Are you missing my point deliberately? I ask because you are definitely misrepresenting what I wrote. I said scientists are working on ways to test the theories, yet you berate me for having faith in them and then call them speculative. If scientists can’t even test these theories then the theories are speculative, of course. That is also how science works. Stop arguing with me about things we agree on.
Where we disagree is your insistence on adding god, an unnecessary assumption with no evidence whatsoever to back the hypothesis. Which god would you posit anyway? Seeing as how there is no evidence for a god you’re free to make up anything you want and call it god. That is not the path to knowledge, it is a dead end, as in when Isaac Newton gave up on figuring out what keeps the planets in stable orbits and concluded god did.
Edit: While drifting off the sleep last night it occurred to me that what you are advocating is nothing more than another god-of-the-gaps argument. Another thought: If you want to promote and and science then show us where god fits into the mathematics. You cannot do science without math.
Tim, For me it is hard to think that the whole story was purposely planned. I mentioned the two stories of creation as an example to illustrating that things could not really have been planned unless these guys were stupid or thought we are stupid and that they would get away with some silly details or that including some pretty gruesome stuff would be ok...A lot of Creation stories probably arose from oral traditions of story telling or amalgams of various versions. By the time some were written down, it may not have been a matter of trying to fool someone. It was probably more like one author wrote a certain version and another wrote another version of the same story. But by then, or at some point, each became believed in, by faith. There needn't have been any conspiratorial or purposeful planning. The person that originally wrote the stories down, may or may not have believed in them literally. But if they believed in them, only metaphorically, they apparently made no effort to indicate that. And if they had a secret metaphor, someone, today, can only guess what that might have been. And such a guess, today, would be colored by the thousands of years of contingencies that have occurred since.
Are you missing my point deliberately? I ask because you are definitely misrepresenting what I wrote. I said scientists are working on ways to test the theories, yet you berate me for having faith in them and then call them speculative. If scientists can't even test these theories then the theories are speculative, of course. That is also how science works. Stop arguing with me about things we agree on. Where we disagree is your insistence on adding god, an unnecessary assumption with no evidence whatsoever to back the hypothesis. Which god would you posit anyway? Seeing as how there is no evidence for a god you're free to make up anything you want and call it god. That is not the path to knowledge, it is a dead end, as in when Isaac Newton gave up on figuring out what keeps the planets in stable orbits and concluded god did. Edit: While drifting off the sleep last night it occurred to me that what you are advocating is nothing more than another god-of-the-gaps argument. Another thought: If you want to promote and and science then show us where god fits into the mathematics. You cannot do science without math.Darron, berate is certainly not the right word, really. What I´m trying to get across is, given the scientific evidence we have, let´s give the theories we are dealing with their proper weight in terms of the extent they have been validated by the scientific community, by the congruence of the models and by observation. In one hand we have the Cosmological Standard Model which is the most accepted description of the origin of the Universe and its development from that moment to the present and into the future. It has been beautifully modelled mainly by Einstein, and it has been ratified by observation, mainly the CMB and the expanding Universe. And also we have the Laws of Thermodynamics and Causality which are universal. The Model and the Laws Of Thermodynamics indicate that the Universe, space-time, had a beginning which lead us to the question of what caused the Universe. In other words the scientific evidence we have points to the need of a cause. On the other hand, to counter the Model, which certainly makes many feel uncomfortable, many physicists have dedicated their lives and spent billions of research funds in the last 50 years to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning. But the models that have been developed have not been validated by observation, there is consensus among the scientific community that they are highly speculative and there are very many renown physicists who are extremely critical of these theories. Just the way some people cling to these sometimes preposterous theories which need assertions such as the net energy of the Universe = 0, which is akin to stating that 1=0, or that the Universe expanded faster that the speed of light, or that the whole Universe with its Laws and everything else sprang spontaneously from a particle small enough to go through a quantum fluctuation, is a proof of how uncomfortable is the Cosmological Standard Model because of its ontological implications. Now WRT the need for a cause, we cannot properly state that the Cosmological Standard Model proves the existence of a creator, but we can rightly hold that the scientific evidence we have is not against the idea of a creator and we can even say that the scientific evidence points to the need of a creator. Whether this creator is God, that´s another discussion. With respect to your god-of-the-gaps counter-argument, yes you are right, but there are two small details we have to consider; the gap is not narrowing, it is getting wider and it is getting wider because of the overwhelming the scientific evidence we have been accumulating. It seemed for a while that scientific development would answer all the secrets of nature and the gaps would disappear. But WRT to the origin of the Universe we can state that the more we know, the better scientific evidence we have, the need for a creator gets bigger. And we can talk about this idea later.
What I´m trying to get across is, given the scientific evidence we have, let´s give the theories we are dealing with their proper weight in terms of the extent they have been validated by the scientific community, by the congruence of the models and by observation. In one hand we have the Cosmological Standard Model which is the most accepted description of the origin of the Universe and its development from that moment to the present and into the future. It has been beautifully modelled mainly by Einstein, and it has been ratified by observation, mainly the CMB and the expanding Universe. And also we have the Laws of Thermodynamics and Causality which are universal. The Model and the Laws Of Thermodynamics indicate that the Universe, space-time, had a beginning which lead us to the question of what caused the Universe. In other words the scientific evidence we have points to the need of a cause. On the other hand, to counter the Model, which certainly makes many feel uncomfortable, many physicists have dedicated their lives and spent billions of research funds in the last 50 years to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning. But the models that have been developed have not been validated by observation, there is consensus among the scientific community that they are highly speculative and there are very many renown physicists who are extremely critical of these theories. Just the way some people cling to these sometimes preposterous theories which need assertions such as the net energy of the Universe = 0, which is akin to stating that 1=0, or that the Universe expanded faster that the speed of light, or that the whole Universe with its Laws and everything else sprang spontaneously from a particle small enough to go through a quantum fluctuation, is a proof of how uncomfortable is the Cosmological Standard Model because of its ontological implications. Now WRT the need for a cause, we cannot properly state that the Cosmological Standard Model proves the existence of a creator, but we can rightly hold that the scientific evidence we have is not against the idea of a creator and we can even say that the scientific evidence points to the need of a creator. Whether this creator is God, that´s another discussion. With respect to your god-of-the-gaps counter-argument, yes you are right, but there are two small details we have to consider; the gap is not narrowing, it is getting wider and it is getting wider because of the overwhelming the scientific evidence we have been accumulating. It seemed for a while that scientific development would answer all the secrets of nature and the gaps would disappear. But WRT to the origin of the Universe we can state that the more we know, the better scientific evidence we have, the need for a creator gets bigger. And we can talk about this idea later.There is no equation or even definition for God in science, evoking a creator answers a religious question not a scientific one. And even if you could prove an intelligent agent created the Universe you've just moved the investigation one degree further to, "what is the origin of the creator?" Religion would say it was a divine event and leave it at that, but once again that's not how science functions. As for the origin of the Universe as our understanding of the nature of the Universe proceeds then theories will continue to evolve and reflect the current state of knowledge, despite what you claim researchers aren't looking "to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning." They're attempting to understand possible mechanisms that could produce what we observe. Like M-Theory which holds the possibility that the Universe is the result of colliding branes. Despite what you claim, science isn't looking for some final answer to everything - that's what religion does, it seeks to place into a context and as coherent a model as possible what we have evidence for now. So claiming that because science is incomplete therefore "God" exists misrepresents what science is.
On the other hand, to counter the Model, which certainly makes many feel uncomfortable, many physicists have dedicated their lives and spent billions of research funds in the last 50 years to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning.That's not what we have at all. What we have is people trying to understand what actually happened. They didn't stop because they came to a point where matter and time did not exist as we know it. They kept looking at what that is. They didn't call it "the beginning" and then make up a story about unmoved movers. Their goal is not to "come up with a model" that fits their preconceived notion. Their goal is to follow the evidence and create theories that are testable, test them, then follow that evidence.
On the other hand, to counter the Model, which certainly makes many feel uncomfortable, many physicists have dedicated their lives and spent billions of research funds in the last 50 years to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning.That's not what we have at all. What we have is people trying to understand what actually happened. They didn't stop because they came to a point where matter and time did not exist as we know it. They kept looking at what that is. They didn't call it "the beginning" and then make up a story about unmoved movers. Their goal is not to "come up with a model" that fits their preconceived notion. Their goal is to follow the evidence and create theories that are testable, test them, then follow that evidence. The evidence, the expansion of the Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background, the theory, the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM), the laws of Nature, the Laws of Thermodynamics and Causality, all point to a Universe with a beginning. This is "what most likely happened" and this is "what that is". Certainly anyone has the freedom to come up with whatever theory suits him, but from the scientific point of view you cannot contradict what that is. This is, you cannot contradict the principle of conservation of energy, you cannot contradict the Second Law of thermodynamics, you cannot contradict causality and you cannot just prescind from the SCM. Confronted the evidence that the Universe had a beginning what are the options: -The beginning of the Universe was a natural event, it popped spontaneously out of nothing and its net energy is = 0. If it were different from 0 we would have a violation of the first law of Thermodynamics. Then you would need to prove that the net energy is really 0 or just believe in this preposterous idea ( the Laws of Nature also would have sprung spontaneously out of nothing). -There must have been something before the beginning of the Universe which caused that beginning, otherwise we would be violating causality. But then the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of space and of time was not really the beginning which would contradict the Standard Model. Also that something would need to be eternal, since it always must have existed given it was never created and that would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. -You can say, as Darron said, "we don´t know". But you really can´t say we don´t know nothing at all, we actually know a lot, and that what we know and that what that is, when considering the beginning of the Universe, point to the need of a cause. Call that cause whatever you want, but science, and more and more, points to the idea the Universe had a beginning and to that this beginning had a cause.
You’re doing good job of misunderstanding science and projecting your stubborn beliefs on cosmologists, but you have not explained anything at all about the god you have insisted caused our universe, which means you have told us nothing. Present some empirical or mathematical evidence for such a god and I’ll listen. All you’re doing now is ranting, and that is not worth my time.
As you have been asked repeatedly, if everything has a cause what caused this god you posit?
Where does this hypothesis fit in the mathematics cosmologists use to study the universe? What mathematical symbol represents this god?
Edit: fixed a typo
This is “what most likely happened" and this is “what that is".
Oh, well, you should have just used larger fonts and quotations marks before. Now it makes complete sense.
Sentient is making several mistakes in his reasoning. The most obvious is the god-of-the-gaps argument. Scientists don’t understand how the universe came into existence, therefore god is necessary. As we all know, this is not only bad logic it is bad theology because those gaps have been shrinking over the centuries. Sentient also projects current physical laws, especially causality, onto the universe before the current laws existed. In the brief moments after the Big Bang the current physical laws were nonexistent, so causality did not exist.
Look at it like this. Nothing in this universe can travel faster than light. However, during the Inflationary Epoch (which lasted 10^-34 second) the universe itself expanded faster than light. This is not a violation of Special Relativity because SR applies to matter and energy within our universe, not to the universe itself. Similarly, causality applies in our universe, but does not necessarily apply to the initial conditions when the universe formed. Remember, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.
And, of course, we are still waiting for Sentient to explain this causal god which he alleges is necessary for the universe to exist.
As Pierre-Simon Laplace said when Napoleon asked him where god fit into his equations, “Your highness, I have no need of that hypothesis.”
SENTIENT said,. It seemed for a while that scientific development would answer all the secrets of nature and the gaps would disappear. But WRT to the origin of the Universe we can state that the more we know, the better scientific evidence we have, the need for a creator gets bigger. And we can talk about this idea later.No, the more we know the more we begin to understand the possible candidates for a *causal condition*. By all accounts the *beginning* has a need for a very simple equation. The assumption that somehow this translates into the need for a *sentient and motivated* causality (a creator) is probably the most complicated of all concepts of causality.
SENTIENT - 28 January 2016 09:04 PM On the other hand, to counter the Model, which certainly makes many feel uncomfortable, many physicists have dedicated their lives and spent billions of research funds in the last 50 years to come up with a cosmological model which does not require a beginning.It does not make you feel uncomfortable that after some 3000 years, no evidence (for the need) of a sentient god has been presented? God = Creation, without any identifiable properties or parameters, is not a scientifically functional equation. It is a dead end (circular reasoning). Until you can identify and define the properties and potentials of a thing you cannot tell Truth from Imagination, God is a meaningless concept, as evidenced by the persistent different interpretations of the properties of God.
What if God doesn't give a damn about science and there is no reason for science to give a damn about God? All bow down and worship mutual indifference! psikWhat if there's no god?
The evidence, the expansion of the Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background, the theory, the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM), the laws of Nature, the Laws of Thermodynamics and Causality, all point to a Universe with a beginning. This is "what most likely happened" and this is "what that is". Certainly anyone has the freedom to come up with whatever theory suits him, but from the scientific point of view you cannot contradict what that is. This is, you cannot contradict the principle of conservation of energy, you cannot contradict the Second Law of thermodynamics, you cannot contradict causality and you cannot just prescind from the SCM. Confronted the evidence that the Universe had a beginning what are the options: -The beginning of the Universe was a natural event, it popped spontaneously out of nothing and its net energy is = 0. If it were different from 0 we would have a violation of the first law of Thermodynamics. Then you would need to prove that the net energy is really 0 or just believe in this preposterous idea ( the Laws of Nature also would have sprung spontaneously out of nothing). -There must have been something before the beginning of the Universe which caused that beginning, otherwise we would be violating causality. But then the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of space and of time was not really the beginning which would contradict the Standard Model. Also that something would need to be eternal, since it always must have existed given it was never created and that would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics. -You can say, as Darron said, "we don´t know". But you really can´t say we don´t know nothing at all, we actually know a lot, and that what we know and that what that is, when considering the beginning of the Universe, point to the need of a cause. Call that cause whatever you want, but science, and more and more, points to the idea the Universe had a beginning and to that this beginning had a cause.This really is a "God of Gaps" attempt to shoehorn religion back into an explanation for the origin of the Universe. We're taking about an event with only indirect evidence and science that in many ways is still in its infancy that can have more than one interpretation. Once again science isn't looking for one final answer after which there will no more inquiry or even any more inquiry allowed. It fits the best evidence present within a framework with all previous information. If allowed to continue to actually investigate phenomena to get a better understanding of what may have happened, for instance as I've already posted M-Theory offers some deep insights into what may have occurred, science will almost certainly develop new theories based on the latest evidence. And those will still be incomplete, if you're looking for absolute certainty then go with religion, science doesn't operate that way. What it does do is provide incredibly powerful tools for understanding the physical world. For instance if priests prayed for billions of years for the magical appearance of semi-conducting transistors to build electronic devices to communicate almost instantaneously across the globe, you'd never have the internet...or any modern electronics. Science on the other hand by actual investigation - not belly button gazing - has within a relatively very short time produced Quantum Theory, at which the Standard Model now lies at the core, that gives us the understand of the world of the infinitesimal that allows us to create transistors and electronic devices to "talk" from around the world. That was science that did that, not some incorporeal being who only seems to show up when certain people need him to impose a mindset that stifles any real further advancement of genuine knowledge. Want to guess what would happen in quick order if cosmology became based in belief of an intelligent designer? Dogma would take over, not evidence. Here's what your version of inquiry would look like based on the history of science and religion. "God did it, now shut up". We in the west would still believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe and everything including the Sun revolved around it. And clever but meaningless arguments like you're attempting to present would be cutting edge in an ever downward spiral. Claiming a divine agent is behind the origin of everything is a cop-out of people who lack the courage and critical thinking skills to actually at least attempt to understand what the Universe is. Because the moment you place faith and not skepticism in the drivers seat it becomes all about the comfort of thinking we've figured it all out and everything makes "sense" again. Even if it is complete garbage that in end enslaves the intellect of millions and set us all up to live in the darkness.
Sorry guys but I´m going up to the mountains for a week so won´t be able to keep up with the thread.
Just one thought.
Causality affects the natural realm. By definition when we talk about god, it is not part by definition of the natural realm, but IS the supernatural realm.
Therefore it is not proper to ask what cause god. God is not contingent. Funny enough maybe the best definition of god is what a desert shepherd some 3,000 years ago came up with, or was inspired, make your bet," I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say.
Also, time is part of the natural realm, therefore it is not proper to talk about before or after in the supernatural realm, and then again it doesn´t make sense to ask about what cause god since without time there is no succession of events, things just are, no before or after, no causality !
Sorry guys but I´m going up to the mountains for a week so won´t be able to keep up with the thread. Just one thought. Causality affects the natural realm. By definition when we talk about god, it is not part by definition of the natural realm, but IS the supernatural realm. Therefore it is not proper to ask what cause god. God is not contingent. Funny enough maybe the best definition of god is what a desert shepherd some 3,000 years ago came up with, or was inspired, make your bet," I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say.Except you have the quote wrong. The original text says "I am That I am".
Also, time is part of the natural realm, therefore it is not proper to talk about before or after in the supernatural realm, and then again it doesn´t make sense to ask about what cause god since without time there is no succession of events, things just are, no before or after, no causality !If scientists are not qualified to discuss God in Natural terms, what qualifies you to discuss God in Supernatural terms?
" I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say.Except you have the quote wrong. The original text says "I am That I am". He was thinking of Popeye
Sorry guys but I´m going up to the mountains for a week so won´t be able to keep up with the thread. Just one thought. Causality affects the natural realm. By definition when we talk about god, it is not part by definition of the natural realm, but IS the supernatural realm. Therefore it is not proper to ask what cause god.Nonsense. That is an evasion, not an answer. One could say the dame thing about the universe and be just as wrong.
God is not contingent. Funny enough maybe the best definition of god is what a desert shepherd some 3,000 years ago came up with, or was inspired, make your bet," I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say.Pretty trite, even if you get the quote correct.
Also, time is part of the natural realm, therefore it is not proper to talk about before or after in the supernatural realm, and then again it doesn´t make sense to ask about what cause god since without time there is no succession of events, things just are, no before or after, no causality !Now you've gone off the deep end, invoking the supernatural. Have a nice time in the mountains.
" I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say.Except you have the quote wrong. The original text says "I am That I am". He was thinking of Popeye "That's all I can stands. And I can't stands no more!" dah-DAH-DAH, dah-DAH, dah-DAH!
What if God doesn't give a damn about science and there is no reason for science to give a damn about God? All bow down and worship mutual indifference! psikWhat if there's no god? Then there is no god to be versus science. Science is the study of how reality works. If some god "created" the universe then he/she/it knows everything about science including what we have not figured out yet. So god versus science is a ridiculous concept anyway. This is merely a intellectual conflict in the minds of people with peculiar ideas about their version of god. psik
Sorry guys but I´m going up to the mountains for a week so won´t be able to keep up with the thread. Just one thought. Causality affects the natural realm. By definition when we talk about god, it is not part by definition of the natural realm, but IS the supernatural realm. Therefore it is not proper to ask what cause god. God is not contingent. Funny enough maybe the best definition of god is what a desert shepherd some 3,000 years ago came up with, or was inspired, make your bet," I AM WHAT I AM", pretty amazing I must say. Also, time is part of the natural realm, therefore it is not proper to talk about before or after in the supernatural realm, and then again it doesn´t make sense to ask about what cause god since without time there is no succession of events, things just are, no before or after, no causality !What supernatural realm? God is a collective figment of the imagination which is why "he" always shows up in such surreal terms. For instance when was the last time you had a conversation with a burning bush. Our species basically woke up from a billions years long sleep into consciousness a very short time ago and we're still trying to come to terms with what that means. World religions are based on dimly remembered dreams from that sleep, not some "supernatural" world that lies just over there somewhere no one can see. People who want to hold onto that dream find ever narrow cracks to fit it in, like the uncertainty of how the Universe formed. It hasn't even been 100 years since it was shown that the Universe was as expansive as it is, to claim that there must be God because we haven't nailed all the pertinent details down has nothing to do with science which relies on the steady accumulation of evidence to reach conditional conclusions. Meaning "if we see this then there's a good chance this is the cause, or connected, or the result". Not, "because we don't know know everything yet there must be a God of the kind peddled by religions for millenia".
Imagine a world where children and others are not plagued with fears of entities and things that don’t exist. They would still need to fear the real monsters and dangers, but I think fear, in general, would be cut way back, and that would be some relief.
But for some “God fearing” is considered a virtue. Instilling paranoia in children, is a common practice in some religions and in some parenting practices. It doesn’t seem right to me. Rather, it seems to be an ignorant and lazy form of manipulation.