08 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by MarshallPriceAlso, the bookmaker analogy is like this too.
The thing about the Watchmaker Analogy is that it argues design by complexity. You are walking down the beach and see a watch, is it more logical to assume that this watch was created or that it occurred naturally? Of course, the former option is more logical. But if this scenario was true to reality, you would pick up a watch while walking down the be ...[text shortened]... we know what watches are, how they work, how they are made, and that they don't occur naturally.
08 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by MarshallPriceSince chaney is probably watching Looney Tunes cartoons right now, I will play devil's advocate.
Also, the bookmaker analogy is like this too.
I will first concede that it is not possible to prove the existence of God through science. Faith and fact don't mix. But, given the precision and seemingly random physical laws that guide our universe, it is clearly possible that something created it.
Of course you know the watch was created by someone, but what if you didn't? What if it was just a rock? Within that rock are atoms that obey very precise physical properties, and constant natural laws. We live in a universe of defined physical constants, so explain to me where the definitions come from? A well-defined force keeps that rock on the ground until you pick it up, yet continues to 'interact' forcefully with the ground. When you add up all the intricate physical interactions of the different atoms within the rock, that rock might as well be a watch. And since we know for a fact the watch was designed, isn't it possible that the physical properties governing the behavior of that rock were predefined (i.e. created)?
How does modern science explain where the laws that govern the properties of the rock came from? What about the constant c, representing the speed of light? Did that really come from nowhere? And, despite all we know about it, the big bang still doesn't make any sense. Why is it that the universe is not only still expanding, but actually accelerating? If it were an explosion it would be slowing down. I'm also still waiting for someone to show me what dark matter is and where it came from. Could that just be another word for God?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28860
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassApologies for the Wiki cut and paste but I like Syksy Räsänen's model, which negates the need for dark matter involvement:
Why is it that the universe is not only still expanding, but actually accelerating? If it were an explosion it would be slowing down. I'm also still waiting for someone to show me what dark matter is and where it came from. Could that just be another word for God?
"The backreaction conjecture, where the rate of expansion is not homogenous, but we are in a region where expansion is faster than the background. Inhomogeneities in the early universe cause the formation of walls and bubbles, where the inside of a bubble has less matter than on average. According to general relativity, space is less curved than on the walls, and thus appears to have more volume and a higher expansion rate. In the denser regions, the expansion is retarded by a higher gravitational attraction. Therefore, the inward collapse of the denser regions looks the same as an accelerating expansion of the bubbles, leading us to conclude that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate."
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassI'll admit that as a humble human, I have no idea why the laws of nature are what they are. While that could be a deity, I personally don't believe so. That being said, we should look at evidence as we understand it as objectively as possible. No evidence supports a deity, no evidence debunks it, so it becomes a moot point because both sides are on equal ground. That's leaving out religious dogma and doctrine and assuming a purely scientific point of view.
Since chaney is probably watching Looney Tunes cartoons right now, I will play devil's advocate.
I will first concede that it is not possible to prove the existence of God through science. Faith and fact don't mix. But, given the precision and seemingly random physical laws that guide our universe, it is clearly possible that something created it.
Of ...[text shortened]... to show me what dark matter is and where it came from. Could that just be another word for God?
In short, while I'm not a theist, I'm open to the concept of design if evidence comes to light within my lifetime. I am, however, not open to dogma and doctrine, I believe it clouds judgement and assigns arbitrary values and rules to arbitrary things. That's just my piece on that unrelated topic.
To answer your closing question, yes, it could be a god. But it could also be any number of other things. For all we know, the universe came to be last Thursday or it's all an illusion. Again, an unrelated topic.
Allow me to thank you for your well thought out and intelligently structured post by the way.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by MarshallPriceActually no, the two sides are most definitely NOT on equal ground.
No evidence supports a deity, no evidence debunks it, so it becomes a moot point because both sides are on equal ground.
It is always the more specific claim that is more likely to be wrong when there is no evidence of any kind. Occams razor is, to some extent, about that.
One person says 'the universe was made by a deity'.
Another one says 'the universe was made by a deity that has three fingers on his left hand'.
They are not on equal ground.The second one is far more likely to be wrong. Even if the first one add the condition 'the deity does not have three fingers on his left hand', he remains more likely to be right.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI worded that a bit oddly, I was meaning more that since both sides can argue all day without making headway in either direction due to the lack of clear evidence, one can say that it becomes a stalemate. Of course, the burden of proof is on the positive claim, meaning it's up to IDers to support it and not others to debunk it. I apologize, I didn't properly proofread my post and catch that I left out a big chunk of thought while also incorrectly wording it.
Actually no, the two sides are most definitely NOT on equal ground.
It is always the more specific claim that is more likely to be wrong when there is no evidence of any kind. Occams razor is, to some extent, about that.
One person says 'the universe was made by a deity'.
Another one says 'the universe was made by a deity that has three fingers on ...[text shortened]... on 'the deity does not have three fingers on his left hand', he remains more likely to be right.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne could argue, were he still playing Devil's advocate, that Occam's razor actually supports the existence of a Creator on these grounds. To say that "the universe was made by a Deity" very succintly explains where all the laws of the Universe came from. All you have to explain is where the Deity comes from (and of course, all the matter). But if "the universe was made by nothing" then you have to explain what nothing is, and how it is possible that nothing knew all the laws of the Universe. In this context, nothing is more complicated.
Actually no, the two sides are most definitely NOT on equal ground.
It is always the more specific claim that is more likely to be wrong when there is no evidence of any kind. Occams razor is, to some extent, about that.
One person says 'the universe was made by a deity'.
Another one says 'the universe was made by a deity that has three fingers on ...[text shortened]... on 'the deity does not have three fingers on his left hand', he remains more likely to be right.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassActually no.
One could argue, were he still playing Devil's advocate, that Occam's razor actually supports the existence of a Creator on these grounds. To say that "the universe was made by a Deity" very succintly explains where all the laws of the Universe came from. All you have to explain is where the Deity comes from (and of course, all the matter). But if "the uni ...[text shortened]... le that nothing knew all the laws of the Universe. In this context, nothing is more complicated.
Firstly, I do not claim that the universe was made by nothing, nor do I think anyone else would. I rather claim that I do not know how the universe came about (and that nobody else does either).
But even if we had the choice between 'deity' and 'nothing' I fail to see how the deity claim is less specific. To say that the universe was created by a deity doesn't explain anything that much, but Occams razor is not about finding something that provides an explanation, it is about specificity of claims and whether or not claims are necessary and sufficient. Occams razor would boil it down to 'creator' not 'deity' as 'deity' contains properties not necessary for creation. But even then, you would need some sort of evidence for a creation to justify that, and the existence of laws is not evidence in its favour.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhitehead"Occams razor is not about finding something that provides an explanation, it is about specificity of claims and whether or not claims are necessary and sufficient."
Actually no.
Firstly, I do not claim that the universe was made by nothing, nor do I think anyone else would. I rather claim that I do not know how the universe came about (and that nobody else does either).
But even if we had the choice between 'deity' and 'nothing' I fail to see how the deity claim is less specific. To say that the universe was create ...[text shortened]... vidence for a creation to justify that, and the existence of laws is not evidence in its favour.
Maybe, then, I don't understand Occam's razor very well. I thought it was a logical system for explaining things by breaking down different arguments, weeding out the assumptions, and assigning the simpler explanation as more likely to be true. By your definition, the claims are necessary and sufficient for what? Isn't it required to first compare multiple possible explanations? If there is no counter-argument then maybe this is not the right logical test.
As it pertains to this discussion, the question revolves around where the physical definitions that govern our Universe came from. I think it is a fair question to ask: What explains their existence? Maybe only the watch was "created" but there has to be some explanation for how the rock came to be and how the physical forces acting on that rock were defined. Given our current understanding of the Universe and its guiding principles, I am not arguing that the existence of physical laws is evidence of creation, only that creation is the simplest explanation.
08 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassIf there are two very different explanations for a phenomenon, Occams razor won't help you. Occams razor helps when you have a complex explanation that contains parts that are actually not necessary to explain the phenomena. Occams razor cuts them out.
Maybe, then, I don't understand Occam's razor very well. I thought it was a logical system for explaining things by breaking down different arguments, weeding out the assumptions, and assigning the simpler explanation as more likely to be true. By your definition, the claims are necessary and sufficient for what? Isn't it required to first compare multiple ...[text shortened]... ble explanations? If there is no counter-argument then maybe this is not the right logical test.
As it pertains to this discussion, the question revolves around where the physical definitions that govern our Universe came from. I think it is a fair question to ask: What explains their existence?
It is a fair question to ask, but one that cannot be answered at this time. Absent any evidence, no explanation is 'the best' but more specific explanations are less likely to be true than less specific ones. Competing ones are less easy to judge.
Given our current understanding of the Universe and its guiding principles, I am not arguing that the existence of physical laws is evidence of creation, only that creation is the simplest explanation.
And I am arguing that it is not, in any way simpler that saying 'I don't know'. Nor is it simpler than saying 'it came from something previous'. Nor is it simpler than saying 'time is finite' and 'came from' is incoherent'.
So no, it is not the simplest explanation.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAbsolutely! I didn't read this thread as a view of the facts, but as a philosophical discussion on the origin of matter and physical laws. Unfortunately chaney let us down with the asinine "pieces of human organs" argument.
I think ultimately there must necessarily be some brute facts.
But I am fascinated with determinism. I read a piece in the Atlantic titled "There is no such thing as free will" that presented a potentially pseudoscientific argument as to why everything since the big bang was predetermined: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
The argument is that if you knew everything about the properties of the universe, then you could have predicted that I would be typing this sentence at this particular time. It is true that these properties are fixed and universal and immutable. Theoretically everything should be predictable. Unfortunately there is no logical way to test this.
I ultimately reject the overall hypothesis but I still spent a great deal of time thinking about the premise. A single human neuron is exquisitely incomprehensibly complex. Billions of neurons exist in every human and there have been 100 billion humans on earth. It cannot be possible that the firing of every synapse in every neuron in every human throughout time could be predictable. Right?
Quantum mechanics accepts a certain degree of randomness in the behavior of matter, but could this just be an incomplete understanding of their properties?
09 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wildgrassThis is actually a completely different topic from anything I have discussed so far in this thread.
Quantum mechanics accepts a certain degree of randomness in the behavior of matter, but could this just be an incomplete understanding of their properties?
At the current point in time it is unknown whether or not the universe it deterministic. My understanding is that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle essentially rule out the possibility of us humans ever predicting it.
On a side note, I find it interesting that most laws of physics work both ways and one both 'predicts' the past as well as the future. The past is just more easily determined but not perfectly so, hence the two slit experiment. Running the universe backwards into the the past is not deterministic. There are more than one yesterdays that could have lead to today, and many more tomorrows that could lead from today. Time arises solely from this discrepancy in predicting power. If tomorrow were more predictable, you would remember bits of it and causation would start to run backwards through time as well as forwards.
Free will, is separate issue from determinism. The problem with free will is the majority of people have never thought it through and hold an incoherent view of what free will is. Those that have thought it through often come up with a version that is compatible with both determinism or non-determinism. It is certainly essential before any serious discussion on the topic to discuss the definition so that we all understand what is being talked about.
As for the origin on the universe, my view is either time is infinite and it has no 'origin' or time is finite and talk of 'before' is meaningless. I find it unnecessary and somewhat full of pitfalls to posit an external timeline in which the universe was 'created' and in which causation holds etc. After all, why would any of the same rules apply in such an external timeline? Why would even time exist in such an external timeline? Its a case of us applying our intuition about objects in our current universe to the universe as a whole, which is, I believe, invalid. (what is often called a 'category error' )
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by wildgrassActually I read this thread as a study in psychology. I am trying to understand why people like chaney prefer to make a fool of themselves rather than admit that they got something wrong. I am curious as to whether they genuinely think they are 'winning' by stubbornly insisting on a view everyone knows is nonsensical. I am also curious as to whether the anonymity of the internet plays a role or if they behave the same way in real life. Or maybe they can get away with it easier in real life and the problem is that online, it doesn't work out as they expected.
I didn't read this thread as a view of the facts, but as a philosophical discussion on the origin of matter and physical laws. Unfortunately chaney let us down with the asinine "pieces of human organs" argument.
09 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe "view everyone agrees with" is that science does NOT know origin, nor many other things. Science does much much guessing.....but don't call it guessing...they call it theory.
Actually I read this thread as a study in psychology. I am trying to understand why people like chaney prefer to make a fool of themselves rather than admit that they got something wrong. I am curious as to whether they genuinely think they are 'winning' by stubbornly insisting on a view everyone knows is nonsensical. I am also curious as to whether the a ...[text shortened]... ith it easier in real life and the problem is that online, it doesn't work out as they expected.
Design makes more sense than the alternative you LACK to give.
Why does your sister believe in God?