|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang Found
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
CS writes: When we just refer to creationists generally, we're not really talking about the people who believe in a creator but do not deny science. That's what I was explaining to shadow71. And now you're trying to argue my same point back to me.
You guys are making this much more complicated than it really is. A "creationist" is simply someone who believes in creation. If you want to limit your reference to a specific type of creationist, e.g. a "young-earth creationist" (YEC), simply add the adjective "young-earth" to the term "creationist". This will clarify that you do not intend your comments to apply to "old-earth creationists" and "evolutionary creationists". Without this clarification, the meaning is sometimes clear from the context, but at other times is unclear.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 32 of 301 (722415)
03-20-2014 11:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
03-20-2014 10:21 PM
|
|
NoNukes writes: That would be simpler, but the definition ship has already sailed. Creationist means someone who believes that creation occurred in the way their religious text says.
That's not a bad definition, either, so long as we realize that there are many different religious texts, and many different interpretations of what any single religious text says. Hence "young-earth creationists", "old-earth creationists", and "evolutionary creationists."
NoNukes writes: What does 'believe in creation' even mean?
Synonyms: "accept creation", "be convinced of creation". Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 10:21 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 38 of 301 (722484)
03-21-2014 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Tangle
03-21-2014 2:59 AM
|
|
Tangle writes: The Institution for Creationism are denying the news quoting Isaiah.
In contrast, old-earth creationists are embracing the discovery:
quote:
Big Bang 'Gravity Wave' Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists Some Christian scientific experts believe that the discovery of the "gravity wave," announced earlier this week by scientists working with a South Pole telescope called BICEP 2, provides confirmation for the biblical account of creation by supporting the theory of the "big bang." "The Bible was the first to predict big bang cosmology," according to Hugh Ross, president and founder of Reasons to Believe, an Old Earth Creationist organization that believes Christianity and science are complementary.
Big Bang 'Gravity Wave' Discovery Supports Biblical Creation, Say Old Earth Creationists | U.S. News Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 2:59 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 3:15 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 42 of 301 (722510)
03-21-2014 4:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by AZPaul3
03-21-2014 3:15 PM
|
|
AZPaul3 writes:
To say these results "support" such religious creationist accounts is to say that BICEP2 did not grind them into dust. By the same token BICEP2 "supports" marijuana legalization in Arizona as well. There is a logic problem here. Where is Fallacy Man when you really need him?
I don't see a logic problem here; can you clarify the logic problem that you see? Rather, I suspect there is simply a difference of interpretation regarding the biblical text. IF you interpret the biblical text as predicting Big Bang cosmology (as Hugh Ross does), THEN any discovery that supports Big Bang cosmology automatically supports the biblical text. This seems completely logical, given his interpretation of the biblical text.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2014 3:15 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 44 of 301 (722530)
03-21-2014 9:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
03-21-2014 6:42 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes: Let's ask these questions. This new evidence supports in particular an inflationary model in which the universe expanded from a small to a large size so that widely dispersed parts can be in thermal equilibrium. So what does the Bible say about that? Or is it that just a vague "cosmic energy egg" thingy work just as well for Hugh Ross?
Hugh interprets the Bible to predict Big Bang cosmology. But Big Bang cosmology has some difficulties. "Inflation" was essentially an ad hoc theory proposed to solve some of these difficulties. But until now, there has been no direct evidence for inflation. This new evidence supporting inflation puts Big Bang cosmology on a firmer footing. And given Hugh's biblical interpretation, it also supports the Bible.
NoNukes writes: Or we might ask how much of the Bible Ross must dismiss, (like for example the order of creation rather than just it's duration, in order to make his claim that the Bible is essentially GR written in Greek. In short is Ross's claim the least bit reasonable?
Hugh makes a strong, plausible case that the biblical sequence of creation is consistent with what an observer on earth would have seen. But rather than recounting all of the details, I would recommend that you consult his books or his website ( Home - Reasons to Believe).
NoNukes writes: Finally, I note that you stop short of endorsing Ross' interpretation. What is your actual opinion on what Ross proposes. Hugh is a friend of mine. I generally agree with what he says, though I would not always word it the same way myself. Regarding this discovery I would express things a bit more like another friend, Leslie Wickman, in the blog she wrote for CNN: quote:
Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science — and the world of religion. Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics. The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs. ... So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused — or created — by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 03-21-2014 6:42 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 48 of 301 (722587)
03-23-2014 1:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
03-22-2014 4:47 PM
|
|
Re: Hype machine running full bore (pun intended)
NoNukes writes: I didn't ask you to say anything negative. I asked you for the truth. However, your faint praise was noted.
To clarify, I have very high respect for Hugh Ross. I generally agree with what he says. Hugh makes the strongest case I've ever heard for the "day-age" or "progressive creation" view. I'm just not as strongly convinced of this view as I once was; I see much in the "Framework" and "ancient near eastern cosmology" views to commend them.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2014 4:47 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
Dr. A writes: Well, you know, I'd be more inclined to think that the Big Bang was consistent with the Bible if the world was less full of Christians telling me that the Big Bang is an evil atheist lie contrary to the Bible and thought up by Satan to con people into rejecting God. The existence of these people, who are invariably awfully keen on the Bible and indeed never shut up about it, suggests that Ross's interpretation is not exactly clear-cut. So while I might concede that the BB is consistent with the Bible if you interpret it with enough latitude, the fact that it occurred doesn't seem to me to be evidence weighing on the side of the Bible, that would be going too far.
The only ones who call it "an evil atheist lie" are the YECs, of course. But you are correct that the Evangelical reaction to this discovery is quite varied. Karl Giberson has given a nice summary of the varied reactions here: Evangelicals Still Don’t Know What to Do With the Big Bang
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2014 12:50 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 66 of 301 (722765)
03-24-2014 7:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
03-24-2014 5:12 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
Tangle writes: For that, you'll have to learn some physics. It's well above my pay grade. Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
But this is not a physics question; it is a philosophy question. And Hawking, like Dawkins, has rejected philsophy as a valid field of knowledge. So he is not equipped to answer the question.
John Lennox writes: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God ... According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.' ... But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. ... Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Lennox' full reply here. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2014 5:12 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 75 of 301 (722844)
03-25-2014 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
03-25-2014 10:26 AM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
onifre writes: John Lennox writes: According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being.
The problem I see is that the laws of physics accurately measure reality. We can make predictions using them and test to see if they're confirmed. Like with the new evidence for inflation.
I don't object to this, and neither does Lennox. He would agree completely with what you've said.
onifre writes: However, the "will of God" is simply a reference to the desires of a mythical concept.
Says you; note that you are making a philosophical, non-scientific claim.
onifre writes: So to suggest that "the laws of physics provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being" is just the philosophical musings of Hawking, and not a statement based on actual evidence, is flat out wrong. Even if the evidence isn't fully complete yet.
No, this position of Hawking's has a number of philosophical problems, one of which is reductionism. Even if the laws of physics can provide a good, true, description of the mechanism by which life came into being, to say that this is the real explanation goes too far. It implies that this is the only, and the complete, explanation for the question.
onifre writes: John Lennox writes: What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.
That is a terrible analogy. The main difference between God and Sir Frank Whittle is the is evidence of Frank's existence. So Hawking isn't confusing law with agency because there is no evidence for any agent to consider.
This is a very good analogy to show the error of reductionism. The fact that the laws of nature give a good description of reality does not and cannot remove God from the picture any more than they remove Whittle from the picture. Natural law describes the mechanism which is at work, but nothing more. In a philosophical sense, natural law is descriptive, not causative. It describes mechanism, not agency. Many scientists who do not think deeply enough about these things tend to conflate these various concepts. They tend to view natural law as not only a descriptive mechanism (which is all we can definitively say about it from science), but also as a causative agent (which is a philosophical, non-scientific claim). However, there is absolutely no scientific support for this conflation. It is a conflation which, in essence, turns natural law into a god.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by onifre, posted 03-25-2014 10:26 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 78 of 301 (722855)
03-25-2014 12:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by NoNukes
03-25-2014 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes: But as a class, scientists do not consider the laws of science as anything but descriptive. What many scientists question is the need for injecting causing agent. And a scientist that does not assume such an agent is not making a philosophical error, he is simply not making a theological leap. Just how many scientists claim that science can demonstrate that there is no God. Those few scientists are the ones that have the issue you described. That class would not include the scientists mentioned in this thread.
No, when Hawking claims that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he is claiming causation. He claims that the laws of nature cause the universe. But he doesn't explain where the laws of nature come from. He seems to treat them as pre-existent and eternal; they are effectively his god.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2014 12:14 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-25-2014 12:59 PM | | kbertsche has not replied | | | Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-26-2014 2:15 AM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
CS writes: Sure, just because we have a correct explanation for how lightning happens, doesn't mean that Thor isn't really responsible. But from a scientific perspective, nobody cares. We can explain lightning without the need for Thor, so we just ignore him and go about our day. We may be missing something, like Thor, but it doesn't matter because our explanations work.
Good science can be done from any philosophical or theological position. So yes, if one's only concern is to do science, one's philosophical/theological position is irrelevant. But if one's concern is to understand the world on something deeper than just a mechanistic level, these philosophical/theological issues matter a great deal.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 116 of 301 (723240)
03-27-2014 11:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
03-27-2014 5:15 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
Taq writes: I have never understood this argument. Why does having a beginning point to a supernatural creator? Clouds have a beginning, and yet they form naturally. Rainbows have a beginning, yet they form naturally. Everything in nature that we see which has a beginning has a known or at least proposed natural process that produces it. So please explain why this argument makes any sense.
I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself. The cause for the clouds' beginning must be outside of the cloud. The cause for the rainbow must transcend the rainbow itself. If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Taq, posted 03-27-2014 5:15 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:01 AM | | kbertsche has replied | | | Message 127 by Taq, posted 03-28-2014 12:26 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 117 of 301 (723241)
03-27-2014 11:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by shadow71
03-27-2014 7:03 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
shadow71 writes: If 1.61803 is correct how could there be a spontaneous formation out of nothing?
There can't be, if by "nothing" you truly mean nothing: no mass-energy, no spacetime, no laws of nature. Particles can spontaneously pop out of the "vacuum", but the physicist's "vacuum" is very different from the philospher's "nothing".
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by shadow71, posted 03-27-2014 7:03 PM | | shadow71 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:06 AM | | kbertsche has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 123 of 301 (723254)
03-28-2014 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by onifre
03-28-2014 2:01 AM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
onifre writes: kbertsche writes: I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
Then so would whatever supernatural being you've chosen to be the creator of this particular universe.
Agreed; if God began to exist, there must be a cause for this. Of course, if God is eternal with no beginning, then no such cause is necessary.
onifre writes: kbertsche writes: If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
Not at all. It could be we are part of a multiverse system. Supernatural has never ever ever ever ever been the answer to any question that we've solved. Why now?
You apparently didn't read my statement carefully enough. I defined "universe" as "all of nature". Whatever caused nature to begin to exist must transcend nature. This, by definition, is super-nature (supernatural). Your hypothesized multiverse is either a part of nature or it is itself supernatural. Either way, if it began to exist, it also needs a transcendent cause for its existence. {ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".} Edited by kbertsche, : ABE
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 2:01 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 133 of 301 (723294)
03-28-2014 3:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
03-28-2014 12:26 PM
|
|
Re: You haven't said much here...
Taq writes: kbertsche writes: I think the point is that anything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence which is outside itself.
How do you go from "outside itself" to "supernatural deity"?
"Outside nature" is "super-nature", by definition. Whether or not this is a "deity" depends on one's definition of "deity". Many would agree that a "deity" is eternal and uncaused (though this wouldn't apply to minor Greek and Roman deities).
Taq writes: kbertsche writes: If the entire universe (all of nature) began to exist, the cause for this must transcend the universe, i.e. it must be super-natural.
No, it would simply become part of nature.
No, you're not making sense. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. (The idea that something is self-caused is a logical impossibility.)
Taq writes: At one time, the Earth and it's immediate surroundings were considered the entire extent of the natural world. Does this mean that the Andromeda galaxy is supernatural? No.
I disagree. If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.
Taq writes: If there is a process that creates universes that is as impersonal and non-sentient as the process that produces clouds, why wouldn't we call that a natural process?
I only see two possibilities: 1) nature (including the process that you propose) had a beginning to its existence, in which case it needs a super-natural cause 2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's) Can you think of any other options? {ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".} Edited by kbertsche, : ABE
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by Taq, posted 03-28-2014 12:26 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2