Explaining God to Scientists is Like Trying to Explain Google Maps to Infants
Got your attention? Good. I love to debate, so let's go.
I've watched those God versus Science debates on YouTube and have to say the scientists really don't have squat. I mean they don't have any arguments at all refuting God. They bash the Bible, which we all acknowledge was written by people living in Babylon many thousands of years ago so their culture could be preserved, they attack the idea of a resurrection- which is a story restricted to the Christian religion-and they say there is no need to invoke a God, but that's all they've got. Ha! What a joke.
When I proclaimed I was an atheist at about age 12, my Dad said something very powerful to me after I laid out my arguments for evolution. He said all that proves is that the bullet came from the gun, it doesn't say who pulled the trigger. He got me. Smart guy, huh? Well, I've come a long way in my thinking since those days.
So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on.
I've watched those God versus Science debates on YouTube and have to say the scientists really don't have squat. I mean they don't have any arguments at all refuting God. They bash the Bible, which we all acknowledge was written by people living in Babylon many thousands of years ago so their culture could be preserved, they attack the idea of a resurrection- which is a story restricted to the Christian religion-and they say there is no need to invoke a God, but that's all they've got. Ha! What a joke.
When I proclaimed I was an atheist at about age 12, my Dad said something very powerful to me after I laid out my arguments for evolution. He said all that proves is that the bullet came from the gun, it doesn't say who pulled the trigger. He got me. Smart guy, huh? Well, I've come a long way in my thinking since those days.
So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on.
Comments (135)
Of course, if you're willing to take the creation myth of Christianity (or any other religion) as a metaphor and simply believe that there is some all-powerful being that kicked off the Big Bang then feel free to do so. All the (atheist) scientist will do is ask you what evidence you have of such a thing. Absent any evidence they will argue that such a belief is unfounded, and like any unfounded belief will refuse to accept it as true.
All due respect, it doesn't seem so. There are many religious scientists, and many scientificallly-informed believers. It isn't, and couldn't be, a 'one or the other' scenario. The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. It is eminently possible to wholeheartedly pursue science and still have profound religious faith.
All the (religious) scientist need do is gesture in the general direction of the Universe. 'There', she might say, 'is the evidence.'
That's the claim that needs evidence.
Take the Big Bang theory: it's so thin it's almost transparent. Surely a God theory can be mapped out to rival it. Why doesn't the scientific community at large try and do that, I wonder? Why do they instead stand back and demonise it, treat it as the enemy, take a them or us approach to it? That's a very unscientific way to go about the discussion. No wonder they can't find any evidence of it. They refuse to look.
In a way, God was the first attempt of critical thinking people to explain their universe. Why not try to build on this idea within science and look for evidence to support it?
But, all due respect, you're missing the point. I don't think this particular religious believer is saying that some particular thing is 'evidence' of God, but that the whole universe, the entire shebang, is evidence. You see how that could never possibly be an empirical claim, right? Because there's nothing to compare it with. You can't compare universes; and, had the Universe not existed, then....
So the point I'm trying to make is that asking for 'evidence' misplaces what it is that is being suggested. According to this believer, God is not one amongst some other possible explanations for some particular thing, but the reason that anything exists whatever.
Now, this believer might be wrong, and you might choose to totally disregard her. But you can't do that on the basis of evidence, because your notion of what constitutes 'evidence' is of a different order to what she is suggesting.
Quoting MikeL
Because that's not what scientists do.
Hey, google the Wikipedia article on Vera Rubin. And, while you're at it, Georges Lemaître.
But that's a claim that needs to be justified. If I claim that my dog barking is evidence that it will rain tomorrow then I need to justify this claim. What evidence (or reasoning) supports such an assertion? So the theist can claim that the universe is evidence that there's a God, but then the atheist is quite right in asking what justifies such an assertion. Absent any such justification the claim that the universe is evidence that there's a God is unfounded, as is my claim that my dog barking is evidence that it will rain tomorrow.
Or if you prefer, consider my claim that the existence of the universe is evidence that I will win the lottery tonight. It's prima facie as unreasonable as the theist's claim.
I don't know. She could say - take it or leave it. The claim is after all made in the context of a philosophy forum, which, hopefully, is situated in the context of the history of philosophy. So it's not a completely arbitrary and meaningless claim, like that of a 'dog barking', unless indeed we have come to the point where the whole idea of God has become completely otiose. In which case - nothing to discuss.
The scientist doesn't need to directly observe the thing conjectured (e.g. the Big Bang). They just need to be able to observe the expected effects. We hypothesise that the universe is infinite (or finite) and then determine what that entails. If we observe the entailment – and if nothing else explains this observation – then we can be said to have proved the conjecture.
Sure. My point is just that the scientist doesn't need to prove that the theist is wrong. He just needs to ask for reasons to accept the assertion, and if none are offered (or if they don't work) then he is free to reject it.
But here's another fact: it is now quite unknown, and may forever remain unknown, why the Universe that emerged in that instant from the 'primeval atom' has the qualities it does, and not some other attributes, that subvert the appearance of life altogether. Again, something we can never know. So I think that the believer is justified in arguing that it might be the case that the whole of creation is the expression of a 'divine plan' - but I don't think that can ever be proven, for the reasons I stated above, and because it exceeds the limits of science to try and prove such things. But, given that, there is no difficulty in following scientific discovery wherever it leads, either.
Here's something to consider. In the Old Testament, when Moses asked God, who are you, God answered "I am that I am". "I am" commonly refers to being at the present. Further, many people interpret Einstein's special theory of relativity as stipulating that there is no such thing as the present. These people, if they hold and believe in the truth of special relativity, deny the possibility of God under this fundamental definition of God.
The Big Bang theory is really just as flimsy as a God theory. Both call for something that cannot be proven in its initial state, and the support for a Big Bang theory seems a little too high given some major problems with it.
Talking about muddying the waters, I see that religion is being brought into play. I have my own opinions on religion and it's ways throughout history, but I want to stick to the idea of God as a scientific theory that the scientific community refuses to accept or investigate. In fact that they deny.
Mike, in terms of Einsteins present, obviously there is one, we are in it right now and now and now, but I think the point he was making was that time can be viewed linearly, as it is, but rather than travelling from one end of this linear string to the other, the entire string may be moving in one motion sideways instead so that the past present and future of the string occur at once.
The problem remains though. The way that most people interpret special relativity is directly incompatible with the definition of God "I am that I am", provided in the Old Testament. To believe in both SR and God, is to hold contradictory beliefs. So either one has to shift their interpretation of SR, or shift their notion of God.
We are getting into religion rather than God, but what the hay, this is fun. When I hold a meter ruler level with my eye, I do not see the length. It is only when I turn it to 90 degrees that the dimension of 1 meter materializes. It's relative. I don't have to adjust my beliefs about a meter ruler to accept both ideas as true, do I?
Are you calling me Mike? If so, that's OK, I like the name. How is your spatial analogy related to how we conceptualize time, unless you are already presupposing that time is just a dimension of space?
Time as a dimension of space seems to be the truest model I can see. Well, its the one I like the most anyway. Time slows in gravity and accelerates in non-gravity. Is that right? There is a lot of fun to be had linking time to matter to wrinkles in space. Is there a contradiction you can see?
OK, now compare this with what is said about God in the OT, "I am that I am". How can it be true that the present is relative, unless God is relative. If God is relative, then relative to what?
Okay Metaphysician Undercover, I have your statement. I have glossed over it a bit too easily, so I'll take another look at it even though we are talking religion here and not God.
To say that "I am" commonly refers to being at the present, by your own admission does not predicate it in every instance, and while I am sure you are correct in this translation, it seems a bit of a stretch to me. You say that many people interpret Einstein's relativity as stipulating no such thing as the present, again if I do concede this to you, "many people" is not all people. So we have one highly ambiguous statement stacked upon another ambiguous statement, drawing from a document written by Israelites thousands of years ago in Babylon and juxtaposed against a theory of the universe written in the 1920s in order to draw out a contradiction on the nature of God.
I admire your tenacity, but its a bit all over the shop for me.
How are you distinguishing "religion" from "God"? I've provided a definition of God, one derived from religion of course, and we are discussing this. But you say we are discussing religion, not God.
Quoting MikeL
Yes that is exactly the point I made. One can claim to believe in special relativity and to believe in God (as I am that I am), both at the same time, but this is "a bit of a stretch". It is a stretch, because it requires either interpreting "I am" in an unusual way, or interpreting special relativity in an unusual way. To interpret these two both in the normal way makes them incompatible.
I would contend that your definition of God through this archaic reference written by men thousands of years ago may need some modification.
This doesn't really lead anywhere, other than, as you suggest, a never ending debate.
One can take the stance that:
A) there are outside omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent forces that were born out of some singular event such as God/Big Bang, in which case one can quickly perceive the similarities without much differences other than the lexicon being used, or
2) there are no such external forces, but rather an Intelligence (creative mind) that is evolving while learning that has both the nature of habit and the potential for novelty. (Daoism and ancient paganism that preceded it might be one such example).
I choose the latter because the evidence is within me and evidenced by everyone I have experienced in lives from birth to death. Others may claim they have experienced God and others may claim they have experienced the Big Bang via the Natural Laws that created and guide them.
At the end, I guess, it is a matter of taste, and to what practical value each philosophical outlook presents. I have found the notion of creative evolution and evolving intelligence very practical in my everyday existence, most crucially in the manner it offers choice and purpose, but also in a philosophical approach to relationships and health.
Can you elaborate on point 2? I don't quite understand your meaning.
I can point to hoof-prints in the sand and say that a unicorn made those, and that they could only be there for us both to see if a unicorn passed by here. There can be no other explanation. But there is, as a horse could have made those same impressions in the sand. The same goes for the claim that the universe is evidence of God's existence. There are other, better explanations for the universe being here.
"Science is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment.If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth."
- James Burke in "The Day the Universe Changed" (the best history/science documentary ever)
This is a great description of science and how it is different from other methods of seeking truth. I underlined and italicized the key points.
Claims about the nature of God vary so widely and correlate with the region of the world, and time in history, in which the claimant is born. Scientific hypotheses and theories only vary based on the level of objective experimentation by as many scientists as possible, and then tested by the general population using the technology the theory is based on. It is safe to say that humans have a good understanding of fire and lightning, as we have used technologies harnessing these natural processes for a long time. AND the technologies work for everyone, in every culture and in every time. Both Christians AND Muslims can use electric generators (converts gasoline into electricity) to power their homes after their God sends them a massive rain storm.
I could go on, but this post would be too long.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Really? Better ones? I am yet to hear them. There is a little string of observations such as red shifts and background microwave radiation that have been sewn together into an elaborate theory. Is that the better explanation because it has a few more parts to it? It also has a few more holes in it. Quite big ones.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Have we repeated the Big Bang? I'll have to check my notes on that one.
It's true that we need a singular definition of God to please the scientists. This is their main bone of contention, they don't know what to attack and so they call it all a lie. But in creating a definition of God to please the scientists we of course will make it fit with the observable, so in the very act of defining God we prove its existence to science. Do we not? Science cannot win this.
OK, so with reference to your op then, I would assume that "explaining God to scientists" means reciting a definition of "God" which is consistent with the principles utilized by the scientists. Care to state that definition?
And you're trying to unravel the mystery of God? X-)
The whole project of defining God or god(s), convincing scientists (anybody, really) that God exists, (or contra believers, doesn't exist) is doomed. It's doomed because God's existence or absence just isn't provable. There is nothing that can be said about God that rests on objective proof.
Is God a human creation -- maybe our greatest one, maybe not -- but can either of us prove it? No.
Billions of believers seem to have no difficulty accepting God's existence, which is not evidence of course, but it does suggest that faith provides evidence. Billions of people have not believed in God, (or believed in the One True God or Pantheon of Several True Gods), and for them disbelief seems to provide all the evidence necessary.
Individuals just have to await for the Gift of clear belief or certain disbelief. Maybe God provides both.
Where I disagree a bit is that science does in any way have facts or is unbiased/objective. Even less so with the introduction of trillions of dollars of government money into their industry. It has become as scammy as the financial industry (big money does that). But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or "The Theory of It Just Happened".
Well that's it, I'm calling the moderators for sexism...
Hello. I think I can prove that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is by definition the search for truth that is empirically verifiable. The christian God by definition is an immaterial being and therefore not made of any divine matter or energy that could be tested empirically.
I suppose a scientist could test the authenticity of a miraculous event (ie if explained by the laws of physics then it is false, if unexplained by the laws of physics, then it is true), but if true, a scientist could always conclude that we need to revisit the laws of physics, instead of labelling the event as a miracle.
I think you're right. One thing that has become abundantly clear in this talk is that science is trying to punch way above its weight when it takes on subjects like God, simply by virtue of the limitations of proof it places on itself. It's scope is limited to the observable and testable, but when we continue into the immeasurable science cannot follow and maths has to kick in. Maths on the other hand makes no claims one way or the other about God, and with the amount of crazy stuff they are coming out with its no wonder.
Not today no more, no. But the irony lies in the idea of acceptance. For if complexity science has trouble with the idea of emergence in formalizing the strong version (god), then this reflects the inability of the mathematical community to realize that formalization of this phenomenon automatically results in its transformation into the weak version, despite the so-called systems dialog between several disciplines, that in my opinion, only reflects uncertainty in function of analogy. If then, one considers the ideas of limit and approximation an sich, then their inability would become ability, and the role of the observer becomes (apparently contradictory) obsolete. What i am trying to say is that the idea of god is implicitly defined in the acceptance of the mystical element in a singular niche (mono), for if the limits of our knowledge are approximated using reductionist principles, then the act of observation vanishes into oblivion, for we cannot truly understand each other, we cannot compare absolutes (or technical jargon), we cannot define the whole in terms of other wholes and then apply the theories without an element of risk (as "a trinity of scientist(s)" cannot possibly understand everything, genius is needed to elevate god). If, then, the goal of complex integration (which is of paramount importance today) is to "synthesize" elements into a coherent but relative whole, and the scientist does believe in god, then (in a funny way) it is not possible to grasp the idea of god, because then god only reappears later as another emerged strong form (another discipline on its way to specialisation induced by "christ when he returns"), and the cycle re-continues. Thus most scientists today (or at least those with a love for philosophy and metaphysics) do believe in god, but this belief is grounded on "scalable timeframes" and is taken with a grain of salt, except for the hard-core reductionist scientists, who like to appear on television and ironically degrading science for what it will become, what they claim (if they realize the nature of their claims or not) it truly is; an instrument of god implicitly accepted by their religionist counterparts in some timeframe (or tv-frame for that matter). These scientists do believe there is a god, and that's the crazy part.
To say the least, the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is inconsistent. The only way out for a theist is to abandon reason altogether IF she's to continue believing in God and that precludes any rational discourse on the matter.
On the othe hand, if we're to tweak God's definition, it would reduce God to a weakling, make him evil, limited to such an extent that praying to Him would be pointless.
Now that I think about it, it is quite amazing to see religious people say things like this about science and then turn around and use the finding of science to (like QM) to support their belief in God.
Quoting MikeLThen you have yet to listen. I find it very hard to believe that you really understood evolution at 12 years old to make a decent argument for it when your father confronted you about it. I was raised a Christian and believed it all until I started to find inconsistencies that I couldn't ignore. I eventually became an atheist after fully understanding the implications of evolution. I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True".
Quoting MikeLWe have repeatedly observed the expansion of the universe and the background radiation that is evidence of the Big Bang.
Quoting MikeLThe problem, as I have already stated in my first post here in this thread, is that the definition of God is inconsistent. Why don't you get together with the Muslims and Hindus, and the native peoples of Africa and South America, and come up with a consistent definition of God, then we can talk about science proving God's existence.
Quoting Rich
When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question.
The problem is that nothing about evolution seems that it was directed, designed, or orchestrated. If human beings were the desired endpoint, then God picked possibly the most circuitous route available to achieve that goal, and went out of His way to make it seem as if the process is undirected. Nothing about the driving force of evolution, i.e. genetic variation and natural selection, requires a designer.
Indeed, to invoke a designer in the process of natural selection seems a contradiction in terms, as it is no longer "natural" (except in the trivial sense that God can be said to stand "outside" of nature or some such thing), but is rather artificial selection, i.e. the cultivation or preservation of variants which embody desirable traits so that they may continue to propagate those traits.
To paraphrase Dawkins, it must give the evolutionary theist pause to consider that God chose a means of design which makes Him look superfluous.
If genetic variation is in any way random, as they say, then it - like any other random event - requires a designer.
Science has its God Creator and it is called the Big Bang that created everything in approximately the same amount of time. When choosing between religious stories of creation, I always go for the one that is most entertaining, which in this case is the Bible.
There is science's designer. Calling it natural is cute, but a keen observer will catch the sleight of hand. As a matter of observation, such a term had no meaning other than to replace the more commonly used word God.
But in philosophy, if you call yourself an atheist, you better have good reasons for believing God to be non-existent. If proving a negative is so difficult to do, which I don't think it necessarily is, then agnosticism should be the go-to.
Atheists shouldn't get a free-bee and claim it's up to the theists to ground their metaphysical claims. Atheism is just as strong, if not a stronger, claim as theism. Yet annoyingly enough it's often the atheists who claim the privilege of laziness.
Scientists =/= atheists. There are plenty of theistic scientists.
Actually, more specifically, science =/= (metaphysical) naturalism.
Scientists are not in the business of proving the non-existence of supernatural entities. If a scientist attempts to do so, they've crossed over from science and into transcendental metaphysics. Even if they don't realize it.
I have certainly never heard of corroborative, sound science that evidences God (whatever that may be).
Atheists give a pass on natural selection just like theists give a pass on God. Why? Because they want to believe in something. Otherwise exactly the same. Just the words are different so atheists can feel more scientific.
Can you clarify in a way that is intelligible?
You're right. I might have been 13. But seriously, I'm not here to debate religion. Religion is more about people controlling other people through rituals, promises and threats then anything else. It has its upsides, like bringing people together at Christmas - that's always nice, but any thinking person has to shut one eye and raise one eyebrow when they read through the Bible stories or other stories.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I can repeatedly watch the pendulum of a grandfather clock swing back and forth that that gives me no more insight into harmonic motion then I had at the first sight of it. Besides, I don't think we have repeatedly watched the universe expand. Expansion is only a theory based on some doppler observations in this limited tiny tiny spec of space we can measure.
Quoting Harry Hindu - Good, so we agree that both scenarios are equally plausible.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't need sugar with my coffee, but that doesn't mean I don't have sugar with my coffee. I think Lisa Simpson over popularised Occam's razor.
If you want a definition of God, then why don't we say, it is the sentience of the universe. It is in everything. It is everything. The sentient atom. Perhaps a sentient universe is passing through a universe of a different energy - like Time - causing little bubbles of interference to pop up like the bubbles that pop up when you run your hands through the water. Maybe those bubbles are our physical universe. Who knows? Its good to wonder though.
That a rock given enough time and pressure can change into another rock type is fine. That atoms given enough time self-assemble into living sentient beings is absolutely amazing. The inanimate has become animated. Just a fluke? All Darwin's theory tried to explain was how the lifeforms evolved after the process was started.
Hi Darthbarracude, Richard Dawkins doesn't agree. He is the one bringing the fight. Check on YouTube.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem unacquainted with what "natural selection" even means. And reading your other comments on this thread about the topic only reinforce that impression.
I agree: Darwin described the origin of species, and not the origin of life (his speculations about a "warm little pond" notwithstanding, its safe to say that Darwin's primary area of interest was not abiogenesis, which is a good thing, given how he would have had no hope of solving the problem with the state of biochemistry and molecular genetics in the mid-late 19th century).
However, if a theistic evolutionist wishes to claim that God in some way intended or planned that humans (or something like humans, in terms of sentience, self-awareness, moral sense, etc) would arise as an outcome of the evolutionary process, that view is difficult to square with the apparently random and meandering path taken by evolution, with several mass extinctions in the 4 billion year history of life on Earth, including the most recent, the K-T extinction event, which removed dinosaurs as the dominant animals, setting the stage for the mammals to flourish in their absence.
So, in order for these apparent contingencies to have been built into the evolutionary process from the start, we now must posit God not only seeding life in that "warm little pond," but also have Him moving asteroids around the solar system in order to strike the Earth at just the right time, have him manipulating the Earth's orbital parameters and/or solar output in order to tweak the climate just so at certain stages in the history of life, have Him decide when animals would colonize land from the oceans (it's probably difficult, if not impossible to have sentience or civilization without fire, and it's hard to build fires in aquatic environments), etc. Very quickly, we come to see that there is nothing "natural" about natural selection, and we must ask again why it would be that God chose to create humans through one of the few pathways which makes him seem unnecessary to the process.
As for creating a God in the image of man, what the heck do you think scientist 's do when they create a Gene and Brain in the image of man? All biology does is stuff every possible attribute of humans in the Brain/Gene, without any evidence whatsoever. They see color, OK, there it is right in the those neurons. They see recognition of sound. There it is, stuffed into that gene.
All biology/neurology is is pulling whatever science wants out of a hat, and ram it down the throats of students and makes sure it sticks. If you want an A, you better learn to parrot this story exactly.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you are breathtakingly ignorant and not just trolling. Either way, I'm done with your bullshit.
You know, atheists have every bit of that religious tone they accuse theists of. All of that righteous anger and proselytization of their dogma. They even excommunicate from their hallow halls of academia. Quite a dogmatic group these atheists are. Of course, not to question their faith that the Big Bang created it all.
If one posits the existence of a God who interacts with nature in some way (i.e. is not wholly "transcendental"), then it is perfectly legitimate to investigate God's existence by means of historical or scientific investigation. Some scientists and natural theologians who were in the business of proving the existence of God (including modern-day "scientific" creationists, intelligent design theorists, etc) have likewise employed such methods.
IMO, saying that the existence of God is not a subject for empirical investigation is simply a canard meant to shield certain claims from rational inquiry.
So now it is "unnatural selection"? I wonder how that would look in the textbooks?
For the same reason Natural Selection chose it.
Just by making up some new phases doesn't make atheism any less religious.
Hi Arkady, I agree, that God created Man and said bah to every other lifeform is nuts. Rather than God created the universe I propose that God is the universe. It is a sentient level of energy that science has no clue exists but permeates everything right down to the atom and beyond, right up to the galaxies and beyond. Do you really believe in a big, dumb universe? It's teaming with sentience at all levels in all manifestations in all quadrants. Natural Selection says B went to C went to D, and is only a theory as there is no proof - a requisite of science or so I'm told in this thread. So both views can be accommodated, no?
THAT is the primary problem - that you, and every other believer in a god, do so as a result because it feels good and gives you purpose. This is the primary symptom of a delusion - beliefs in things that cover up reality to make you feel better. Religion is an adaptation for handling stress.
Natural selection is a theory, you are right. It is a scientific theory, which (in a slight deviation from the term's meaning in normal parlance) is a set of propositions which have withstood empirical testing, and, somewhat more controversially, at least for those philosophers who are Popperians, has been confirmed to some degree. Saying there is no "proof" of natural selection is simply not true. The selection of particular traits in populations of organisms in response to particular environmental pressures is well-documented (though the degree to which natural selection, as opposed to other modalities such as neutralism, genetic drift, etc drives the evolutionary process is a matter of some contention among experts, of which I'm admittedly not one).
As for the universe "teaming [sic] with sentience" at all levels, I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps the universe is God, or perhaps it's just an electron orbiting an atom in some greater universe. But without any way in principle to test these claims, they must remain forever speculative.
Yet, where else did you get the idea of God from? You are right in that you were born an atheist. It is only after hearing about god and had it reinforced by those around you, that you developed the belief and hold it as true. Do you feel that you need God to exist to give your purpose and a belief in the afterlife?
Quoting MikeL
But the universe is mostly a vacuum and lifeless.
Nonsense, any environment will nurture an endless number of variations that come and go. A cockroach can survive as well as a Zebra in a jungle as can bird. They survive by learning as does a human when confronted with new environments. It is the mind that is evolving, and thank goodness for that. I would be dead if I waited for the next miracle of spontaneous mutation.
What science offers it's one miracle after another and then declares it a product of some manufactured phrase called Natural Selection (the Designer). I prefer the simpler story that the mind is learning and evolving.
It comes down to this: did Natural Selection manufacture mind by some miracle or did mind manufacture the creation story of Natural Selection. Given the mind's proclivity toward creative stories and myths, particularly when it comes to Genesis, I am inclined toward the latter.
Myth or fact?
http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/
"The universe and everything in it, including humans, is mostly “empty space”. However, space is not actually “empty”, it’s filled with quantum fields and dark energy.[1]
In other words, even though the universe and everything in it is mostly empty (to the extent that the human race could fit in a very heavy sugar cube with the space removed), true empty space (a perfect stable vacuum) can’t actually exist in nature.
Phenomena like quark and gluon field fluctuations, and other types of cosmic radiation permeate what we consider empty space. Even if all matter and energy could be removed from a section of space to create a perfect vacuum, the space could not remain “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics.[1][6]"
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/physicists-observe-weird-quantum-fluctuations-empty-space-maybe
"Empty space is anything but, according to quantum mechanics: Instead, it roils with quantum particles flitting in and out of existence. "
I think 17th century physics should be expunged from all curriculums. Instead, it is forced fed because of "agendas". There are industrial advantages to maintaining the myth of materialism.
Hi Harry, I think we have two issues here that are often conflated here by science. Firstly is an innate sense of a God in a lot of people from all walks of life. The second is religion, which has latched onto this idea and ran about claiming it had all the info and all the answers on the subject. If there wasn't the initial sense of a God, religion would not have persisted, but just like us, people sought answers to the question and religions seized the opportunity. Nowadays we can look at religion and go, "Yeah, I don't think so," but for thousands of years they were the only one who had set up shop in the space.
Quoting Arkady
Hi Arkady, that's not proof. That's some collated samples that have been admitted into evidence. The burden of proof as required by science has not been met. Evolution and God, neither has been accepted by science at true, only by scientists.
You may be using the word "proof" in an idiosyncratic way. Generally, one speaks only loosely of "proof" in empirical disciplines: true "proofs" only exist in mathematics and logic. Perhaps something can be said to have been "proven" if it is so well-attested to by empirical inquiry that it is a rock-solid finding, with little chance that it will be overturned, but this is all rather loose talk.
So, I'm not sure what "proof" of natural selection you have in mind. Evolution (with or without natural selection) most certainly has met the burden of proof to any reasonable inquirer. No one can reasonably doubt the common descent of all life on Earth, that species transition into new and different species over time, etc. These facts are simply too well-attested to by the fossil record and evidence from molecular genetics. And, as I said, the proliferation of advantageous traits in populations of organisms in response to environmental pressures has been well-documented (though, as I said above, there is some debate among experts, at least as far as this layman can tell, as to how big a role natural selection plays in evolution as compared to other processes).
If your standard of "proof" is pitched so high as to exclude evolution, I would wonder whether you are generally a skeptic about knowledge claims, or if you reserve undue skepticism for evolution because it does not comport with your pre-established ideological or religious views. That is a rather common view: people who happily accept results from other areas of science will all of a sudden fulminate that evolution is "just a theory" (as you have done above), "not proven," or even that there is evidence against it because they find it distasteful to their religious (or moral or whatever) sensibilities.
I have no idea what your last sentence is saying, as it is ungrammatical.
Do this is the big claim of science: " That things change". Some due out. Some continue. It comes and it goes. Fine. I think this goes back to Heraclitus and Daoism. But science needs a Designer and so Natural Selection is invented. The designer selects for survival so naturally only the fittest survive except for Stephen Hawkins who is the exception that proves the rule.
Now for evidence of Natural Selection (the Designer) what we have is: well they survived didn't they? Which works of course because it is goal directed. The Designer designs for survival and is near perfect except where it fails. Now how does a man caught in a desert survive: by his wits maybe or must the man for what amounts to the miracle of some mutation that somehow actually works?
What is evolving is the human mind and it is evolving all the time, continuously and is adapting based upon circumstances and experiences. Goal directed science is worthless. And I believe natural selection, whole still a favorite of atheists, had become somewhat of an embarrassment which biologists would rather just pretend isn't there.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
Sure, because "everything came from nothing and then organized itself, into complex inter-dependent systems" isn't a mythical at all. *eye-roll*.
Quoting Michael
I think most atheist have no idea what they're talking about when they demand evidence, as though they have some kind of special right to the concept of evidence. In a courtroom, both sides will often examine the same evidence and still come to radically different conclusions. It's not that the evidence for a God isn't there; it's that you are choosing to interpret the evidence in a different way.
Probably the most amazing thing about atheistic science is that they've come to the conclusion that the more complex we discover the universe and everything to be, the less need there is for any intelligence behind it. The complexity becomes an argument for why the complexity exists in the first place. It makes no sense.
Nope. There can be only 2 options; either random or designed. If there is no creator, no intelligence, no intent or design behind why we are here, then you are talking about random processes. Even, 'the laws of physics" becomes a misnomer if there is no designer, because a law is, by definition, something which acts or influences in a planned way with a specific, intended goal. The best you can say is that there are "consistent physics". Calling them "laws" implies some kind of purpose which the theory itself does not support. This kind of language appears all throughout atheistic theory; they say there is no God but they use language which implies meaning, because no matter how much a proud person may want to believe that they are the master of their own life, deep down they cannot accept that their life is the result of random, purposeless processes.
Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god.
Science especially; the scientific method excludes positive proofs. It can negate (if the thing is falsifiable) things, and that is one tenet of scientific claims, that everything science claims has to be falsifiable. Therefore when you ask that a scientist prove to you that there is no god, you ask a scientist something he never claimed he could do.
Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one.
I said 'The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism'. Your point plays directly into that. I am not atheist, but at the same time, I think it's misleading to demand of science that it supports theistic beliefs. So I'm sticking with my argument.
Nah, you've misunderstood the point. The answer was "I am that I am" and it was given in an unpronounceable series of letters (i.e. no vowels). The vowels were added later to make it pronounceable. The point was that God can be who or whatever he wants to be. We humans like special titles and designations because they help us to quickly organize information, but invariably we end up giving the titles special meaning which go beyond organizational utility.
We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.
God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh.
Even if your suggestion that "I am that I am" is correct in the sense of an eternal present, we're talking about the creator of time/space/matter in this context. How can you suggest that a being who is able to exist outside of time/space/matter is somehow contradicting itself by saying, "I exist right now"?
Sorry, can you give an explanation for how my point plays directly into that? I'm not sure I understand what "plays directly into that" even means. I suggested that if there is no designer, then the only option left is randomness. That's not religious fundamentalism. That's a valid observation based on what the two concepts actually mean.
I don't agree, and here's the reason why. I think that dichotomy between 'God or nothing' is very much an historical phenomenon. It's much more an historical matter than a philosophical one. It comes from, among other things, a number of popular books in the 19th Century which were about the 'conflict thesis' between science and religion. Typically the proponents of that were evangelical atheists, rather like today's Richard Dawkins; John Tyndall was one of them, but there were others ('Darwin's bulldog, T H H Huxley, and Herbert Spencer among them).
So the master narrative is actually rather like that of 'historical positivism' - the society evolves from primitive myth and superstition, to religion, then to the 'metaphysical age' (i.e. classical culture) and finally the 'scientific age' (in accordance with the general outlines proposed by Auguste Comte, founder of sociology). The same basic narrative underwrites Dawkins view:
What this doesn't come to terms with, however, is that it's possible to be both scientific and religious. There are many eminent scientists who still have a religious outlook. But if the 'conflict thesis' were correct, it wouldn't be possible; you would have to make a choice between one or the other.
So I see the scientific materialism of Dawkins and others as trying to prove the non-reality of God on the basis of science; whereas some intelligent design theorists, and creationists generally, make the opposite case, that science can prove that God exists. But as several other people have noted, you can't prove it one way or the other.
I myself am generally sympathetic to the design arguments. But, the same argument will do nothing to sway someone who hasn't got a predisposition to believe it.
The periodic table of the elements lists all the known elements from 1 - 119, according to electron count. We did not create the elements nor the number of electrons each has. We only observed that there is something to count, and then we assigned little squiggles (which we call numbers) to quickly identify how many electrons each element has.
In other words, there is an observable, provable numerical sequence encoded into the building blocks of all matter which we did not put there. Even if you do not think of mathematics (which includes something as simple as counting from 1 - 119) as a language you must still recognize that there is a pattern which is so consistent that when the table was first being organized, scientists were able to leave gaps for previously undiscovered elements.
These days atheistic scientists have taken to using complexity as an explanation for complexity, but this is not a rational way to interpret evidence. They suggest that the more we learn about just how tremendously complex the universe is, the less need there is for any intelligence behind that complexity. It's an irrational conclusion, but that is the point of concepts like greed, fear, and in the case of a non-existent God who can be explained away by our own brilliant observations of the universe, pride. Conclusions based on these concepts will always be irrational even if they can be made to sound compelling under the guise of respectable, scientific, expert opinion.
This is a simple matter of definitions. "Designed" and "random" mean two different, opposing things like up and down, full and empty, on and off etc. Something cannot be random if it is designed, and the opposite is true. Technically, there is nothing in the universe that can be said to be totally random, because everything has a cause. However, the word still has meaning in that we can talk about something like a dice program which is programmed to roll random numbers, or a person who says random things not related to the topic at hand.
The words only have meaning if they are used according to what they actually mean. It may be that we have different ideas of what the words mean, but most people in the world will have the same basic idea, which is why we have dictionary definitions, to avoid this kind of dilemma.
If there is no designer, then there is no purpose or intent behind the universe. It is random. If you want to say the universe is not random, then you must give an explanation for how it is designed. Those are the only two options for "how did we come to be here".
This is why atheistic scientists invariably use phrases like, "laws" of physics, or natural "selection" or "evolutionary arms race". They do not really want a cold, dead theory devoid of any meaning or purpose. What they really want is the absence of a designer who has the right to place expectations on them and assign consequences for going against those expectations. All humans crave meaning and purpose and we all sometimes chafe at authority.
In this context, namely, the existence of the Universe, that is a simplistic view.
But, proving the existence of God is inconsequential to the real point of what this God wants, anyway. Even the Bible says this; "you think there is something special about believing there is a God? Even the devils believe, but it doesn't change their behavior".
Traits like character, integrity, loyalty, and courage are hard to find. Who wants people who only listen to you because your authority to make demands of them has been so irrefutably proven that they have no other choice but to go along with what you want?
Thousands of people are recorded to have witnessed first-hand, irrefutable miracles in Jesus' day, and yet they still killed him. Personal faith is just that; personal. When you have no choice but to believe because you've been overwhelmed by the power of God, then what good does that achieve in terms of personal development?
I talked to a some-what militant atheist who basically said that even if the existence of God were irrefutably pointed out to her, she would still need to cross-examine this God to be sure that he he was worthy of her loyalty. Without realizing it, she'd hit the nail square on the head; all this proof and evidence stuff is just a smoke screen. The real issue is whether or not our creator is worth following, much like a child who recognizes that his parents have authority over him, and yet still chooses to be a bad boy.
Yeah, most people discussing this topic prefer a lot of complexity. It's great for hiding. :p
You talked about historical phenomenon. I talked about what random and designed actually mean in terms of concepts, and then attempted to accurately apply those definitions to the topic at hand. So no, you did not try to explain. You tried to make it complicated, which is why you complained when I made it simple. There is no "false dichotomy" here anymore than a door being open or closed is a false dichotomy.
I think MikeL had the right of it when he named this thread. I feel his frustration.
I don't understand how the observations by gob smacked scientists as they run around cataloging all the changes and postulating where from and where to somehow rules out the idea that atomic dice were cast and perhaps someone's waiting to see if they roll a seven when its all over.
Of course they fit into the reality of either random or designed. Just because they may think they don't, doesn't mean they are right. See, this isn't an issue of who can prove that their religion is correct. I'm talking about observing a verifiable fact of reality. Based on what the two words actually mean, they cannot both be true at the same time, any more than a door can be opened and closed at the same time.
Sure, like a powerball machine; the balls bounce around and pop out through the chute randomly, but the balls, machine, and chute (as well as the person operating the chute) are all designed to be random. It's still intelligent design, even if that's the way the creator designed time/space/matter to work in practical reality.
Well that's the thing about ancient writings, you can interpret them in many different ways. If you are trying to assert a specific interpretation as "the correct interpretation", this requires reference to context, not personal feelings.
Quoting John Days
I don't think you read my post. If God is said to be "now" in an absolute sense, then this contradicts the premise that "now" is relative.
Actually, I did give context. Here it is again...
"We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.
God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I read it very carefully.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The context is that of a CREATOR who is able to exist in the past, present, and future all in the same instant, AND is able to exist outside of all 3 of those concepts at the same time. Perhaps you should try clarifying how you've come to the conclusion that a creator who is able to do this, is somehow cornered by your personal understanding of reality...
Yes, it is a big closet they can hide in. It's do, so, big, and complex. Someday.
What I meant by "context", is the context in which the statement was used, the bible, not the context of your personal example. I have no doubt that you can produce an example which would make what you're saying make sense, but we need to consult the context in the Bible, to see what was meant.
Quoting John Days
Right, God didn't need a special title (a name) so what he gave was a brief description of Himself. He didn't want to be known as just another name, but as the one who "is". Therefore His brief description of Himself was "I am that I am". It's very clear from the context, in the Bible, that when Moses asked for a name, God's response was a refusal to give a name. He wanted the Israelites to know Him as "I am", and this is not to signify a name, but to signify existing, being at the present time.
Quoting John Days
Now you're speaking nonsense. Where did you ever read that God is able to exist in the past, present and future, as well as completely outside of these, all at the same time. That's pure contradiction, and I've nowhere heard that God supports contradiction.
Your own conclusion is evidence that my interpretation is accurate. You say it's nonsense that the creator of time/space/matter can exist outside of time while simultaneously existing in the past, present, and future; just another human being telling "I am what I am" that he can't be what he is.
Randomness is, therefore, enmeshed in a context of order. We do not have even language to describe what "decontextualized randomness" would look like. What is probably the closest word to describe it is irrational, but used with the full apparatus of imagination, something which we rarely do (and when we do it we often recoil from it in horror).
In other words, the dichotomy order x randomness ought to be named order x irrationality.
***
But the entire program of establishing evidence for God from observations of Nature is misguided, because Nature is not immediate for us, whether in our created artifacts (dice and roulette included), whether in given experiences. We bring our interpretative schema into the issue when we do that, and this is why the debates are non-conclusive. It is more efficient to trace back the idea of God through history and to realize that the God we are talking about did not present itself (as an idea, without begging the issue of its 'reality-out-there') through natural manifestations, but rather in the human psyche (which is, indeed, immediate to us). It was only after the human psyche (I'm using this term in its Platonic sense, by the way) identified and developed the idea of the divine that it applied this notion to natural manifestations -- including social and cultural manifestations under this umbrella --, rather than vice versa.
In effect, the main driver of the modern atheist-theist debates is a conception of man (which is often embraced by both sides) in which the human psyche is isolated from the universe. The debate then becomes, "God exists only in the human psyche" vs. "God exists both in the psyche and outside the psyche". The discontinuity between psyche and reality, a nonsensical position, is taken for granted in this framing of the debate.
I guess the other issue here is whether order is primordial, or chaos is primordial. If order is primordial, then chaos would emerge out of order. But if chaos was primordial, then the contextual order you make reference to would be emerging out of pure randomness no? Then that primordial randomness would create both the contextual order and the unpredictable randomness we notice inside of the contextual order.
Aristotle already answered that in the Metaphysics. Act has metaphysical precedence over potency.
Hmmm - but there certainly seems to be a difference between act and order/chaos. The Aristotelian act/potency dichotomy seems to be beyond the dichotomy of order/chaos.
How else would you categorize chaos and order?
Why would you say chaos is unlimited potency? Afterall, potency without act is nothing.
Quoting Mariner
I would characterise chaos as lacking in pattern/predictability/explanation. Whereas I would characterise order having pattern/predictability/explanation.
Nope. Potency without act is something. Nothing is no thing. In nothing, there is no potency.
Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon?
And how does infinite potency represent chaos? Have you heard of logistic mapping?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map
I think of chaos more like this. Something that lacks pattern and lacks predictability.
It does not do anything and cannot do anything, but that does not make it "nothing". It makes it "something which cannot do anything". Pretty much congruent with chaos.
Quoting Agustino
Yep. Just as nothing would not become something "if acted upon". If you act upon nothing, what you get is nothing. (Else you would be acting upon something).
Prime matter (as per Aristotelian usage), or "stuff" for our modern-day sentences, is something. It is undetermined (since any determination is an act), but it is something nonetheless.
We are here on the edges of discourse, so I cannot do much more than refer you to the Aristotelian discussion... and this discussion was not supposed (by Aristotle) to end the subject, but rather to point the student to a stance from which he would grasp the potency/act distinction. Aristotle was very clear that this distinction cannot be defined or explained (on pain of infinite regress), it has to be immediately grasped. (And this takes us back to my original comment about how all evidence for God requires immediate experience, rather than experience mediated by some concepts)
Well I think it's wrong to say chaos cannot do anything, that's precisely my problem in fact. I view chaos as something that DOES something, but does it without pattern and unpredictably, and quite possibly without reason either.
Quoting Mariner
Yes, I am quite familiar with what Aristotle did there. Basically, there is a category between act (being) and absolute nothing and that is potency.
Quoting Mariner
I don't think so, because in my mind chaos is actually something which acts. That's why I'm confused when you try to tell me that chaos is infinite potency.
If so, it would seem that chaos and order would possess the same spectrum of both with the degree depending on the system.
Please elaborate. Show me some ordinary sentences in which chaos is something which acts. (I want to get a grip on what you mean by chaos, to translate it into my own lexicon).
Okay, let's think in terms of music. According to you, chaos corresponds to silence, which metaphorically is pure potential for sound. According to me, this is wrong, because silence in music is more primordial than chaos. A musical rhythm is order. Pure noise, without meaning or purpose, that would be chaos. But pure noise, just like a musical rhythm, is still an act, and not a potency, as silence metaphorically would be.
Music is the subject. In relation to this subject, pure noise may be the potential for music. How is there any actual music in pure noise? All you are doing is changing the subject from music to sound, in order to say that sound is still something actual, because it is not actual music. So the real subject here is sound, not music. Now the potential for sound, again will be something actual, but not an actual sound, and we could proceed ad infinitum.
The point which you don't seem to be getting is that noise, in relation to the particular order which is called music, is chaotic. But noise itself, as an actual thing is not chaotic, it is ordered by whatever produces it from the potential for it. So the actual thing which serves as the potential for something else, is chaotic in relation to that thing which it is the potential for, but if you look at this potential as an actual thing itself, it is not chaotic. But this is to change the subject. So you only convert potential from chaos to order by changing the subject.
You are only trying saying that non-musical sound is "chaotic" in relation to the structured sounds of music. It doesn't have the required structure to call it music, so you just call it noise. But noise isn't chaotic, it's very nature is that it has its own cause and structure such that it is highly intelligible, and therefore not chaotic.
:s ... so music isn't sound? Both music and noise are different kinds of sound. What makes one music and the other noise are order and chaos respectively.
As I said, just because it doesn't fulfill the structural conditions for being music, doesn't mean that any noise chaos. Would you say that the noise of people talking is chaos? If you are trying to claim that some noises are chaos, you need a better argument. I don't think there is such a thing as a noise which is chaos.
Quoting Agustino
Now the only question really is whether you agree with @Mariner that chaos corresponds to pure, infinite potential, and order corresponds to act? Or do you agree with me, that chaos/order is a different dichotomy that is less general than the potential/act dichotomy? Or do you disagree with both of us?
Yeah I agree with Mariner, that's why I was arguing that point. To have order is to have form, and form corresponds with actual existence. In Aristotelian metaphysics, the cosmological argument denies the possibility of pure infinite potential, as not actually possible, it is impossible. That argument is the one which allows form to be prior in time to matter, giving the Neo-Platonists the logical foundation for independent Forms.
So as much as we can talk about chaos as lack of order, this makes chaos relative to order, just like potential is relative actuality. But to speak of an absolute lack of order is to talk about something which is impossible, because "chaos", meaning "lack of order", already assumes "order" within its definition, so to assume "absolute chaos" is self-contradicting..
Well no, reading your clarification here makes me think that you rather agree with both of us. On the one hand, you agree with Mariner that order is primary and chaos secondary (thus answering my original question), BUT you don't agree with Mariner that chaos corresponds to infinite potential (since well, the latter is impossible). It seems to me that you're saying that chaos is relative to different degrees of order.
Rather your argument is that to have order is to have form, and there can be no matter without form, so, therefore, there can be no absolute absence of order, only relative. I grant you that, I agree. That does seem to suggest that there can be no absolute chaos.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Though it is to be noted that perhaps most people on this forum would disagree with us on that point.
Yes, I do agree with that. But just like we can speak contradictions, we can also talk about other things which are impossible, like infinite, unlimited potential, prime matter, and infinite chaos.
Quoting Agustino
The idea of unlimited potential may be in vogue right now, but belief in it doesn't make it any more possible. Clearly there are limits to possibility and believing that the impossible is possible is just a mistake. As Aristotle points out in the argument, if there ever was infinite chaos, then there would be no order whatsoever. But we observe order, so infinite chaos is impossible.