1 of 2
1
Science Leans More Towards God?
Posted: 25 April 2010 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2006-05-28

The question really boils down to one of two positions. Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.

The consensus of science, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and astrophysics is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point. Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion. And according to astronomers, it’s all still moving today.

Newton’s law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe’s matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural. Therefore, it was a supernatural force that acted upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.

Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates “ex nihilo nihil fit” which means out of nothing, nothing comes. IOW, things don’t simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something. Therefore, if the universe did indeed have a beginning as science demands, then there is a logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2010 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2006-05-28

Come on guys.  I always considered myself an Atheist, but this explanation by a theist to me made me really think.  Can you really smart guys make my uncertainty go away by disproving this argument, please?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2010 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2008-08-14

Apparently, things CAN pop into existence…

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

So perhaps the Universe is some sort of quantum fluctuation on a cosmological level. At any rate, whatever gaps may exist in our understanding of the origin of the Universe should not be plugged with unproven assumptions of supernatural beings. Or one may ask, “What caused the supernatural power/being that caused the Universe?” Furthermore, the discomfort of admitting not having the ultimate answer to the Universe should not be replaced with the false comfort of an answer which appeals to our spiritual longings. The burden of proof is still on theists to provide unambigous evidence of their claims.

Ron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2010-04-28

I, too, can think of two logical alternatives, one being that the universe has always existed (Which appears to have been more or less dismissed - perhaps I should consult my local physicist about that^^ ).
The other being that it began. Period.
Why does the latter necessitate a supernatural power? This to me, does not seem like solving the problem, but like shifting it: From the origin of the universe to the origin of a creator.
At the level of the creator, the same question comes up again: Has this entity alway existed or does he have a beginning?
So, it would be more parsimonious to not postulate such an entity behind or before the Universe, but try to decide this question at the level of the Universe – of which we can more easily assume that it exists – or can’t we? (Sorry, if I am a bit redundant, not sure if this is too similar to Ron’s point.)
While we’re at it: What sense does the concept of a “before” make when the concept of time does not “yet” apply without a Universe? When it comes to the Big Bang my imagination kind of fails me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2006-05-28

I appreciate the responses guys, but you still haven’t helped me be able to argue against the guys point.  His argument based on Newton’s law of motion…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Mulaka - 28 April 2010 03:34 PM

I appreciate the responses guys, but you still haven’t helped me be able to argue against the guys point.  His argument based on Newton’s law of motion…


Not really. It’s actually based upon the presumption of the alleged “supernatural”, which is a nonsensical concept—in this case an attempt to arbitrarily impose an incoherent (but traditional) concept of God. He can posit that some force acted upon the seed of the universe, but there’s absolutely no basis for presuming it’s somehow “outside of nature”, which doesn’t make sense in any case. Another dimension? Sure. But outside of nature is effectively saying “outside of existence”.

Bottom line, we don’t seem to be wired so we can process or really understand infinities. God always seems to show up when people inclined to think that way (theists, generally) try to wrestle with the really big side of infinities. It’s curious God never (or rarely) seems to make a showing on the really small scale—the God Particle. We do no better trying to conceptualize of a particle that’s made up solely of itself—an absolute singularity of substance. This suggests to me, pretty strongly, that, as I said, we’re just not wired so we can really understand such things—at least not as yet. Questions like “What’s beyond space if the universe is finite?” and “What’s inside a particle that’s made up of nothing but itself? What’s the stuff of its substance?” just don’t really compute. That means we have some potentially unanswerable questions. It doesn’t mean either the really big infinity or the really small one must point to a god merely because we don’t have an answer for the question related to them.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2010 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2008-08-14

Newton’s laws of motion (so far as I know) do not apply to the quantum world. And all indications are that the Big Bang started out as some sort of quantum (or “pre”-quantum) event. The physics that we are familiar with now breaks down in the incredible extremes that existed in the singularity. None of the fundamental forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear, etc.) even existed then, but were created in, or shortly after, the BB. So the Newton argument doesn’t hold water. But even if it did, it still doesn’t prove a God. It just means that “something” exerted a force. Your theist friend has his work cut out for him.

Ron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2010 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2010-04-28
Mikehardly - 18 June 2010 11:00 AM

at one point in time before time existed

Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
(Althoug I find myself incapable of imagining that there is my time - it’s a notion that totally goes against human intuition, but that doesn’t mean there necessarily has to have been a before)


My local physicist tells me the following:

We don’t know if it makes any sense to talk of something “before” the Big Bang. We cannot make any statements concerning the time before some 10^(-43) seconds afer the Big Bang. (That thing in brackets is supposed to be an exponent, so that’s an extremely tiny amount of time.)He further says that this is an impossiblility to make those statements and that there can be no measurements.


So, there seems to be noone available who really knows.

(I’m afraid I can’t really judge what he says, so if anyone does actually know more, tell us).

The sad thing about this is that a lot of people will probably see this as an invitation to speculate or fabulate- like the religious who have their own stories about the beginning of the world.

[ Edited: 18 June 2010 08:17 AM by yoolyaV]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Mulaka - 25 April 2010 11:10 AM

The question really boils down to one of two positions. Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.

How do you figure the question boils down to only those two positions? When you die and decompose, you’re not going to resemble your former physical self in the slightest except on a molecular/elemental level (ie, `the stuff of the universe’).

How do you figure that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter?  You haven’t provided the first iota of scientific and logical proof. You’ve only proved the basis for religious invention. Nonsense!

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2010 10:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
yoolyaV - 18 June 2010 11:18 AM

The sad thing about this is that a lot of people will probably see this as an invitation to speculate or fabulate- like the religious who have their own stories about the beginning of the world.


They just have to be a bit selective regarding which paradoxes and infinities to consider and which to ignore ... and they certainly have to ignore the very real possibility we have the mechanical brain power (or structure) to get our heads around such things (we apparently don’t—contemplating such ideas is actually a way to get a very short term high, the physiology of which I’m kinda curious about—Do we kinda overload a fuse or something?).

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07

There’s utterly nothing new in this supposed argument.  Even if there is a “pre-existent force”—there is nothing to suppose it’s supernatural, or still extant, or eternal, or divine, or intelligent, or certainly any of these myriad fictions that have been labeled “god”.

Further more, how is it that this presumed entity is exempted from the laws that are being used to outlaw any naturally occurring reason?  If it’s impossible to suppose the natural universe is eternal, then it’s just as impossible to assume the same of the “thing” (whatever it is meant to be).

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2010 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

This guy is following a recognizable pattern: “Hi folks, I’m an atheist just like you but I’m having trouble answering this theistic argument XXXXXXXX.  Can you help me out?”  Then, no matter what the response, there is a follow-up: “No, really, you haven’t given a rebuttal that I can use yet, help!”  And so on.  Just a troll.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2010 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Seems pretty likely ... yeah. The OP definitely raises some red flags and so do the follow-ups so far, but as long as there’s at least some reasonable room for doubt ...

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2006-05-28

Burt and SkepticX,

Your last posts are not very fair.  I posted this question in April.  It had a couple responses and then nobody posted anything until the middle of June.  Why do you think I would have posted anything more?  No one was answering me.  I have read through this whole thread and you still haven’t given me a solid way to answer this guy, so I have avoided him, and I personally feel conflicted because his statements make sense to me.

How about instead of wrongly accusing me of being a troll and dancing around the question, you guys post within a few days some logical responses instead of BS’ing and then not posting anything for two months.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1587
Joined  2006-10-20

How about this, Mulaka? 

1. If some force had to start the whole Big Bang and science doesn’t know what it is then leave it at that and don’t explain the ignorance with “God did it.”  Believers are noteworthy for moving the goal posts when their “God did it” crap is answered with a natural explanation, just ask Galileo.

2. Another answer is the Infinite Regression argument.  If God did it, then, according to Newton’s law, something had to start God because God couldn’t start itself.  What was it?  A different god?  Whatever you do, don’t ask, “Why did God create the universe?” because that affirms the existence of God nor will you get an answer from empirical proof but rather blatant speculation of being able to read God’s mind.

3. What evidence is there of the “God did it” explanation?  Usually the evidence is ignorance, but ignorance is not evidence of God.

4. Just because science answers with “I don’t know” does not mean or give credence to “God did it” nor is science discredited by admitting ignorance.  “God did it” is blindly jumping a gap of ignorance to an unprovable conclusion.

The only time the “God did it” explanation works is for insurance claims, but even “Acts of God” really mean “natural forces”.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2010 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Mulaka - 01 August 2010 08:03 PM

Burt and SkepticX,

Your last posts are not very fair.


You’d prefer I not advocate that you should get the burden of the doubt here?

Maybe you just weren’t reading very carefully ... ?

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed