Four Possibilities For Our Universes' Existence

[Jeff V]

1. The universe is an illusion
For most of us this is simple so we'll move on.


2. The universe was self created or created by Chance
This term (self created) is analytically false. If something created itself from nothing, that would imply it was both something and nothing at the same time in the same relationship- nothing can create itself.It would have to be before it was.

A coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads when flipped. Chance is just that- a mathematical probability that something can happen. The pressure of my thumb when I flipped it, how I caught it etc. caused it to come up heads or tales. Chance has no power . Chance is not a thing . Chance exerts no force .


3. The universe is self existent and eternal.
Everything we know points away from this. Today this is pretty much a non-argument.

4. The universe was created by something that is infinite, and eternal
From my stance this makes the most sense.


I think these are the only 4 possibilities, as others would more than likely be a derivative of the above. I'm sure some will agree with me, but more will think I'm way off base here. I'd like to hear some of both.

Jeff

[hurlyburly]

What about:

5. We don't know what happened yet, maybe someday we will, maybe it's beyond our ability to discover.

From my stance, this is the only thing that makes sense.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
What about:

5. We don't know what happened yet, maybe someday we will, maybe it's beyond our ability to discover.

From my stance, this is the only thing that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's akin to when humanity still believed the Earth was the center of the universe when we didn't yet have the means to think otherwise.

Our understanding of the cosmos is still in such a primitive state it's quite ridiculous to make any definitive conclusions from the data.

[Piers]

You missed one.

5. The reason for our universe’s existence is currently beyond our ability to comprehend. (Personaly I think this is the most likly explanation.)

Missing that one is typical human arrogance.

That’s all assuming the question makes sense of course.

[BB King's]

<font color="red"> 4. The universe was created by something that is infinite, and eternal
</font>

Gee - I wonder what that 'something that is infinite, and eternal' could be.

Who or what created that 'something that is infinite, and eternal'?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

3. The universe is self existent and eternal.
Everything we know points away from this. Today this is pretty much a non-argument.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken if you believe the Big Bang theory disproves this view of the universe. Conveniently, #3 is also the best argument against your theistic view.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Who or what created that 'something that is infinite, and eternal'?


[/ QUOTE ]

If something is infinite, and eternal it wasn't created.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3. The universe is self existent and eternal.
Everything we know points away from this. Today this is pretty much a non-argument.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken if you believe the Big Bang theory disproves this view of the universe. Conveniently, #3 is also the best argument against your theistic view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear Fusion.

[Girchuck]

About your number 3, the one you say is disproven

So far, the only thing that has been shown not to be eternal is the part of Universe which is available to our observation. There is a big jump from saying that whatever we can observe appears not to be eternal to your number 4 which is not at all supported by observation

[Cooker]

I love it when someone makes one of these posts. I am now convinced that there must be a pro-God site somewhere showing people how to make this moronic arguement. It just shows up too often and is so stupid that I would lose my faith in humanity if I believed so many people came up with it independently. This argument is begging the question and totally worthless. Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things. (I just couldn't work in a chicken overlord, but I tried).

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh one of those "unifying" theories. Yea they're entertaining.

BTW the pro-God website is www.moronicarguments.com. (http://www.moronicarguments.com.)
Jeff

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[Jeff V]

I didn't say it was disproven. However through logical inference specialists in the field of cosmology seem to agree on it.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss my point. I believe that the universes creation is only interesting to us because it is our universe. I am simply suggesting that its creation is a perfectly mundane occurence. How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved? My examply was also supposed to be a bit of a joke.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh one of those "unifying" theories. Yea they're entertaining.

BTW the pro-God website is www.moronicarguments.com. (http://www.moronicarguments.com.)
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very dissappointed that this link didn't connect to the source of these arguements. I was really hoping to find what was at the root of all this lunacy. I don't appreciate you getting my hopes up.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Jeff V]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[RxForMoreCowbell]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned: 5. The Universe was created by something finite, not eternal.

It's odd to me all the assumptions we make about a creator if there is one. A creator doesn't have to be all powerful, all knowing, eternal, pure good, pure evil, it only needs to be something existant beyond our universe.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
5. The Universe was created by something finite, not eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this how you feel. If so can you explain why?

[hurlyburly]

Yes, it really is. The universe is just too vast and our time in it has been much too short. Anything concrete regarding all the theories that currently abound could be centuries (if not millennia) away.

[Jeff V]

Then why even discuss it? So I don't know how ,but I DO KNOW that it just could'nt have been created. That makes alot of sense.

The forgone conclusion that creation is a fairy tale but alternate dimensions, chickens dropping turds, smurfs-anyting but creation, says so much about our current state of affairs.

However I can definately understand it. It just seems so irrational.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. The Universe was created by something finite, not eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this how you feel. If so can you explain why?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible. I don't believe this is any more reasonable than the other causes, but then again I don't think it is any less reasonable either. Your goal was to come up with a list of all possibilities, and certainly a finite creator should be included.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss my point. I believe that the universes creation is only interesting to us because it is our universe. I am simply suggesting that its creation is a perfectly mundane occurence. How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved? My examply was also supposed to be a bit of a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the point of the argument in the original post was that the universe was created. You ridiculed that argument here:
[ QUOTE ]
I love it when someone makes one of these posts. I am now convinced that there must be a pro-God site somewhere showing people how to make this moronic arguement. It just shows up too often and is so stupid that I would lose my faith in humanity if I believed so many people came up with it independently. This argument is begging the question and totally worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, it seems you agree here:
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the universes creation is only interesting to us because it is our universe. I am simply suggesting that its creation is a perfectly mundane occurence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom line: The universe was created by some outside being. Agree?

[Girchuck]

The scientists in cosmology can build their theories on the available observations. The sum of available observations suggests that that portion of the Universe which we are able to observe is not eternal.
However, no further inferences can be made, until our ability to make observations is improved. No evidence points to an infinite timeless Universe creator.
So, option 5 proposed by several people in this thread, namely that it is too early for definite conclusions, seems like the most rational choice at this time.
What makes you jump to your conclusion ahead of the evidence?

[hurlyburly]

Well, you brought it up...

Every one of the explanations has an equal amount of validity while we exist in a state of ignorance. As a species we've existed for less than a few thousandths of a percent of known time. We've got an incomplete snapshot of a snapshot of a snapshot of a blurry snapshot. It may be fun to conjecture, but we can't possibly KNOW anything.

I can never hope to master the math to even begin to comprehend the theories, but that doesn't lead me to accept a creator theory.

Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you miss the option that makes the most sense: In a higher dimensional space, the universe is a chicken turd and was created when a finite and non eternal but higher dimesional chicken had to defecate. Any one that has tried to clean up bird crap will verify that something that is not eternal can create long lasting things.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree that the universe was created by an outside being? That was the point of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, his point was that the poster, when defining all "possibilities" conveniently ignored some possibilities. Do you really fail to see that? You think the OP is really an "argument" for an outside creator? It is a collection of incomplete and unfounded assertions and nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

His point nis simply that the universe may have been created as a physical outcome of an event that occurred merely by chance in a larger multiverse. He isn't saying that this is certain, just possible. But just ignore this possibility in your "possibilities for our universe' existence" and continue to delude yourself into believing that you have logically "proven" the creator.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we totally agree. I happen to believe in God, but in no way am I discounting your right to believe what you choose.

Just observing how easy "open-minded" people is to totally discount something then later stae well we don't have all the facts so I don't know.

[Jeff V]

I didn't know I proved creation. I should spread the news. Don't I get a prize or something?

[chezlaw]

Hi Jeff

Its hard to believe you've discussed this much (as I think you claim) and cannot recognise the problem people have with this type of justification of god.

You dismiss 2. and 3. and 5(something else) but are arguing against people who don't dismiss them but simply don't understand how they could be. The lack of understanding is nor resolved by the addition of something else they don't understand.

They are certainly not going to be persuaded that lack of understanding implies impossible (or irrational). So whats the point?

chez

[Jeff V]

I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Remeber that skit on SNL w/ Phil Hartman Caveman Lawyer? "I'm just a caveman, I don't understand your...". That would be so funny here. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I have dual purposes for this post. One obvious the other maybe not so obvious but nonetheless there.
Jeff

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

His point nis simply that the universe may have been created as a physical outcome of an event that occurred merely by chance in a larger multiverse. He isn't saying that this is certain, just possible. But just ignore this possibility in your "possibilities for our universe' existence" and continue to delude yourself into believing that you have logically "proven" the creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your help. I am done with this thread.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to convert anyone.

I have dual purposes for this post. One obvious the other maybe not so obvious but nonetheless there.
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe if you tell us the purpose we could help. If the purpose is made impossible by telling us what it is then I can have suspicions as to its nature but they're not very charitable.

[ QUOTE ]
Remeber that skit on SNL w/ Phil Hartman Caveman Lawyer? "I'm just a caveman, I don't understand your...". That would be so funny here. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, no idea.

chez

[RxForMoreCowbell]

Jeff V, I'm just an atheist. Your Christian world frightens me. Is God going to smite me with frogs because i'm not doing his bidding, will he flood my house tommorow and tell me to build a boat? I don't know. But there's one thing I do know, and it's that a finite creator should have been #5 on your list. Thank you your honor.

[hurlyburly]

I never totally discounted it, I said it was just as likely as any other conjecturing at this point. The bible doesn't even claim that God created the universe.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
You think the OP is really an "argument" for an outside creator? It is a collection of incomplete and unfounded assertions and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe created itself.

The universe has always existed.

The universe was created by an outside being.

(Or perhaps, as mentioned, the universe is an illusion.)

There are no other options. So what exactly is your point?

[hurlyburly]

Can we call him the "Suicide Big-Banger"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think the OP is really an "argument" for an outside creator? It is a collection of incomplete and unfounded assertions and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe created itself.

The universe has always existed.

The universe was created by an outside being.

(Or perhaps, as mentioned, the universe is an illusion.)

There are no other options. So what exactly is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those weren't the options he listed.

And, even so, there is another option:

The universe was created by an outside event [not a being].

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think the OP is really an "argument" for an outside creator? It is a collection of incomplete and unfounded assertions and nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe created itself.

The universe has always existed.

The universe was created by an outside being.

(Or perhaps, as mentioned, the universe is an illusion.)

There are no other options. So what exactly is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]6.)The big bang wasn't really an event, and the universe did not have a creation. For an explaination ask Hawkins.

7.) It makes no difference what created the universe or how the universe was created. As any infomation was wiped clean during creation.

[hurlyburly]

The "Uni-Banger"!!!!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The big bang wasn't really an event, and the universe did not have a creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would be the same thing as saying the universe has always existed. If this is so, how do you account for nuclear fusion?

[ QUOTE ]
It makes no difference what created the universe or how the universe was created. As any infomation was wiped clean during creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not an available option for the origin of the universe.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
there is another option:

The universe was created by an outside event [not a being].

[/ QUOTE ]

This still means that the cause of the creation of the universe lies in an outside dimension. Is this your opinion of what happened?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is another option:

The universe was created by an outside event [not a being].

[/ QUOTE ]

This still means that the cause of the creation of the universe lies in an outside dimension. Is this your opinion of what happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stating it is a possibility, which you conveniently ignored when you wrote "There are no other options."

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
Which would be the same thing as saying the universe has always existed. If this is so, how do you account for nuclear fusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The universe is an illusion
For most of us this is simple so we'll move on.


2. The universe was self created or created by Chance
This term (self created) is analytically false. If something created itself from nothing, that would imply it was both something and nothing at the same time in the same relationship- nothing can create itself.It would have to be before it was.

A coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads when flipped. Chance is just that- a mathematical probability that something can happen. The pressure of my thumb when I flipped it, how I caught it etc. caused it to come up heads or tales. Chance has no power . Chance is not a thing . Chance exerts no force .


3. The universe is self existent and eternal.
Everything we know points away from this. Today this is pretty much a non-argument.

4. The universe was created by something that is infinite, and eternal
From my stance this makes the most sense.


I think these are the only 4 possibilities, as others would more than likely be a derivative of the above. I'm sure some will agree with me, but more will think I'm way off base here. I'd like to hear some of both.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need a more precise definition of "universe," to be distinguished from the totality of existence to answer your question.

The evidence suggests that the observable universe came into being about 13 billion years ago. Thus, by this definition of "universe," the answer is possibly 4, or other possibilities you did not list, such as a finite process or creator, etc. What caused that to happen is completely unknown and can only be a matter of speculation.

I would argue that the totality of existence, however, is by definition eternal. Even if some being or event created our observable universe, and that being or event was caused by something else, and so on, then the "ultimate" nature of existence is this infinite nested sequence of creators or causes, which is itself self existent and eternal. Thus by this definition of "universe," the answer is 3.

But all that (anything "outside" the observable universe) is totally unknown, and probably unknowable. What's your point?

[ QUOTE ]

I am very dissappointed that this link didn't connect to the source of these arguements. I was really hoping to find what was at the root of all this lunacy. I don't appreciate you getting my hopes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heres one for ya courtesy of an earlier txag post. funnystuff (http://www.godandscience.com)

Check out the answers for atheists section. The scientific proof of God answering only protestant Christian prayers is priceless.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is another option:

The universe was created by an outside event [not a being].

[/ QUOTE ]



This still means that the cause of the creation of the universe lies in an outside dimension. Is this your opinion of what happened?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm stating it is a possibility, which you conveniently ignored when you wrote "There are no other options."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. You're right. That is another alternative. My bad. As long as we're here, though, let's look at the possibility that it is true. The physics of our own universe keep us from obtaining any information about additional universes that may exist in other dimensions. Therefore, belief in this alternative requires blind faith.

Belief in the theory that our universe was created by an outside being requires some faith (because it can't be proven to 100% accuracy), but not blind faith. By looking at the many factors that are required to be just right in order to support life on Earth, it is reasonable to keep the option open that our universe was designed.

Therefore, while both alternatives are possibilities, it requires more faith to believe that our universe was created by an outside event rather than an outside being.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which would be the same thing as saying the universe has always existed. If this is so, how do you account for nuclear fusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear Fusion. The energy-producing process which takes place continuously on the sun and the starts. Hydrogen is converted to Helium by means of this process which, by the way, produces enough energy to support life on Earth. If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe. There isn't.

[hurlyburly]

Ok, I was focusing on the process, not the event. Thanks.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "intelligence" is the manifestation of neurological activity of certain organisms, the claim that an intelligent designer created the universe implies that was created by some biological organism which apparently lives "outside" the observable universe. This doesn't seem very feasible, though I suppose it's no less feasible than any other arbitrary claim. Perhaps we are indeed just specks in some alien scientist's test tube.

If you mean something else by "intelligence," you will need to give a precise alternative definition before one can evaluate your claim.

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear Fusion. The energy-producing process which takes place continuously on the sun and the starts. Hydrogen is converted to Helium by means of this process which, by the way, produces enough energy to support life on Earth. If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe. There isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's false. There would not need to be an infinite supply of hydrogen if the universe always existed because matter and energy are interchangeable, and thus hydrogen can be converted into helium, which can then be converted into other elements, which can then be converted back into hydrogen by fission. The cycle of matter and energy does not require infinite matter, just like the weather patterns on earth don't require infinite water vapor to keep the cycle going.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear Fusion. The energy-producing process which takes place continuously on the sun and the starts. Hydrogen is converted to Helium by means of this process which, by the way, produces enough energy to support life on Earth. If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe. There isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's false. There would not need to be an infinite supply of hydrogen if the universe always existed because matter and energy are interchangeable, and thus hydrogen can be converted into helium, which can then be converted into other elements, which can then be converted back into hydrogen by fission. The cycle of matter and energy does not require infinite matter, just like the weather patterns on earth don't require infinite water vapor to keep the cycle going.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but you're explanation is just not true. Do you know what happens when a star dies? Hydrogen is converted to helium and then eventually to heavier and heavier elements (depending on the mass of the star). It's basically hydrogen to helium to carbon to oxygen, neon, silicon, magnesium, sulfur and iron. The bottom line is that there is no known process that can return heavier elements to hydrogen in the necessary quantities, and any would probably violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Therefore, the amount of time needed for stars to convert all of the hydrogen in the universe into helium is finite, and it will never change back. So either the universe is of finite age or there exists some highly exotic process (for which no direct evidence exists) that produces hydrogen to keep it going.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The universe was self created or created by Chance
A coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads when flipped. Chance is just that- a mathematical probability that something can happen. The pressure of my thumb when I flipped it, how I caught it etc. caused it to come up heads or tales. Chance has no power . Chance is not a thing . Chance exerts no force .


[/ QUOTE ]


Are you just making sure we have clear what the definition of "chance" is, or do you consider this some sort of refutation?

Choice one is a fallacy, and is an ignorant choice. Everything we perceive exists. That chair in front of you, the one the philosophy professors tell you does not exist, or only exists because you think it exists, does exist. The sheer ability to think, the ability to have a conscience which can descern existence from non-existence, the ability to comprehend matter as existing and being subject to change - which pressupposes existence - is proof enough that we, as well as the matter in our world, exist. To claim that we only think something exists is contradictory - if we have a mind capable of thinking, and capable of thinking of thinking something exists, it is, as previously stated, proof in and of itself.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "time" began at the moment the universe came into existence, this is not the case. It would only be true if "always" referred to an infinite amount of time, which it does not.

[ QUOTE ]
So either the universe is of finite age or there exists some highly exotic process (for which no direct evidence exists) that produces hydrogen to keep it going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume that the universe is of finite age looking back (see above), but infinite age going forward -- that entropy will run its course and the universe will die a "heat death" (though it will not "end", exactly).

How is this problematic for possibilities 2 and 3 from the OP (again, assuming we do not incorrectly take "eternal" to mean "an infinite amount of time")?

[Unabridged]

I think of it as two possibilities:

everything is random chance and is governed by the laws of physics
or
there exists something can violate those laws, which basically means we are an illusion or simulation or whatever

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Chance is just that- a mathematical probability that something can happen. The pressure of my thumb when I flipped it, how I caught it etc. caused it to come up heads or tales. Chance has no power . Chance is not a thing . Chance exerts no force .

[/ QUOTE ]

I assert that you know very little about quantum mechanics.

[txag007]

What?

[VarlosZ]

Is there a specific part of my post that is unclear, or is it just generally impenetrable? Either way I'll try to reiterate more clearly.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I assert that you know very little about quantum mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes your argument. Well done.

I assert I could come up with a formula to show the possibility of being dealt a royal flush 6 hands in a row.

It could happen, but most people don't give it much consideration.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a specific part of my post that is unclear, or is it just generally impenetrable? Either way I'll try to reiterate more clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since "time" began at the moment the universe came into existence, this is not the case. It would only be true if "always" referred to an infinite amount of time, which it does not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assert that you know very little about quantum mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes your argument. Well done.

I assert I could come up with a formula to show the possibility of being dealt a royal flush 6 hands in a row.

It could happen, but most people don't give it much consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, are you saying quantum mechanics probably doesn't happen?

[Jeff V]

Come on. Of course not, read a little deeper.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on. Of course not, read a little deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just making sure, but what you are saying then is that you believe you can put a percentage on how many occurances that happen in your life are guided by chance, and how many have a cause. I seriously doubt you can do this accurately, because it depends so greatly on what you define as an event.

[hurlyburly]

That's the problem when dealing with infinity. In a poker room with an infinite number of tables that seat an infinite number of patrons, the only time it would be wierd was when it happened to you.

You'd probably spend a lot of time reflecting on that experience. But it would still just be a really nice improbability.

Thanks for posting this thread, it reawakened my interest in cosmology!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about making it a rock slipping and falling in a higher dimensional space so that no other being is involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
And the IDEA that there MAY BE an intelligent designer is too far out for people that think this way? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to see this "new" "intelligent design" theory so popular now. I mean, what... did people ever really think God was "stupid" or something? It's like the old "God Dit It" theory was so overused, that some genius came up with a grand idea to use "intelligent designer" instead of "God" in the argument. I guess next we'll have the "Infinte Eternal Prime Mover" theory... or the "All Powerful Architect" theory... or the "Big Dude In The Sky" theory.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "time" began at the moment the universe came into existence, this is not the case. It would only be true if "always" referred to an infinite amount of time, which it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if you want to use the word that way. Though, if you believe that the universe is of finite age, it seems odd to take "always" to refer to a time before there was time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The big bang wasn't really an event, and the universe did not have a creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be the same thing as saying the universe has always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that you accurately assessed what DougShrapnel was saying, but I guess you'd have to ask him.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who or what created that 'something that is infinite, and eternal'?


[/ QUOTE ]

If something is infinite, and eternal it wasn't created.

[/ QUOTE ]
This implies you do not believe any creator could create a universe which is infinite and eternal because there would be a contradiction: you would have to believe it was both created and not created.

This implies there are limits on what the creator you believe in can create.

Do you believe there are limits to what the creator you believe in can create, such as this one (if you believe in a creator)?

in your religion, is it blasphemous to believe in limitaions to the powers of your God.

if the God you believe in is not omnipotent in this respect are there any other acts you beleive He is inprinciple incabale of performing?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the universe has always existed, there would have to be an infinite supply of hydrogen in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "time" began at the moment the universe came into existence, this is not the case. It would only be true if "always" referred to an infinite amount of time, which it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if you want to use the word that way. Though, if you believe that the universe is of finite age, it seems odd to take "always" to refer to a time before there was time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The big bang wasn't really an event, and the universe did not have a creation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which would be the same thing as saying the universe has always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that you accurately assessed what DougShrapnel was saying, but I guess you'd have to ask him.

[/ QUOTE ] You are doing a much better job than I could have.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, if you want to use the word that way. Though, if you believe that the universe is of finite age, it seems odd to take "always" to refer to a time before there was time.

[/ QUOTE ]

"has always existed"--What else can those three words mean?

Besides, look at the context of the original post. You know what it was talking about.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, if you want to use the word that way. Though, if you believe that the universe is of finite age, it seems odd to take "always" to refer to a time before there was time.

[/ QUOTE ]

"has always existed"--What else can those three words mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Since time began." I don't think I even understand how "always" can refer to an era "before" there was matter, space, and time.


[ QUOTE ]
Besides, look at the context of the original post. You know what it was talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit it: I'm confused about what we're debating. Do you mean the thread's OP, or do you mean DougShrapnel's post to which you initially replied? It's even possible we're just getting tangled in semantics.

I think that certain posters, myself included, have been using the words "always" and "eternal" in the way I described above ("since time began"), while you have taken the words to mean something very different ("of infinite age"). As an example, look at your first post in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. The universe is self existent and eternal.
Everything we know points away from this. Today this is pretty much a non-argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are mistaken if you believe the Big Bang theory disproves this view of the universe. . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Nuclear Fusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aytumious' post doesn't make any sense if "eternal" means "of infinite age", while your reply doesn't make any sense if it means "since time began."

Incidentally, there also seem to be at least two different uses of the word "creation" floating around.

[txag007]

The original post in this thread concerned the creation or non-creation of the universe in regard to whether or not God exists. The term "eternal" was used in option 3 to contrast the beginning of the universe from option 2 and option 4. Therefore, "eternal" in this case means "having always been here", in which case "time" would be taken to "having always been here" as well.

This having been straightened out, do you have any thoughts on my nuclear fusion post to which you replied, or are you just trying to hijack this thread?

[DougShrapnel]

He is doing his best to explain where you are wrong. Time is a property of the universe. Saying that the universe has always existed, is like saying that the universe has always been Hieght. The meaning is lost. Time does not exist without a universe.

But above doens't matter. The main problem with the logic in this post is.
1.)Most things within the universe have a cause.(and it's only most because matter-antimatter pairs are created in space without a direct cause.)
2.)You then apply the property of things within the universe to the universe itself.
3.)You stop appling those properties to God.

What makes you so certain about the properties of universes, and the properties of gods. This whole logic is arbritrary and not worth anyones time. It is a great diservice to the minds of man to teach this bull as theory and much worse as science. To teach it as religion or mysticism or myth or error in judgement is acceptable.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The original post in this thread concerned the creation or non-creation of the universe in regard to whether or not God exists. The term "eternal" was used in option 3 to contrast the beginning of the universe from option 2 and option 4. Therefore, "eternal" in this case means "having always been here", in which case "time" would be taken to "having always been here" as well.

This having been straightened out, do you have any thoughts on my nuclear fusion post to which you replied, or are you just trying to hijack this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]Silly me I did not respond to your question about Hydrogen. The laws of physics aren't fixed, they break down at some point in the past and at some point in scale. Hydrogen didn't exist as hydrogen. It is not your understanding of fussion that you are found lacking, it is your understainding of universes' and gods' that you are found lacking. Don't take that as a slight, you are not alone. The slight comes in that there are people trying to figure this out with a reasonable approach and not use myth to describe it.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Time is a property of the universe. Saying that the universe has always existed, is like saying that the universe has always been Hieght. The meaning is lost. Time does not exist without a universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I've never said otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
The main problem with the logic in this post is.
1.)Most things within the universe have a cause.(and it's only most because matter-antimatter pairs are created in space without a direct cause that can be determined.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Fixed your post. Whether or not those things occur without a cause is debatable because the observation of such is at such a microscopic level that the test itself might be the cause. In other words, science isn't there yet.

[ QUOTE ]
2.)You then apply the property of things within the universe to the universe itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the universe and everything in it are subject to the same laws of physics.

[ QUOTE ]
3.)You stop appling those properties to God.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is where you say I am wrong, but if God exists in another dimension He is, therefore, not subject to the same laws of physics as our universe. This includes time.

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you so certain about the properties of universes, and the properties of gods. This whole logic is arbritrary and not worth anyones time. It is a great diservice to the minds of man to teach this bull as theory and much worse as science. To teach it as religion or mysticism or myth or error in judgement is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can attack it and call it what you want, but the orginal post in this thread gives credible evidence to the reasonable existence of God. Nobody is using this to define the nature of God or his character. The Bible tells us those things, but that's for another thread. (I know the orginal post said that the creator of the universe is eternal. I have said that the original post gives evidence of the universe being created by an outside being.)

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of physics aren't fixed, they break down at some point in the past and at some point in scale. Hydrogen didn't exist as hydrogen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
It is not your understanding of fussion that you are found lacking, it is your understainding of universes' and gods' that you are found lacking. Don't take that as a slight, you are not alone. The slight comes in that there are people trying to figure this out with a reasonable approach and not use myth to describe it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you can attack my way of thinking, but you haven't yet shown me where I'm wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
He is doing his best to explain where you are wrong. Time is a property of the universe. Saying that the universe has always existed, is like saying that the universe has always been Hieght. The meaning is lost. Time does not exist without a universe.

But above doens't matter. The main problem with the logic in this post is.
1.)Most things within the universe have a cause.(and it's only most because matter-antimatter pairs are created in space without a direct cause.)
2.)You then apply the property of things within the universe to the universe itself.
3.)You stop appling those properties to God.

What makes you so certain about the properties of universes, and the properties of gods. This whole logic is arbritrary and not worth anyones time. It is a great diservice to the minds of man to teach this bull as theory and much worse as science. To teach it as religion or mysticism or myth or error in judgement is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't resolve txag007's dilemma. His whole argument rests on the premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true.

As most of us agree we don't know, its easy to find any number of argumenets that reduce to this lack of knowledge and txag007's dilemma is that he can't recognise that all his arguments about the nature of the universe, at best, reduce to this lack of knowledge which itself is no reason to believe in god.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

"Because the universe and everything in it are subject to the same laws of physics."

No clearly the universe is subjected to a different undiscovered law of physics.

"This is where you say I am wrong, but if God exists in another dimension He is, therefore, not subject to the same laws of physics as our universe. This includes time."
No I think you are jumping to conclusions in step 2. We can tackle step 3 once we figure out step 2.


"You can attack it and call it what you want, but the orginal post in this thread gives credible evidence to the reasonable existence of God. Nobody is using this to define the nature of God or his character. The Bible tells us those things, but that's for another thread. (I know the orginal post said that the creator of the universe is eternal. I have said that the original post gives evidence of the universe being created by an outside being.)" The OP does nothing to provide evidence for or against a god.

"Evidence?"
Matter as we know it wasn't in element form in the earlier days of the universe.

"but you haven't yet shown me where I'm wrong. "
You are illogical in taking a leap of faith.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is doing his best to explain where you are wrong. Time is a property of the universe. Saying that the universe has always existed, is like saying that the universe has always been Hieght. The meaning is lost. Time does not exist without a universe.

But above doens't matter. The main problem with the logic in this post is.
1.)Most things within the universe have a cause.(and it's only most because matter-antimatter pairs are created in space without a direct cause.)
2.)You then apply the property of things within the universe to the universe itself.
3.)You stop appling those properties to God.

What makes you so certain about the properties of universes, and the properties of gods. This whole logic is arbritrary and not worth anyones time. It is a great diservice to the minds of man to teach this bull as theory and much worse as science. To teach it as religion or mysticism or myth or error in judgement is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't resolve txag007's dilemma. His whole argument rests on the premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true.

As most of us agree we don't know, its easy to find any number of argumenets that reduce to this lack of knowledge and txag007's dilemma is that he can't recognise that all his arguments about the nature of the universe, at best, reduce to this lack of knowledge which itself is no reason to believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ] This is so much simpler, than anything I could come up with.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
The original post in this thread concerned the creation or non-creation of the universe in regard to whether or not God exists. The term "eternal" was used in option 3 to contrast the beginning of the universe from option 2 and option 4. Therefore, "eternal" in this case means "having always been here", in which case "time" would be taken to "having always been here" as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gah! You're using the same terminology that I said was so confusing before. I'll just assume that you use "having always been here" to mean "of infinite age."

[ QUOTE ]
This having been straightened out, do you have any thoughts on my nuclear fusion post to which you replied, or are you just trying to hijack this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I thought that was clear. Your point seems to be a pretty good counter-argument to the universe's being of infinite age.

But to the what end? A universe of finite age is not a problem for atheistic creation*, just as a universe of infinite age is not a problem for theistic creation.

[ QUOTE ]
You can attack it and call it what you want, but the orginal post in this thread gives credible evidence to the reasonable existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strongly disagree. The OP (unintentionally, I think) plays word games with Option #2. The first part of the argument assumes "creation" to be an act of will, which is begging the question. The second part refutes the shallowest kind of 'universe by chance' theory.

Most days, I think the universe exists because it must. If you find that unsatisfying, imagine how unsatisfied I am by the argument that the universe must have been "created" but God can just exist.


* = Here, I'm just using "creation" so signify "coming into existence," not necessarily through any act of will or purpose.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't resolve txag007's dilemma. His whole argument rests on the premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true.

As most of us agree we don't know, its easy to find any number of argumenets that reduce to this lack of knowledge and txag007's dilemma is that he can't recognise that all his arguments about the nature of the universe, at best, reduce to this lack of knowledge which itself is no reason to believe in god.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys think I'm trying to prove something to you, and I'm not. I know there are things we still don't know about the universe. There are some things that we may never know. I'm just offering up reasonable evidence that the universe in which we live was created by some type of a God.

The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ver very well put.
Thanks,
Jeff

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ver very well put.
Thanks,
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. His post doesn't really say much of anything other than that you shouldn't eliminate God as a possibility given evidence. There is no evidence, so his post rings rather hollow.

In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.



[/ QUOTE ]

More specificaly

[ QUOTE ]
ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worldview I think he' speaking of.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In science, you are much better served realizing you may lack information and not making anything more than weak postulations rather than filling in the blank with an ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.



[/ QUOTE ]

More specificaly

[ QUOTE ]
ambiguous and superfluous answer like God.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the worldview I think he' speaking of.

[/ QUOTE ]

God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters -- it's only an impediment to further understanding.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]

God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters

[/ QUOTE ]

If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it.

We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't resolve txag007's dilemma. His whole argument rests on the premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true.

As most of us agree we don't know, its easy to find any number of argumenets that reduce to this lack of knowledge and txag007's dilemma is that he can't recognise that all his arguments about the nature of the universe, at best, reduce to this lack of knowledge which itself is no reason to believe in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
You guys think I'm trying to prove something to you, and I'm not. I know there are things we still don't know about the universe. There are some things that we may never know.

[/ QUOTE ]Excellent so we all agree, the argument demonstrates nothing to those who were already aware they didn't know and may never know.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm just offering up reasonable evidence that the universe in which we live was created by some type of a God.

[/ QUOTE ] You didn't offer any such evidence (with this argument) the argument just demonstrates that there are things we don't know and may never know.


[ QUOTE ]
The problem is your worldview. You're not going to believe unless you have cold, hard, scientific proof. As a result, any type of evidence that exists in favor of God must have another explanation. Don't eliminate God from your list of possibilities. His existence just might not be as crazy as it might seem.

[/ QUOTE ] I haven't eliminated anything from the possibilities, don't presume too much about my worldview from the fact that I'm aware that I don't know and may never know.


I have learnt one thing. I didn't realise that you were aware that you don't know and may never know. Can we avoid a lot of silly discussion if we all agree about this?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters

[/ QUOTE ]

If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it.

We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

Like the first cause argument, intelligent design rests on the same faulty premise that because something can't be explained it can't be true. This time its worse because it attempts to step into the domain of science and there is an alternative scientific explanation. So now you have to make even more desperate use of the faulty premise and claim that because science can't (yet) explain exactly how life evolved, it can't be true.

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion?

chez

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can an ID scientist do differently than a non-ID scientist? What is the scientific benefit?

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You see it as if it's the mission of science to kill God. It's not. Do you think Galileo would have been a better scientist if he had said "Well, my mortal eyes perceive the sun as the center of our solar system, but since God made the earth first, it must be the center, and the true pattern must be eluding me"?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
What can an ID scientist do differently than a non-ID scientist? What is the scientific benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Do different? I suppose that's a limitation based on ability, knowledge etc. ID does allow for design as a cause where stricly naturalistic science does not.

Not sure if I understand your question.

[hurlyburly]

What can be learned by incorporating ID into the science that can't be learned without it? What benefit to a scientist is gained by considering design as a cause? What inferences can be made that will improve on the traditional scientific method?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they get it.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they get it.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah who needs reason when you can just have faith.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]


Just to clarify things (at least how I understand Sklansky’s theory) Sklansky isn’t so much (or isn’t at all) talking about the existence of God per se.* He is using Religion as the subject of what to give weight to or not to. Perhaps his theory could be used directly in the God exists or not question, but he isn’t so much interested in that question (or maybe I should say that he doesn’t address it.)

*It is so weird talking like this (i.e., about David and statements he has made) now that David S. is not longer posting. If he pops in with a post 3 days after his final one – then I will get the shivers. For the record, if we start a new religion in his honor, I will fight for the control of the collection basket: I am an accountant. You guys will be in charge of the fields that you know best - the science, philosophy and the evangelizing end of it.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah who needs reason when you can just have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is getting repetitive. I think I'm done for now.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they get it.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah who needs reason when you can just have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I meant.

Jeff's right. I've made my position clear, and anybody reading this has plenty of information to decide for themselves.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science is the search for 'truth' within a fairly well defined domain. God simply isn't the sort of answer that scientists can arrive at or dismiss, the existence of god is not a scientific question.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. Sklansky has said that scientists who believe God doesn't exist give weight to that argument. You, on the other hand, are saying that science cannot include God as a reason for many of the unexplainable things in the question of how the universe came to be.

Am I to believe, then, that it's acceptable for science to dismiss God's existence but not to affirm it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science can give weight against some religous beliefs. In context, 'god' may be used to to refer to these beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the kind of worldview I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
What, the one where you mix up concepts, draw a conclusion that isn't held by the people you are discussing things with and then claim they are wrong to hold this conclusion?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they get it.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah who needs reason when you can just have faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I meant.

Jeff's right. I've made my position clear, and anybody reading this has plenty of information to decide for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]Pay close attention to RJT's post. It's like you are not even trying to understand the different viewpoints, only your own. RJT made an excellent point about one of the places you went wrong in your logic, and you just ignore it.
Over and over you equate unbelief or lack of belief with belief that there is NO god. You think God and your religion are synonymous. Perhaps the thing that is getting me bent is this whole "worldview" stuff. Which I have no idea what it means, but that someone must subscribe to it, to be able to arrive at anything correctly. Or maybe it's like txag:"Regis, I'd like to use my worldview now." Regis:"Ok, 2+2 let's go ahead and remove all the points any opposition poster has made."

And most importantly to the last point you made about having enough information to make a decision. There is no debate. That's what you aren't getting. No serious scientist takes the existence of the universe to prove or imply anything about God; it may say something about a particular religious view.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
No serious scientist takes the existence of the universe to prove or imply anything about God; it may say something about a particular religious view.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doug-
A very intelligent, sucinct post has to be discredited somewhat when you make such an obviously untrue statement at the end.

Have you talked to every serious scientist? This is a link to a group of scientists that are questioning Darwinian theory, and at least consider design. I know it's not the universe as talked about in this post but you get the jist.
scientific dissent (http://reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf)

Read the first paragraph. It seems especially in a field which I think we can agree NONE of us has ALL the answers it's silly to make such claims.

BTW no where in any of my responses have I mixed God as a Creator of the universe, and religion.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God isn't an answer -- at least in scientific matters

[/ QUOTE ]

If science is the search for truth, and you rule out a cause before it has a chance to speak simply because you think it's "superfoulus" what's that? We shouldn't prejudge just because we don't like it.

We've come to accept the definition of science that excludes design as a scientific explanation. When we recognize the effects of inteligence in so many other areas of reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not ruling out intelligent design as a cause because I don't like it -- you aren't much of a scientist, or thinker, if you do things like that -- I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis and has no scientific value. Scientifically, it makes just as much sense to assert that a purple unicorn designed the universe as it is god. Untestable and nonfalsifiable theories have no place in science.

Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way. Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research.

As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about the creation of the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about the creation of the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points. As far as I can tell, naturalistic materialism is the only perspective that will work with the scientific method. If there is another, please let me know.

Second, the creation of the universe may be beyond the scope of science to explain. There is no scientific way to test any type of creationist view of existence. That is the main reason why people don't want ID in science classrooms; it's not science.

People can discuss the philosophical and theological merits of the argument from design and even the existence of God itself. But that type of debate has no place in science.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm ruling it out because it's not a testable hypothesis

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose in naturalistic materialism you're right. This definition is my whole point.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I'm studying how gravity works between planets. Can you think of any time where making the assertion that God created the universe will have scientific value? The observed phenomena stays the same regardless of whether God or the purple unicorn made it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine any type of research a scientist may be conducting and give me an example of when accepting ID or even the concept of God as a premise has any value to the hypothetical research.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about the creation of the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
As to your last point, I'm not sure what other areas of reason you are referencing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a part of our normal reasoning. Heres a very simplistic example. When you see the HOLLYWOOD sign you reason that it did not get there naturally even though you didn't see exactly how it got there. Since you it's improbable that those letters fell there, and you recognize the letters- you logically infer that someone put it there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points. As far as I can tell, naturalistic materialism is the only perspective that will work with the scientific method. If there is another, please let me know.

Second, the creation of the universe may be beyond the scope of science to explain. There is no scientific way to test any type of creationist view of existence. That is the main reason why people don't want ID in science classrooms; it's not science.

People can discuss the philosophical and theological merits of the argument from design and even the existence of God itself. But that type of debate has no place in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree on your first point.

The first part of your second point I also agree with. The last sentence though- wouldn't it be neat to have design as an alternative AS LONG AS that's where the current evidence points? Not as a catch all excuse, but if many facts suggest that design had a part in creating the universe, and our own intelligence backs that up shouldn't it be considered?

Or should we just stick with the "old trusty" scientific method? Like one of your counterparts said "keep thinking the Earth is the center of the universe".

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
We agree on your first point.

The first part of your second point I also agree with. The last sentence though- wouldn't it be neat to have design as an alternative AS LONG AS that's where the current evidence points? Not as a catch all excuse, but if many facts suggest that design had a part in creating the universe, and our own intelligence backs that up shouldn't it be considered?

Or should we just stick with the "old trusty" scientific method? Like one of your counterparts said "keep thinking the Earth is the center of the universe".

[/ QUOTE ]

It is funny that you are mockingly juxtaposing the "old trusty scientific method" with the antiquated theory of the Earth as the center of the universe, considering rigorous scientific work went into disproving that theory.

Again, point out to me how ID could possibly be tested or verified and I'll accept it as a scientific point of interest. I understand the philosophical and spiritual import of the theory, but it has nothing to do with science.

Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stole the idea for my next post!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'd only be fine with presenting ID as a valid scientific view in schools if my theory that a multidimensional, sentient ham sandwich is the creator in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stole the idea for my next post!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an underground multidimensional sentient ham sandwich movement that is larger than people think. We'll have our day in the sun, oh yes, we will...

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The universe is an illusion

[/ QUOTE ]

To an extent.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The universe was created by something that is infinite, and eternal
From my stance this makes the most sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say 1 and 4. Consciousness thought the universe into existance. So in effect, the universe is a pea soup of vibrating energy, created from infinite consiousness, which our interface with this dimension decodes into existance according to our dna/beliefs. An illusion.

The computer monitor I am looking at now is not out there as it appears to me, it is in my brain.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
What about:

5. We don't know what happened yet, maybe someday we will, maybe it's beyond our ability to discover.

From my stance, this is the only thing that makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

'We' as in the general masses. Those at the top of the tree know, and have done for eons.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but if irrefutable proof came that we are just a bunch of mice in a really big cage, I'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just as entitled to believe that as you are to your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat close to the truth, when considering the universe.

[Jeff V]

Touch it.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Touch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your point is?