Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:13 pm
Mine's a cider thanksLithium_joe wrote:Thanks. Don't mind if I do.
All this philosophising leaves one a bit parched y'know?
Dyspraxic Adults
A forum for adults with Dyspraxia
http://www.dyspraxicadults.org.uk/forums/
Religous philosophy?
http://www.dyspraxicadults.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=708
Page 3 of 5
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:43 pm
My main disciplines were Biochemistry and Pharmacology but with some Chemistry and Physics and other things thrown in for good measure
I don't have an issue with your theories, but I still have to say who / what intially started the chain of events you describe; and yes that does beg the question where did the who / what come from - and so my brain starts to hurt
You can't empirically prove that some force (let's call it God for argument's sake) is not influencing evolution, although I concur that the converse is also true 
I don't have an issue with your theories, but I still have to say who / what intially started the chain of events you describe; and yes that does beg the question where did the who / what come from - and so my brain starts to hurt
You can't empirically prove that some force (let's call it God for argument's sake
) is not influencing evolution, although I concur that the converse is also true Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:06 pm
Cider it is. *pop, pour fizz*
I only enjoy online pints, I accidentally became tee-total a few years ago, and still can't quiet seem tog et the taste for it back.
I expect you know all about how alcohol affects the body then? (from both your vast academic reasearch and more detailed ... *ahem* ... empirical studies? )
As the philosopher in this conversation I grant you full licence and permission to now recite to me the Philosopher's drinking song, copyright: Monty Python.
The first thing I should say is these aren't my theories: they are the product of centuries of enquiry; I can only hope I've done them justice in the re-telling. It would be an act of ultimate hubris on my part to claim these theories for myself, the least I can do is to give the proper airing they deserve and present the evidence which backs them up, which is what persuades me they are probably correct and therefore a better answer than the shallow, speculation of bronze age myths.
I say that because religion, in all it's guises and all it's faiths, is not devoid of meaning but it represents humanities earliest and worst attempts at an explanation for the world being the way that it is. In the battle between religious and scientific explanations the trend has only been in one direction. Is there any example, in any discipline, where a previously held scientific idea has been over-turned by a religious idea now seen to be correct? And while you ponder that, let me further ask can anyone think of the converse case where religious ideas have been overturned by better scientific ones?
I willing to wager you didn't even have to blink before one came to mind. And that's the pattern.
As to what started the chain of events that resulted in the universe as we know it today. The answer is not known yet. A scientist in spirit, like me, or a scientist in practice like yourself, I expect finds that prospects thrilling. It is only the religious, who crave absolutes, who decry the lack of the complete explanation. What is known however are the natural processes, a few of which I tried to described overleaf, that followed on from origin of The Universe and which the science and mathematics imply were also present in one form or another from the start. Why then, if the evidence to-date points to an entirely natural sequence of events, should it be necessary to assume anything other than a natural cause and one that science will, one day, determine?
To do otherwise is to fail to follow the path of parsimony: finding the simplest explanation with the least additional assumptions. Simplest in this sense does not apply to the ease of human comprehension for the 'simplest' theory in this sense might be actually quite complex. Complexity, as we know however, does not imply design. but if these theories are accurate descriptions of reality, 'simple' and complex but as yet unfalsified, it is scientifically plausible to lend them credibility. Religions have no evidence in their favour to match this.
The reason why your brain starts to hurt, if I may be so bold to suggest, when you pause to try to consider a divine first cause is because it is a nonsense plagued by infinite regress. The summary version of all of this is that the cause, when it is known, will be a) simple b) natural.
Of course science can't prove a supernatural god was a 'controlling influence' just as science cannot show that demons cause headaches! What science can show is that natural processes alone are sufficient explanations.
And there is a problem with arguing for a supernatural influence on natural processes which is HOW?? - it's the age old stumbling block of dualism: define one thing as radically different from the other and then argue that the one somehow influences the other.
How can supernatural gods manipulate and influence the natural world?
An alternative of course is that the 'controlling influence' is natural - but hang on that is not what is observed.
I'll demonstrate this with an argument from analogy:
If gods were not only real but natural phenomena, doing all these interventionist activities with which they are credited, then the world would look very different from what it does. Why would, for instance, weather patterns - as chaotic as they are - submit to prediction as they do unless the natural processes which are taken into account are sufficient?
If Poseidon really were controlling the sea, by excommunicating a bit of atmospheric pressure here, influence a bit of ascension of water vapour there, then we'd still have high and low pressure, weather fronts and the water cycle - ah!, but the controlling influence behind these systems is a god is it? I presume you can see where I'm about to go with this: why have a god behind it at all?
Why not recognise Poseidon for what he was which is an an early attempt to make sense of turbulent seas and dangerous skies, but accept that the weather is just the weather and just natural? You're right science can't prove Poseidon doesn't control the weather but why would it need to? Of course if you don't accept this you can obtain next week's shipping forecast by drowning a few horses in the nearest estuary.
And it gets worse: Gods as controlling influences, alright then which god? There are hundreds who throughout history might claim responsiblity for the weather.
What sort of hypothesis or prediction or test could determine whether it was Freyr or Poseidon who responsible for watering the crops and to whom we duly owe the harvest offering?
-----------------
It cannot be empirically proven that gods were not a controlling influence upon evolution but evolution is understood in purely naturalistic terms and the evidence for evolution takes place is incontrovertible, so why insist that lying behind this amazing system of biology is a god carefully re-coating the protein shells of each and every flu virus every single winter?
I only enjoy online pints, I accidentally became tee-total a few years ago, and still can't quiet seem tog et the taste for it back.
I expect you know all about how alcohol affects the body then? (from both your vast academic reasearch and more detailed ... *ahem* ... empirical studies?
)As the philosopher in this conversation I grant you full licence and permission to now recite to me the Philosopher's drinking song, copyright: Monty Python.
The first thing I should say is these aren't my theories: they are the product of centuries of enquiry; I can only hope I've done them justice in the re-telling. It would be an act of ultimate hubris on my part to claim these theories for myself, the least I can do is to give the proper airing they deserve and present the evidence which backs them up, which is what persuades me they are probably correct and therefore a better answer than the shallow, speculation of bronze age myths.
I say that because religion, in all it's guises and all it's faiths, is not devoid of meaning but it represents humanities earliest and worst attempts at an explanation for the world being the way that it is. In the battle between religious and scientific explanations the trend has only been in one direction. Is there any example, in any discipline, where a previously held scientific idea has been over-turned by a religious idea now seen to be correct? And while you ponder that, let me further ask can anyone think of the converse case where religious ideas have been overturned by better scientific ones?
I willing to wager you didn't even have to blink before one came to mind. And that's the pattern.
As to what started the chain of events that resulted in the universe as we know it today. The answer is not known yet. A scientist in spirit, like me, or a scientist in practice like yourself, I expect finds that prospects thrilling. It is only the religious, who crave absolutes, who decry the lack of the complete explanation. What is known however are the natural processes, a few of which I tried to described overleaf, that followed on from origin of The Universe and which the science and mathematics imply were also present in one form or another from the start. Why then, if the evidence to-date points to an entirely natural sequence of events, should it be necessary to assume anything other than a natural cause and one that science will, one day, determine?
To do otherwise is to fail to follow the path of parsimony: finding the simplest explanation with the least additional assumptions. Simplest in this sense does not apply to the ease of human comprehension for the 'simplest' theory in this sense might be actually quite complex. Complexity, as we know however, does not imply design. but if these theories are accurate descriptions of reality, 'simple' and complex but as yet unfalsified, it is scientifically plausible to lend them credibility. Religions have no evidence in their favour to match this.
The reason why your brain starts to hurt, if I may be so bold to suggest, when you pause to try to consider a divine first cause is because it is a nonsense plagued by infinite regress. The summary version of all of this is that the cause, when it is known, will be a) simple b) natural.
I've a couple of points I want to make to that.You can't empirically prove that some force (let's call it God for argument's sake ) is not influencing evolution,
Of course science can't prove a supernatural god was a 'controlling influence' just as science cannot show that demons cause headaches! What science can show is that natural processes alone are sufficient explanations.
And there is a problem with arguing for a supernatural influence on natural processes which is HOW?? - it's the age old stumbling block of dualism: define one thing as radically different from the other and then argue that the one somehow influences the other.
How can supernatural gods manipulate and influence the natural world?
An alternative of course is that the 'controlling influence' is natural - but hang on that is not what is observed.
I'll demonstrate this with an argument from analogy:
If gods were not only real but natural phenomena, doing all these interventionist activities with which they are credited, then the world would look very different from what it does. Why would, for instance, weather patterns - as chaotic as they are - submit to prediction as they do unless the natural processes which are taken into account are sufficient?
If Poseidon really were controlling the sea, by excommunicating a bit of atmospheric pressure here, influence a bit of ascension of water vapour there, then we'd still have high and low pressure, weather fronts and the water cycle - ah!, but the controlling influence behind these systems is a god is it? I presume you can see where I'm about to go with this: why have a god behind it at all?
Why not recognise Poseidon for what he was which is an an early attempt to make sense of turbulent seas and dangerous skies, but accept that the weather is just the weather and just natural? You're right science can't prove Poseidon doesn't control the weather but why would it need to? Of course if you don't accept this you can obtain next week's shipping forecast by drowning a few horses in the nearest estuary.
And it gets worse: Gods as controlling influences, alright then which god? There are hundreds who throughout history might claim responsiblity for the weather.
What sort of hypothesis or prediction or test could determine whether it was Freyr or Poseidon who responsible for watering the crops and to whom we duly owe the harvest offering?
-----------------
It cannot be empirically proven that gods were not a controlling influence upon evolution but evolution is understood in purely naturalistic terms and the evidence for evolution takes place is incontrovertible, so why insist that lying behind this amazing system of biology is a god carefully re-coating the protein shells of each and every flu virus every single winter?
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:37 pm
Guy's leave your order at the bar!
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:25 pm
"The first thing I should say is these aren't my theories: they are the product of centuries of enquiry; I can only hope I've done them justice in the re-telling."
But it's also worth remembering that many of the most famous scientists - Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein included - confessed openly to believing in a God/creator. It's not as if scientists who come out with such theories are necessarily atheists (a lot are not!).
Also, it is extremely questionable whether inductivism (i.e. proof by empirical evidence) is a valid method of proof. Whilst it undoubtedly provides supporting evidence for a theory, it is not foolproof - and nor should it be treated as such. The problem is that physics, chemistry etc. are all subjected to the limitations of this method, particularly as they make extensive use of it! Unfortunately, this means that the meaning of 'proof' - at least in the mathematical sense - becomes somewhat obfuscated, frequently leading to misuse. Given this methodological weakness, all of your previous expositions are no more than theories, with some, albeit frequently disputed, empirical evidence. That is why all scientific laws and popular theories never lose their 'theory' tag.
Also, allow me to clarify my position regarding the big bang theory. I am able to confirm that it was never my intention to make the rather (spurious) claim that the big band must have been 'an explosion'. However, taking semantics aside, my point remains thus; even if materials per se were not needed for the explosion, a state 'of being' in the pre-universe would still have been required. Whether this be in the form of heat, particles colliding etc. something would have been needed to create the universe (this is beyond scientific dispute). Therefore, this begs the more philosophical question of how this heat/particles came into being. You cannot, after all, start with absolutely nothing (i.e. no atoms, particles, heat, light etc.) and suddenly end-up with an expanding universe! When addressing such arguments, big bang theorists either confess to not knowing the answer, or attempt to skirt around the issue, so to speak!!
As for my earlier argument of 'intelligent design', I suppose that I remain unconvinced that science alone can explain how, for example, human beings can have been created to such biological complexity, that they are able to experience emotions, be receptive to various external stimuli, use their ingenuity etc. In fact, scientists admit that the complexity of the human brain alone astounds them to such an extent that they basically only know the minutest fraction of what there is to know about it! If you add to this the complexity - and seemingly impossible balance (to the human mind) - of the natural world and everything in it, it seems that life is too purposeful and ingenious to be without a creator. Of course, atheists would undoubtedly argue that all the above is a mere coincidence (calculated at infinitesimal odds), but I somehow doubt it!
Anyway, I think I have exhausted this debate now.
Mattie.
But it's also worth remembering that many of the most famous scientists - Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein included - confessed openly to believing in a God/creator. It's not as if scientists who come out with such theories are necessarily atheists (a lot are not!).
Also, it is extremely questionable whether inductivism (i.e. proof by empirical evidence) is a valid method of proof. Whilst it undoubtedly provides supporting evidence for a theory, it is not foolproof - and nor should it be treated as such. The problem is that physics, chemistry etc. are all subjected to the limitations of this method, particularly as they make extensive use of it! Unfortunately, this means that the meaning of 'proof' - at least in the mathematical sense - becomes somewhat obfuscated, frequently leading to misuse. Given this methodological weakness, all of your previous expositions are no more than theories, with some, albeit frequently disputed, empirical evidence. That is why all scientific laws and popular theories never lose their 'theory' tag.
Also, allow me to clarify my position regarding the big bang theory. I am able to confirm that it was never my intention to make the rather (spurious) claim that the big band must have been 'an explosion'. However, taking semantics aside, my point remains thus; even if materials per se were not needed for the explosion, a state 'of being' in the pre-universe would still have been required. Whether this be in the form of heat, particles colliding etc. something would have been needed to create the universe (this is beyond scientific dispute). Therefore, this begs the more philosophical question of how this heat/particles came into being. You cannot, after all, start with absolutely nothing (i.e. no atoms, particles, heat, light etc.) and suddenly end-up with an expanding universe! When addressing such arguments, big bang theorists either confess to not knowing the answer, or attempt to skirt around the issue, so to speak!!
As for my earlier argument of 'intelligent design', I suppose that I remain unconvinced that science alone can explain how, for example, human beings can have been created to such biological complexity, that they are able to experience emotions, be receptive to various external stimuli, use their ingenuity etc. In fact, scientists admit that the complexity of the human brain alone astounds them to such an extent that they basically only know the minutest fraction of what there is to know about it! If you add to this the complexity - and seemingly impossible balance (to the human mind) - of the natural world and everything in it, it seems that life is too purposeful and ingenious to be without a creator. Of course, atheists would undoubtedly argue that all the above is a mere coincidence (calculated at infinitesimal odds), but I somehow doubt it!
Anyway, I think I have exhausted this debate now.
Mattie.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:23 pm
Pint of cider and a packet of salt and vinger pleaseLiz944 wrote:Guy's leave your order at the bar!
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:13 am
How can you be 'accidentally' TT!!! ???Lithium_joe wrote:Cider it is. *pop, pour fizz*
I only enjoy online pints, I accidentally became tee-total a few years ago, and still can't quiet seem tog et the taste for it back.
I've done all the experiments and I will never drink Scrumpy Jack again - it put me off cider for years, but I'm back on itI expect you know all about how alcohol affects the body then? (from both your vast academic reasearch and more detailed ... *ahem* ... empirical studies?
Unfortunately I don't know it and I'm too lazy to google itAs the philosopher in this conversation I grant you full licence and permission to now recite to me the Philosopher's drinking song, copyright: Monty Python.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:28 am
Yeah, I know they are not your theories, but for the purpose of this debate....if you know what I mean (if you do you know more than me at this point in time - and no, I haven't been at the cider!!!The first thing I should say is these aren't my theories: they are the product of centuries of enquiry; I can only hope I've done them justice in the re-telling. It would be an act of ultimate hubris on my part to claim these theories for myself, the least I can do is to give the proper airing they deserve and present the evidence which backs them up, which is what persuades me they are probably correct and therefore a better answer than the shallow, speculation of bronze age myths.
) I'm willing to wager that you mean evolutionI say that because religion, in all it's guises and all it's faiths, is not devoid of meaning but it represents humanities earliest and worst attempts at an explanation for the world being the way that it is. In the battle between religious and scientific explanations the trend has only been in one direction. Is there any example, in any discipline, where a previously held scientific idea has been over-turned by a religious idea now seen to be correct? And while you ponder that, let me further ask can anyone think of the converse case where religious ideas have been overturned by better scientific ones?
I willing to wager you didn't even have to blink before one came to mind. And that's the pattern.
. Science is the how, theology is the why, and that's the pattern. Most theistic people including scientists accept that concept. I rest my caseAs to what started the chain of events that resulted in the universe as we know it today. The answer is not known yet.
What is nature, who/what makes nature do what it does?A scientist in spirit, like me, or a scientist in practice like yourself, I expect finds that prospects thrilling. It is only the religious, who crave absolutes, who decry the lack of the complete explanation. What is known however are the natural processes, a few of which I tried to described overleaf, that followed on from origin of The Universe and which the science and mathematics imply were also present in one form or another from the start. Why then, if the evidence to-date points to an entirely natural sequence of events, should it be necessary to assume anything other than a natural cause and one that science will, one day, determine?
Scientific theories hurt my brain as wellTo do otherwise is to fail to follow the path of parsimony: finding the simplest explanation with the least additional assumptions. Simplest in this sense does not apply to the ease of human comprehension for the 'simplest' theory in this sense might be actually quite complex. Complexity, as we know however, does not imply design. but if these theories are accurate descriptions of reality, 'simple' and complex but as yet unfalsified, it is scientifically plausible to lend them credibility. Religions have no evidence in their favour to match this.
The reason why your brain starts to hurt, if I may be so bold to suggest, when you pause to try to consider a divine first cause is because it is a nonsense plagued by infinite regress. The summary version of all of this is that the cause, when it is known, will be a) simple b) natural.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:42 am
I've a couple of points I want to make to that.You can't empirically prove that some force (let's call it God for argument's sake ) is not influencing evolution,
Of course science can't prove a supernatural god was a 'controlling influence' just as science cannot show that demons cause headaches! What science can show is that natural processes alone are sufficient explanations. Sufficient for some people, yes, but not all, for some, science on its own does not answer all the questions
And there is a problem with arguing for a supernatural influence on natural processes which is HOW?? - it's the age old stumbling block of dualism: define one thing as radically different from the other and then argue that the one somehow influences the other.
How can supernatural gods manipulate and influence the natural world? Why can they not - we won't go into the definition of God at this point, that's for another thread LOL
An alternative of course is that the 'controlling influence' is natural - but hang on that is not what is observed.
I'll demonstrate this with an argument from analogy:
If gods were not only real but natural phenomena, doing all these interventionist activities with which they are credited, then the world would look very different from what it does. Why would, for instance, weather patterns - as chaotic as they are - submit to prediction as they do unless the natural processes which are taken into account are sufficient?
If Poseidon really were controlling the sea, by excommunicating a bit of atmospheric pressure here, influence a bit of ascension of water vapour there, then we'd still have high and low pressure, weather fronts and the water cycle - ah!, but the controlling influence behind these systems is a god is it? I presume you can see where I'm about to go with this: why have a god behind it at all?Why not?
Why not recognise Poseidon for what he was which is an an early attempt to make sense of turbulent seas and dangerous skies, but accept that the weather is just the weather and just natural? You're right science can't prove Poseidon doesn't control the weather but why would it need to? Of course if you don't accept this you can obtain next week's shipping forecast by drowning a few horses in the nearest estuary.LOL
And it gets worse: Gods as controlling influences, alright then which god? There are hundreds who throughout history might claim responsiblity for the weather.Good point, but that's for another thread on another day
What sort of hypothesis or prediction or test could determine whether it was Freyr or Poseidon who responsible for watering the crops and to whom we duly owe the harvest offering?One day we'll know
-----------------
It cannot be empirically proven that gods were not a controlling influence upon evolution but evolution is understood in purely naturalistic terms and the evidence for evolution takes place is incontrovertible, so why insist that lying behind this amazing system of biology is a god carefully re-coating the protein shells of each and every flu virus every single winter?Because it is such a wonderfully intricate and perfect process - why a new flu virus every year - I don't know
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:54 am
Wow. So many replies. Good. As before I'll try and address them one at a time.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:39 am
These are just a sample of the current problems that scientists cannot explain or contradict the big bang theory. This does not mean that there is not a rational explanation; however, it does validate the claim that the big bang theory has been far from proven. As I previously stated, it is one of many possible explanations out there - even if it is one of the more credible ones.Also, as a general guide on the current problems with the big bang theory, I obtained the following unanswered questions:
1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3) Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
Whilst on the subject, I feel compelled to copy and paste the following philosophical arguments, which I think summarise the arguments perfectly.
Moreover, I accept that you are, Lithium Joe, a man of science, but any scientist of a reasonable standing (Stephen Hawking included) would openly admit that scientists are still unable to explain the most fundamental scientific laws governing the universe. In short, science and human knowledge is still in its infancy - we have, for example, still yet to ascertain if 'black holes' exist (at the moment they just offer a possible explanation for theoretical shortcomings of other theories), how the universe works, or most of its theoretical underpinnings. In many ways, our current knowledge, or lack thereof, is so limited that we still have a long way to go before we can understand the most basic and fundamental workings of our world and universe.* Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
* Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
* Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
* The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
* Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
Mattie.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:37 am
Thanks for that Mattie - there is a lot of material to respond to there so I will get to it when I can as I intend to try and address many of the points made in the last three posts between you and Lurker as I am able.
I would like to know from what source you have taken these from, it would help me to formulate my answers if I can examine the source of these arguments directly. A simple http link will suffice.
I would like to know from what source you have taken these from, it would help me to formulate my answers if I can examine the source of these arguments directly. A simple http link will suffice.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:07 am
Actually, these arguments are taken from numerous websites on the Internet. They were meant to provide a small sample of questions that have yet to be explained or predicted by the big bang theory. Having trawled my way through numerous websites, I have found that some possible explanations have since been put forward to explain some of the theoretical weaknesses. However, question 10, in particular, continues to baffle scientists - and still conflicts with the the theoretical underpinnings expounded by the big bang theory. This was exactly the point I was making in my earlier posts, and remains one of the central arguments supporting the idea of a creator.
Anyway, I guess my time on this thread has now expired. I have enjoyed this debate, as well as reading your well-formed and persuasive arguments.
Mattie.
As many scientists explain, 'the big bang theory explains the evolution of the universe (on the whole), but does not attempt to explain its creation'. That is why many theists - myself included - remain unconvinced that creation could have been possible without the existence of a divine creator. It forms a large part of my earlier 'intelligent design' debate, and cannot be explained or refuted by any scientific evidence. That is one of the principle reasons why many of the world's past and present scientists have apparently professed a faith in God.If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.
Anyway, I guess my time on this thread has now expired.
I have enjoyed this debate, as well as reading your well-formed and persuasive arguments. Mattie.
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:57 pm
That is not an argument that establishes either a) god's existence or b) god's role in creation - both of which I deny from a position of no faith and no positive evidence and which you assert as an article of faith and in spite of the lack of positive evidence.many of the most famous scientists - Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein included - confessed openly to believing in a God/creator.
I don't know what it is about theists when they trot out this argument (and it's not the first time I've been told this) why they think atheists are impressed with arguments from authority. As if Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein knows any better than the rest of us.
The two examples you give are interesting but not for the reasons you cite: Newton for example also believed in the theory of ether, alchemy and the occult - it doesn't follow that any of those things are either correct, valid, or true. And frankly as one of the greatest minds in scientific history, writing as he did in the mid-to late 1600's (17th century) religious is commonplace, and science is as yet not emerged as a distinct and separate discipline even with the minds of educated men like Newton. So frankly the point is moot.
Einstein, again, the record is a bit clearer being being more contemporary than Newton, but Einstein is a human being and full of complex and some contradictory ideas which don't fit well into dogmatic categories such as you seem to want him to be. There is evidence, yes, that Einstein speaks of god, but in many of his letters and writings he makes himself quite clear than his conception of god is not of a personal god and identifies closer with a Spinozan pantheism (Baruch Spinoza - 17th century, Dutch, rationalist philosopher), wherein 'god or nature' are interchangeable and the word 'god' is used as a non-supernatural synonym for nature, or the universe or the lawfulness that govern it's workings and not certainly not an interventionist god of theistic conception.
So I dispute the claim that what Einstein said implies what you think. There is a far more complex picture behind a far more complex man than your assertion gives him credit. I can acknowledge that without ceding any ground on whetehr or not a) god exists b) god role in creation. Can you do the same or does your argument rest on this rather flimsy case?
And just to repeat the point about the unimpressiveness of arguments from authority: what makes the observations of Newton and Einstein great, is not that it was Newton or Einstein that said them, by which we might infer all of their pronouncements to be valid and interesting and right, but that their mathematical proofs and scientific hypothesis made testable predictions that can be measured against evidence. By this method each has contributed vast amounts of insight that leads to to a greater understanding of the universe. This being said, if in his twilight years and on a lonely night at Princeton University, Albert Einstein had been gripped by the conviction that Unicorns capered across the lawn at dusk. That doesn't make it necessarily so.
And this goes for all scientists, believers in a religion or none: I have never claimed that scientists are necessarily atheists. The point I've made repeatedly is that there is no evidence of supernatural creation. No credible scientist would dispute that.
---------------------------
Re: Religous philosophy?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:27 pm
Theists would disagree with you.Lithium_joe wrote: The point I've made repeatedly is that there is no evidence of supernatural creation.
Theistic scientists would disagree with you.No credible scientist would dispute that.