After seeing your comments I went and listened to the lecture because you reported him saying a few things I would never have expected. Here's the Laurence Kruass talk titled A Universe from Nothing given on July 17, 2013, at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University:
Apparently God in the person of Alan Guth was in the audience, click on his name. Apparently there was also a Nobel laureate in the audience but Krauss doesn't name him. It wasn't Guth, though he deserves one and may yet receive one. He's only 75, so there's a good chance.
GDR writes:
However he goes on to say that it doesn't explain the existence of particles in the first place.
I don't think he ever said or implied this, and I was listening for it. He did refer to many things that can't yet be explained, but I don't think that was one of them. I think if he were going to say something somewhat along those lines he would likely have talked about quarks or just matter in general. He did often refer to matter and energy, but particles not so much. The mention of particles that I best recall was when he showed the animation of how the interior of the proton is a seething caldron of smaller particles flitting in and out of existence.
He mentions the multi-verse in saying that if that is the case then science won't be able to investigate them.
He also said that he believes that there are inferences we can make about the multi-verse. and this was, I think, a reference to the possibility that if the multi-verse exists it would have effect on our own, i.e., produce evidence, but I can't be sure that's what he meant because he said so little. Where's Son Goku when you need him?
That takes me back to that front page headline in Scientific American which asks the question: "Is an Entire Universe Silently Woven Into Our Own".
You're referring to Dark Worlds: A Journey to a Universe of Unseen Matter from the November, 2010, issue. The article was about dark matter. The "shadow cosmos, woven silently into our own" made up of dark matter is an intriguing possibility. No evidence exists yet, but that could change.
If that is the case then is it possible that an interwoven universe impacts the world we live in here?
Dark matter already has an impact on our universe through gravity. If it has other effects we haven't discovered any yet. We haven't even detected a single dark matter particle yet, though several detectors around the world are searching diligently for hints of them.
Then I would wonder if the connecting point between the two might possibly be through consciousness.
No. Just no. Maybe you can find some scientists somewhere speculating along these lines, but Krauss is a particle physicist and he would view this idea the same way I do: woo.
...the atheistic position, as I understand it, involves making us gods in the sense that right and wrong are simply human constructs, which could well make that position of being one of the available gods.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. How could you get so much wrong in so few words. You are a model of economy.
Moral right and wrong are not "human constructs." A sense of right and wrong is an inherent part of us as human beings. Some things *are* human constructs, such as smiling where, for example, for some emotions the Japanese response is opposite to the American. But that murder is wrong is not a human construct. All cultures universally hold murder wrong because it is inherent in our make up and not a construct.
And atheists do not see things in terms of gods. Just like anyone an atheist can have a God complex, but atheists no more desire be be seen as gods than any other demographic group.
You consistently repeat the error of seeing people who don't believe in your God, who don't even believe he exists, as nonetheless believing in your God anyway but just denying he exists out of convenience so that they don't have to follow his rules. The wrongheadedness of this view has been explained like a million times. I don't understand how you could continue to be so determinedly blind. It would help if you believed that people really do believe what they say they believe.
I would contend that science should impact our theology but not the other way around.
Percy writes:
You should live this rather than just say it.
I believe that I do.
I don't think that you do. Here's just one tiny example of you arguing for your theology at the expense of science from a very recent message, Message 276:
gdr writes:
...I contend that the world of science points towards design and IMHO that requires a designer.
You're using your theology to argue that science should move toward the idea of a designer.
I'm just saying that some of the conclusions drawn from science around here are simply plausible conclusions,...
"Plausible conclusions" is the phrase Krauss used when describing speculations on the bleeding edge of science. I don't think anything anyone has said in this thread lies in the speculative sphere nor on the bleeding edge.
...such as observing that morality is naturally infectious (which I agree with),...
Someone argued this? I must have missed it. If there are studies indicating this then keep in mind that psychology is a very soft science. It is the tomato of fruit.
...but then claiming it is scientific that there is nothing more involved.
Since science includes the study of everything in the entire universe, that leaves only woo.
I certainly always knew that I can't know the truth but I can conclude what I believe to be true.
Why don't consensuses form around the timeless truths common to all religions? Might there be a lack of evidence?
Percy writes:
I think what you're trying to say is that science is tentative, always ready to change in light of new evidence or improved insights.
...and so should our religious beliefs.
So let me take this and run with what I see as the obvious implications. Presumably you agree with the vast majority of religious believers that their religion contains timeless truths, but since you think religious beliefs should be tentative you therefore don't believe that we can know what those timeless truths are for certain. We instead have to seek them out and decide for ourselves what the timeless truths are. And even though we can become convinced we've found a timeless truth, our opinion of that might later change.
How is that any different from there not really being any such thing as a timeless truth?
Sure, but posters here claim that because there is no evidence that there is a god as evidence that there isn't. Bit of a double standard possibly?
Everybody here absolutely knows that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps sometimes we express ourselves imprecisely in a way that leaves open the possibility that we don't see it this way, but trust me, we do. We absolutely do not see the absence of evidence of God as evidence that there is no God.
But the lack of evidence that God has any impact on our lives does lead us to conclude that we're free to conduct ourselves without taking Him into account. Science can't rule God out, but science has not as yet, Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute to the contrary, ruled even a hint of God in.
I'm perplexed that this has to be said over and over again. It's like you're looking for a wording that expresses what you apparently would like to think we believe but without causing us to raise any objections. That's not going to happen. We really do believe what we're telling you we believe, and every time you tell us that we actually believe something different from that then we're naturally going to object.
Certainly, but as he said it only makes it plausible ,which means that it is something one can choose to believe or reject for another possibility.
Krauss was discussing speculations. Scientists do not accept or reject speculations - that would be premature. They'll naturally have opinions on the likelihood of a speculation. You might recall that on some topics Krauss said he was only offering his opinion. All speculation means is that scientists might want to keep it in mind as a possibility.
But some speculations aren't even rational and would be rejected out of hand, for example, that consciousness might be the moderator between the physical world and the dark matter world.
Frankly it took over an hour to listen to it and I don't want to spend the time to hunt it down. It was a casual comment made during his discussion on how the laws of the universe could have come into existence.
I think it's outstanding that you listened to it, but I think Tangle and I are both a bit puzzled at some of your takeaways.
Tangle writes:
=GDR]Also of course if his explanation is plausible, (which I agree it is), then other explanations are also plausible.
That's a non sequitur. Something specific being possible does not make something different possible.
If something is only plausible then by definition we know that there is something else, defined or not, as possible.
This is true but isn't the point Tangle was making. Just because one possibility is deemed plausible says nothing about the plausibility of other possibilities, which was Tangle's point. Your ideas must earn their plausibility on their own merits.
I am simply saying that he agrees that science has limitations and I used the example he gave.
Actually you were riffing on an old Scientific American article about dark matter. Offering consciousness as a connecting point between normal and dark matter isn't even wrong. It's just silly.
Also, what I was saying has nothing to do about my specifically Christian beliefs. The point is I am simply trying to make a case for an intelligence that is responsible for our existence.
How does one make a case without evidence?
Tangle writes:
How many times GDR? Atheism is a lack of belief in god - any and all gods. NOTHING ELSE! Please, please, please stop trying to make it more than that. Morality has nothing to do with atheism and vice versa. They are independent variables.
Can you define what you mean by a god. Would a deistic god be included in that or are you just including any god that humans have believed in.
This is just never going to end, is it. For the zillionth time, it doesn't matter whether it's a god, the God, many gods, leprechauns, ogres, griffins, unicorns or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. People who demand evidence for what they accept as likely true will reject any claims that lack evidence.
I guess that we need a clearer definition of murder. I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, however, I don't think that I would call it murder.
Give it whatever name you like. When is it ever right to take a human life? I grant that the answer is not "never," and a sincerely well thought out answer would be very detailed and complex, but whatever that answer is should be roughly equivalent to "almost never."
But when you've heard the stories of German atrocities and the Germans are storming the town that holds everyone near and dear to you, what do you do? Interestingly, if I understand Quakerism, they rely upon someone else defending them, but I don't think this avoids complicity.
Is there some other form of evidence? The evidence we're talking about is recording facts about our observations. What other kind of evidence is there?
I just answered that in another post. Philosophical evidence for one.
What is philosophical evidence? Can you name anything that's become a consensus because of the accumulation of philosophical evidence?
However I suggest that the violence that occurs in those protests whether it be Jan 6 or BLM that violence comes from those that don't have a cause but enjoy the violence.
Violence and destruction of property was associated with less than 7% of BLM demonstrations.
Just a tad presumptuous. That is rather a typical response from those of your perspective. I hold my beliefs because I believe them to be true. I could just as easily say that you are atheistic as you don't want to acknowledge that there is an intelligence greater than your own.
You are again trying to argue as if our views are on an equal footing. They are not. Our views have evidence, yours do not. AZPaul3 says "warm and fuzzies" because you have no evidence for what you believe but accept it because it feels good. Your assertion that we don't want to acknowledge a greater intelligence is yet another claim you have no evidence for. You're actually just casting aspersions at us for not accepting baseless claims. But rejecting baseless claims is exactly what people should do. Forming one's views around evidence is the pinnacle of rational thought.
One more thing about not acknowledging an intelligence greater than our own. While I was working I encountered geniuses regularly. I had no problem acknowledging they were a lot smarter than me. I suspect everyone else here also has no problem admitting we're not the greatest intelligence in existence.
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
- evidence has to be physical, not philosophical or ephemeral.
- scientific evidence has to be physical which does not mean that philosophy can't provide insights. There is nothing in scince that claims that to be the case. It just happens to be you non-scientific belief.
Any kind of thought, philosophical or otherwise, can provide insights. Einstein gained insights by imagining traveling on a light beam, but relativity was not accepted until Eddington detected the bending of Mercury's light. You're at the equivalent of Einstein's imagination stage, which means you got nothin'. When you get to the equivalent of Eddington's evidence stage then you've got something.
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
- people's deep religious beliefs are not evidence no matter how many there are
- I agree
This is the lip service you always give. The reality is that you do not agree, which we know because you keep arguing that you do too have evidence. You put qualifiers on it, like "philosophical evidence," and after that you seem to believe that since you've used the word "evidence" that your evidence is just as valid as scientific evidence. It is not as good. It isn't even evidence at all.
Please stop saying you agree you have no evidence, because it isn't true.
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
- if it has effects in this universe it will leave lots of marks that we can see
- Science observes how things are, and in many cases even describe the processes that resulted in things being that way but it cannot deal with why those processes exist. That is a different question using the tea cup analogy.
Your answer is orthogonal to AZPaul3's comment. He was only saying that things that actually happen leave evidence behind. Responding, "But it doesn't address 'why' questions," is irrelevant.
Science does, of course, answer "why" questions, but only when they're actually "how did this happen" type questions,. Science does not answer true "why" questions, like "Why are we here?" Krauss's quote of the age old question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is actually the question, "How did it come about that there is something instead of nothing?"
GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
- a lack of evidence can indeed be evidence
- I agree
I don't think you know what you're agreeing with. AZPaul3 expressed the shorthand form of, "Looking for evidence of something and not finding it is evidence." For example, if you look for evidence that a live elephant is in your garage and don't find any, then that is evidence that there is no elephant in your garage.
But let's say you never go into to your garage and look around for an elephant. There would be a lack of evidence that there is an elephant in your garage, but since you never sought such evidence it definitely would not be evidence that there is no elephant in your garage. Capisce?
I am not denying that what you say isn't true...
I think you accidentally put an extra negative in there, because removing the two negatives makes this, "I am denying that what you say is true," which isn't the sense I think you intended.
...it is simply your belief that there is nothing beyond the material.
There is an absence of evidence of anything beyond the universe in which we live. Wherever he is, God gives off no light, has no gravity, makes no sound, carries out no actions. He resides in the realm of the spiritual along with ghosts, goblins, sprites, angels, spirits and demons, for which there is an equal amount of evidence.
At any rate. I DO NOT LIE and I have no idea why you would bother replying to me if you believe that I am lying and I'm not interested in corresponding with someone who calls me a liar.
I agree that you do not lie and that you are not a liar. But I also think there is nothing in your philosophy that recognizes that the easiest person to fool is yourself (Richard Feynman).
However, if you start from a theistic position it makes sense.
If we offer the Bible into evidence then the theistic position is internally inconsistent and contradictory (there's a reason they're called apologists) and externally fantastical and wrong.
Moral right and wrong are not "human constructs." A sense of right and wrong is an inherent part of us as human beings. Some things *are* human constructs, such as smiling where, for example, for some emotions the Japanese response is opposite to the American. But that murder is wrong is not a human construct. All cultures universally hold murder wrong because it is inherent in our make up and not a construct.
Starting to sound more and more like design all the time.
As I said a week or two ago, most everyone with insufficient or no evidence for their position eventually throws up obstacles to discussion. You're doing it now. This is not a serious response and ignores all that others have said about the natural origins for our moral sense. I hope you decide to try again.
Percy writes:
And atheists do not see things in terms of gods. Just like anyone an atheist can have a God complex, but atheists no more desire be be seen as gods than any other demographic group.
The thing is though that if there is no consciousness or intelligence greater than human consciousness or intelligence, it kinda does make us gods as ultimately fundamental morality has to come from somewhere.
You're postulating an origin for morality, namely gods, that has no evidence. You're further postulating, again without evidence, that morality can only come from gods, and that if gods don't exist then we must be the gods. But you've conceded there's no evidence of God or gods, and you're again ignoring a natural origin for morality. Morality is an instinct that we have, just as animals have instincts, i.e., behaviors that are inherent, built into their make up.
Percy writes:
You consistently repeat the error of seeing people who don't believe in your God, who don't even believe he exists, as nonetheless believing in your God anyway but just denying he exists out of convenience so that they don't have to follow his rules. The wrongheadedness of this view has been explained like a million times. I don't understand how you could continue to be so determinedly blind. It would help if you believed that people really do believe what they say they believe.
I don't know how you got that out of what I've posted but that isn't my view at all. Maybe you can define it another way but I equate atheism to materialism, so how could they deny his rules?
I'm trying to ferret out a consistent viewpoint from what you say. Sometimes you say atheists are gods, sometimes you say they're materialists, and I don't myself see a way to synthesize one consistent perspective from this. For instance, this is you in Message 291:
It also takes me back to the question of which god that I started with. In addition to theism I might add that the atheistic position, as I understand it, involves making us gods in the sense that right and wrong are simply human constructs, which could well make that position of being one of the available gods.
There is one conclusion I can draw from what you say, and that's that you believe God exists and that atheists deny him and his rules.
I would add that the only rule is to love others which includes being good stewards of all of creation.
If you believe in the God of the Bible then that is not the only rule. Some of the ten commandments are orthogonal to love or even anti-love. The first two want devotees to reject other gods and idols. The seventh is an admonition to not love. Keeping the sabbath has nothing to do with love.
Religion isn't just about love. Nothing as complex as religion boils down to something so simple. Brevity and precision will always be at odds.
Wittgenstein. Paraphrasing, about that which one knows not one must remain silent. There's no evidence, so science is silent on God. Science does not proclaim itself atheistic or agnostic. Regarding God it is silent. Science is also silent on leprechauns and unicorns.
By silence I don't mean science can't even say there's no evidence. It can certainly say that much. It can even add that there's no scientific definition, when that's the case.
When I look at things like evolution it does point towards the idea that it is evolving towards something which would mean that there likely is some long term point to existence, which is suggestive of a designer.
You misunderstand evolution. It has no direction. It is differential reproductive success that drives the course of evolution, which is in turn affected by factors like the environment, competition, and speed of adaptation. There's nothing suggestive of a designer anywhere within evolution.
Percy writes:
Someone argued this? I must have missed it. If there are studies indicating this then keep in mind that psychology is a very soft science. It is the tomato of fruit.
Posters here see morality as evolving within the mind and developed with in a culture which is what I meant be it being naturally infectious.
Uh, infectious, okay. I would have said that individuals are influenced by the moral codes of societies they come in contact with, either by living within them or visiting them or learning about them.
As far as evolutionary changes to our inherent morality, the pace of evolution for creatures as long-lived as human beings is very slow, so we wouldn't expect any observable changes in inherent morality during historical times, i.e., the last ten thousand years or so.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
