.".
What I have to deal with is what is happening now, and no religion on earth helps me deal with that. Every religion only compounds the problems, so I find my own way. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 02:53:58 PM · #1465 |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 03:48:39 PM · #1466 |
On which thread a version of the following is posted:
Christianity:
The belief that some Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can give you eternal life if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all of humanity because a sinful woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
hrmmm... When you put it that way... although, to be fair, all religions can be ridiculed in the same way, I have no doubt.
R. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 04:37:24 PM · #1467 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... although, to be fair, all religions can be ridiculed in the same way, I have no doubt.
R. |
PLEASE NOTE! (a) I neither read nor posted Robert's quote above re: 'zombie', and (b) my statement below is meant only to incite discussion (and not promote ill-will):
Is there something patently false about the statement? While I can understand your feeling ridiculed, the premise is essentially accurate. Also, do you find it absurd that:
Many christians can find this idea egregious, yet insulting statements of other faiths are widely acceptable (even other christian faiths such as Catholic)? How can it be ok for many christians to 'pick on' other faiths, yet cry 'blasphemy' (foul, etc.) when it is said of them?
Again, I'm asking for clarification...
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 04:47:46 PM · #1468 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
On which thread a version of the following is posted:
Christianity:
The belief that some Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can give you eternal life if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all of humanity because a sinful woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree. |
 |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 05:11:09 PM · #1469 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Is there something patently false about the statement? While I can understand your feeling ridiculed, the premise is essentially accurate. Also, do you find it absurd that:
Many christians can find this idea egregious, yet insulting statements of other faiths are widely acceptable (even other christian faiths such as Catholic)? How can it be ok for many christians to 'pick on' other faiths, yet cry 'blasphemy' (foul, etc.) when it is said of them?
Again, I'm asking for clarification... |
Just for the record, *I'M* not feeling ridiculed by the quote. And no, the amazing thing is, there's nothing patently false about that bit of ridicule, which is why it is ridicule rather than, say, slander. The point, for me, and it's a sobering one, is that when you reduce a religion down to its unvarnished (and ungarnished) mythology, it tends to sound awfully silly... This is basically Shannon's point, of course.
Just sayin'... as Jeb would say (and often has)...
As for the second part of your question, that's what I'd call "hypocrisy" and it ain't a pretty thing to see.
R. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 05:50:32 PM · #1470 |
Et tu, Bear? Et tu? ;)
Just popping in at lunch. Going back to Shannon's answers for the two Topic one questions, don't they strike you as rationalization or mental gymnastics? Things are here because they are not not here? While that's true, it's hardly helpful in answering "why". And to answer that something was always here because it can't come from nothing also begs the question. Certainly Science knows there is an opaque curtain of the origin of our universe that we cannot see beyond. To simply speculate something is there beyond it because we know something can't come from nothing is pretty weak. It makes logical sense, but it's every bit the type of answer that we rail against the theists for giving.
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" Hardly erudite thinking.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 17:51:21.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 05:56:19 PM · #1471 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Et tu, Bear? Et tu? ;) |
I'm just sort of trying to make a distinction between "religion" and "God"... I'm still on the God side of the debate, as I always have been, but I'm defiantly NOT in the "my religion is truer than your religion" camp.
R. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 05:56:34 PM · #1472 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the record, *I'M* not feeling ridiculed by the quote.
R. |
yes, my bad... I'd originally specified the 'you' was generic for persons of faith... but edited quickly while headed out the door. should have stuck with the first writing of y'all. oops ;) |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:13:58 PM · #1473 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly Science knows there is an opaque curtain of the origin of our universe that we cannot see beyond. |
Not really. The Steinhardt–Turok cyclic model is pretty cutting-edge cosmology, formulated in 2006, and still being developed. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:24:11 PM · #1474 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certainly Science knows there is an opaque curtain of the origin of our universe that we cannot see beyond. |
Not really. The Steinhardt–Turok cyclic model is pretty cutting-edge cosmology, formulated in 2006, and still being developed. |
From that model, as "explained" by wiki, the following:
In this cyclic model, two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space.[6] The visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these branes. The collisions correspond to a reversal from contraction to expansion, or a big crunch followed immediately by a big bang. The matter and radiation we see today were generated during the most recent collision in a pattern dictated by quantum fluctuations created before the branes. Eventually, the universe reached the state we observe today, before beginning to contract again many billions of years in the future. Dark energy corresponds to a force between the branes, and serves the crucial role of solving the monopole, horizon, and flatness problems. Moreover the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future, and the solution is an attractor, so it can provide a complete history of the universe.
Basically, it's fantasy at a fundamental level. It's people seeing what we see now and trying to extrapolate, based on what we think we know, what sort of a "model" might account for this stuff we think we know. As the science evolves, so we know (or think we know) more, then what we used to know turns out to be wrong or inadequate and the new flavor of what we think we know now produces a new wave of "explanations" that contradict the old explanations. But we don't know, and we have no way of knowing.
Now, I'm aware that this is how science works, of course I am. And I don't even have a problem with it either. My point is different than that; my point is that when intelligent people act like we've somehow gotten closer to solving the mysteries of the universe because we are able to speculate about 'branes and strings and colliding dimensions, I have to ask how this can be distinguished from magic, basically. I mean, this is LOTR stuff, this is world-class SF stuff. And I'm a LONG-time reader of and lover of SF, and I think all this is really, really cool beyond belief, but I don't see where it contradicts, at any level, my gut feeling that there's a force behind all this that we cannot comprehend, and i call that God...
R. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 06:27:35 PM · #1475 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Et tu, Bear? Et tu? ;)
Just popping in at lunch. Going back to Shannon's answers for the two Topic one questions, don't they strike you as rationalization or mental gymnastics? Things are here because they are not not here? While that's true, it's hardly helpful in answering "why". And to answer that something was always here because it can't come from nothing also begs the question. Certainly Science knows there is an opaque curtain of the origin of our universe that we cannot see beyond. To simply speculate something is there beyond it because we know something can't come from nothing is pretty weak. It makes logical sense, but it's every bit the type of answer that we rail against the theists for giving.
So ultimately the two answers I've gotten are "why does it matter?" and "who cares?" Hardly erudite thinking. |
So we must be erudite? Hardly. |
|
