2 of 2
2
Science Leans More Towards God?
Posted: 01 August 2010 11:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20
Mulaka - 25 April 2010 11:10 AM

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.

Hold it.  Science doesn’t demand a beginning of the universe, that is squarely in the realm of theology.  Besides, science is aware of the question, “What happened before the Big Bang?”, but they can’t answer that until they get to the moment the Big Bang happened.  Science wants to know the answer, too, but it’s not going to pull an explanation out of its ass just to satisfy your impatience.

Please explain the need for a “logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.”  But before you do you’ll need to empirically prove to universal agreement this god exists before you can credit it with creating the universe.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 04:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

The failure (or refusal) to recognize or accept “I/We don’t know” but rather insisting upon a conclusion, no matter how clearly insufficient the available data, is one of the biggest, most consistent Fed Flags when it comes to religiously motivated/based self-deception and evangelism/apologetics (it’s the best, arguably least fallacious basis for argument religion can muster—well, least fallacious or just the fallacy we’re most prone to fall for). That’s why I said your opening post and follow-ups raised some red flags, and that’s still clearly the case. There’s still plenty of room for the benefit of doubt, though, because that’s not necessarily about having already gotten into the Kool-aid. It’s part of how we’re socialized to think about religion (seems we’re a bit more okay with uncertainties in some other paradigms, but it’s still a major trap for most people—probably all of us to some degree).

 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: 02 August 2010 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  424
Joined  2006-05-28
Skipshot - 01 August 2010 09:22 PM

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”.

Thank you, Sir.  I appreciate it.  I guess I get caught up sometimes to with the “God Gap”.  Still cling sometimes, unconsciously, to my old religion.  Thanks again.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2010 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  558
Joined  2006-11-17
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.

Your position is wrong. Science demonstrates that the universe as we know it began with a rapid expansion of energy and matter, but that is it. Everything before that is merely hypothetical. Physicians have posited a variety of possible explanations of where the matter/energy came from - membrane theory, string theory, multi-verse, etc. The hypothesis that you will not find because it is not mathematically or logically valid is the supernatural hypothesis of god.

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.

The laws of thermodynamics are only valid in a closed system and the universe may not be a closed system. In fact, there is evidence of gravity outside of our universe acting upon one region where there is an unusual amount of mass congregating.

As for the question of what, if anything, triggered the big bang and continues to expand the universe, they remain questions to be answered.

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.

Something that is outside of our universe is not unnatural, if it exists, but is simply outside of our universe. See above where I hit upon dark flow. This could be another universe close to our universe or possibly even the universe that originated ours. Our universe could have begun as an immense black hole from another universe.

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.

See my earlier comments. A supernatural being is not required there are many explanations that are much more realistic and valid. Also, you still have the something from nothing when you posit a god.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2010 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2010-06-26

the question is really more important than the answer.  gods are a fallacious answer because, as so many of you have said before me, what force created the immovable mover?  i don’t understand why an outside force has to act upon matter to create a big bang.  why can’t it be internal pressure?  of course, i’m no physicist—but i’d like to be, eventually.

religion needs answers—it thrives on them, and evangelizes them.  science needs questions that beget answers that beget questions, ad infinitum.  while answers are preferable, they are not absolutely required.  questions lead us to where we need to go, to what we need to know, to how we all must grow.  we need to mature and acknowledge that there are whys that don’t have becauses, at least not yet.  science is working on the whys and the whats and the becauses.  religion is a convenient lapse of judgment and laziness of mental acuity—it is the inventor of faith and dogma; the moving of goalposts one of you described.  creating answers to assuage one’s philosophical discomfort is no real answer.  it’s the parent’s ultimate because answer.  and that’s not an answer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2010 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Mulaka’s argument still holds;  from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics the scientific evidence is that the Universe had a beginning or was created.  Now we can argue whether the creator, the initial force,  god, or whatever you call the force that created the universe, has anything to do with us or with organized religion.  But scientifically the 2nd law is very clear.  Actually there is another side to it; it implies that every time there in an energy transformation, the energy level is conserved, but the level of entropy, and the temperature, raises.  If the Universe had existed eternally, there would be no energy gradient in the Universe, the temperature would be the same everywhere, the level of entropy would have reached its maximum and the universe would have come to a standstill.
Obviously this hasn’t occurred yet and this is because the Universe had a beginning and therefore it was necessarily created.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2010 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2010-09-17
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.

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.

i dont have much to add to this save one observation:

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the position of Stephen Hawking’s new book (and i haven’t even read it in full).  It seems unlikely to me that in writing a book with such a subject with the help of another physicist, that they’d simply overlook Newton’s Law of Motion when organizing their ideas on the matter.

beyond that, carry on, carry on…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2010 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Steve Hawking is no fool to trying to disregard the Second Law of Thermodynamics nor the fact the Universe had a beginning; what he says that in that beginning he doesn’t necessarily see the hand of a God we can relate to.  But the idea of the beginning of the Universe is unquestionable, is scientific evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2010 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

As S. Hawking is brought into this discussion by PUSHapparel, it is interesting what Albert Einstein had to say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”


“Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible”. .........including the Universe’s.

There is no question that the scientific evidence indicates that the Universe had a beginning, and even more precisely it tell us that this happened 13.7 billion years ago.  You may argue that that was the last Big Bang that we are aware of, and that maybe it was a “Bounce” of a previously crunching and exploding universe, but still if this was the case, the number of bounces could not be infinite.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2010 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Sorry for abusing of your patience, but I found very interesting what Richard Dawkins himself had to say about the Second Law of Thermodynamics in an interview to The Guardian back in 2006:


“Nothing violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The great astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it with memorable irony.
“If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

So I think we can all agree from scientific evidence that the Universe had a beginning and therefore an outside force, energy, or whatever we may call it must have caused it.  And certainly it did not occur 10,000 year ago as some people believe;  it happened some 13.7 billion years ago, again, is scientific evidence.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed