Faith and Reason Part 2: Questioning what we "know"

[Retro Rob]

Tell you what -- First you show us that life "originated" and THEN we'll worry about who has the best answer for how that happened.


What origin would you have us explain?

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect monkeyed with physics" - Fred Hoyle.

 

[SlowSpyder]

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect monkeyed with physics" - Fred Hoyle.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

Finding quotes by famous people to back up your position isn't difficult, nor does it necessarily mean anything.

 

[Retro Rob]

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

Finding quotes by famous people to back up your position isn't difficult, nor does it necessarily mean anything.

Finding quotes for and against a beginning among scientists shows a HIGH level of uncertainty among them, so a pure atheist is a stupid person, really.

So the "no creator needed" assertion is an ignorant, unscientific argument.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Finding quotes for and against a beginning among scientists shows a HIGH level of uncertainty among them, so a pure atheist is a stupid person, really.

So the "no creator needed" assertion is an ignorant, unscientific argument.

No more so than claiming to know jesus is the son of the one true god and rejecting all other religions/options. You are christian, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

No more so than claiming to know jesus is the son of the one true god and rejecting all other religions/options. You are christian, right?

We're talking about origins here, not religion.

It's not unscientific to say the Universe was created. In fact, I have heard plenty of scientists say "the Big Bang created the Universe", or "stars created humans" (being composed of elements found in stars).

So I can say we were created, and so was the universe, without being unscientific.

What I cannot say, scientifically, is whether that an immaterial being did it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect monkeyed with physics" - Fred Hoyle.

Uh... so? Did you have any evidence or argument? Do you realize that Fred Hoyle rejects the idea of a beginning of the universe? Do you understand that "common sense" ideas are actually found to be completely wrongheaded more often than not when it comes to physics? No, you don't, because you dare not discover the details -- instead you'd rather excerpt some pithy verbiage out of its larger context and without regard for its source because to you it sounds like it says something that supports your preconceived ideas.

Here's a quote for you:

"A facility for quotation covers for the absence of original thought." ~Dorothy Sayers

Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So the "no creator needed" assertion is an ignorant, unscientific argument.

Total bullshit. Without an identifiable origin that is demonstrably without explanation, a creator is not needed. What need does it fill, according to you?

If you are foolhardy enough to begin formulating a response to that question, please keep in mind that explanations describe "how," not "who."

Good luck. You're gonna need it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Uh... so? Did you have any evidence or argument? Do you realize that Fred Hoyle rejects the idea of a beginning of the universe?

Of course he did, until his "Steady State" theory was completely debunked.

He woke up and smelled the evidence. Perhaps you should do the same.

 

[Retro Rob]

Total bullshit. Without an identifiable origin that is demonstrably without explanation, a creator is not needed. What need does it fill, according to you?.

Why do you find something to read? Oh, how about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/index.html

It teaches us something crucial about how our universe began," said Sean Carroll, a physicist at California Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the study. "It's an amazing achievement that we humans, doing science systematically for just a few hundred years, can extend our understanding that far."

Also:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/...g-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=us_bn3

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of course he did, until his "Steady State" theory was completely debunked.

He woke up and smelled the evidence. Perhaps you should do the same.

So is he a reliable authority or not, Rob? You seemed perfectly fine quoting him as an expert of sorts, but then it turns out he didn't really know what he was talking about. Funny, eh?

Maybe that's why science isn't decided by quotations, but rather by evidence. Ever thought of that?

 

[SlowSpyder]

We're talking about origins here, not religion.

It's not unscientific to say the Universe was created. In fact, I have heard plenty of scientists say "the Big Bang created the Universe", or "stars created humans" (being composed of elements found in stars).

So I can say we were created, and so was the universe, without being unscientific.

What I cannot say, scientifically, is whether that an immaterial being did it.

Your religion claims to have the answer to the origins of the heavens and earth.

Tell me how the "creator needed" argument is any better. Right now the best we can do, to my knowledge, is trace back to the big bang. Before time and space, I couldn't tell you want there was or where it came from. But the evidence for a creator is as absent as the evidence for any other option.

What evidence is there that we must have had a creator?

 

[crashtestdummy]

Finding quotes for and against a beginning among scientists shows a HIGH level of uncertainty among them, so a pure atheist is a stupid person, really.

So the "no creator needed" assertion is an ignorant, unscientific argument.

Isaac Newton was obsessed with alchemy. He was brilliant. It didn't make him any less wrong.

Science is not a voting system. Putting a bunch of supposedly smart people in a room to decide a topic doesn't make it a "scientific consensus". Scientific consensus (if it exists at all) is the point at which people stop performing new experiments to challenge a theory because previous attempts have failed to find fault. Even that, though, only means it's accepted until someone comes up with a new test that inevitably contradicts the theory.

Putting up a quote from a scientist is, to me, no more convincing than putting up a quote from the Pope. I'm not interested in who said something, I'm interested in what they said and what evidence they have to support it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why do you find something to read? Oh, how about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/index.html

Quotations are not evidence, Rob. I am more than familiar with this latest discovery. Unfortuantely, it does not demonstrate an origin of the universe like I know you really, really hope it would. The difference is that I understand the evidence, and you only understand popularizations as they are phrased for mass consumption in printed media. Grow up.

Also:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/...g-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=us_bn3

Oh look, another person who jumps to her preferred conclusion without regard for the facts. How unsurprising you should find her.

 

[Retro Rob]

Quotations are not evidence, Rob. I am more than familiar with this latest discovery. Unfortuantely, it does not demonstrate an origin of the universe like I know you really, really hope it would. The difference is that I understand the evidence, and you only understand popularizations as they are phrased for mass consumption in printed media. Grow up.


Oh look, another person who jumps to her preferred conclusion without regard for the facts. How unsurprising you should find her.

You see, I don't need this stuff for me to accept a beginning, this just shows that others can and do.

The universe was the size smaller than an atom, and expanded, cooled enough for stars and planets to form.

Sound like a beginning to me.

 

[alzan]

In a previous thread, we discussed some basic questions relating to God, Science and our way of thinking. The questions we looked at were:

Does every question have one answer that is the truth, even if we don't yet know what that answer is?
Has science disproved anything that is said in the Bible?
Is the Bible infallible? And if it is not, can it be believed?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2331204

I'd like to continue the discussion now that things at work have calmed down a bit.

My next question is:
Can we ever be sure that what we know is the truth?
Is there any way we can positively know anything? If so, how?

1) Yes - but like Douglas Adams I think we have to word the question correctly
2) Yes
3) No - I think it's got some good stories within it and with some good advice (NT) for living, both with yourself and the rest of humanity. I'll leave the believing part for believers.

4) No - I think our own biases cause us to think we're sure of the truth
5) No - but the question is beyond my pay grade

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You see, I don't need this stuff for me to accept a beginning, this just shows that others can and do.

Like I said: you dare not learn the details. Willful ignorance at its finest.

The universe was the size smaller than an atom, and expanded, cooled enough for stars and planets to form.

Do you think things cease to exist when they fall into a black hole? Got any quotes on that subject, genius?

Sound like a beginning to me.

Oh yeah? Where did it not exist?

 

[norseamd]

stars created humans

that means the material we are made of originally came from stars not anything else

 

[alzan]

You see, I don't need this stuff for me to accept a beginning, this just shows that others can and do.

The universe was the size smaller than an atom, and expanded, cooled enough for stars and planets to form.

Sound like a beginning to me.

"Sounds like" is not the same as "is" or "was".

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh yeah? Where did it not exist?

If you want to call a small, dense point "infinite existence", then I can dig that.

However, no planet earth, no humans, no Suns existed in that "point". So your ignorant remark demanding me to:

show us that life "originated" and THEN we'll worry about who has the best answer for how that happened

...is refuted. If life on Earth didn't originate, then the earth didn't originate, and if the Earth had no origin, then planets never "formed", and if the planets never formed, stars never formed, and if stars never formed, the Universe never expanded, and if the Universe never expanded, then the Steady State theory hasn't been refuted.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you think things cease to exist when they fall into a black hole? Got any quotes on that subject, genius?

I have no idea, brohamski. Good question, though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I still don't understand what points to any sort of creator, though. We have a lot of unanswered questions regarding the origins of the universe, but what exactly is evidence of a creator?

 

[Retro Rob]

I still don't understand what points to any sort of creator, though. We have a lot of unanswered questions regarding the origins of the universe, but what exactly is evidence of a creator?

In the case of logic, aren't you a complex being? You can manipulate matter in such a way that you can make a simple plastic bottle, or something as complex as a computer processor by manipulating pre-existing matter.

We look at God the exact same way, manipulating pre-existing matter (the elements making up the "infinitely-existing" universe) and making stars, planets, and humans.

Now, that isn't scientifically provable, but its where we get our logical conclusion, at least. You can say a pink unicorn manipulated matter, or the FSM was drunk in space flinging pasta everywhere (lol), but it doesn't affect the logic, and doesn't prove the hypothesis.

I am not looking to prove God did it because I cannot. If God or the FSM exists, only He/it can furnish proof if its existence since it cannot be proven/disproven using science.

 

[SlowSpyder]

In the case of logic, aren't you a complex being? You can manipulate matter in such a way that you can make a simple plastic bottle, or something as complex as a computer processor by manipulating pre-existing matter.

We look at God the exact same way, manipulating pre-existing matter (the elements making up the "infinitely-existing" universe) and making stars, planets, and humans.

Now, that isn't scientifically provable, but its where we get our logical conclusion, at least. You can say a pink unicorn manipulated matter, or the FSM was drunk in space flinging pasta everywhere (lol), but it doesn't affect the logic, and doesn't prove the hypothesis.

I am not looking to prove God did it because I cannot. If God or the FSM exists, only He/it can furnish proof if its existence since it cannot be proven/disproven using science.

I guess I don't see how that points to a creator of any kind. Everything you said could be the same had we simply crawled out of prehistoric earth goop and evolved over time.

Carl Sagan said something to the effect of us being the universe experiencing itself. I guess that is kind of how I see it. I don't see a need for a creator on the other side of the equal sign for this equation. < shrug >

 

[PowerEngineer]

So the "no creator needed" assertion is an ignorant, unscientific argument.

Says you! Still smarting from what Stephen Hawking said about the universe not needing a creator? Here's a quote from him on god:

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/551152-when-people-ask-me-if-a-god-created-the-universe

Seems like an eminently reasonable argument to me.

Now, that isn't scientifically provable, but its where we get our logical conclusion, at least. You can say a pink unicorn manipulated matter, or the FSM was drunk in space flinging pasta everywhere (lol), but it doesn't affect the logic, and doesn't prove the hypothesis.

I am not looking to prove God did it because I cannot. If God or the FSM exists, only He/it can furnish proof if its existence since it cannot be proven/disproven using science.

And I think this is a much more reasonable statement from you.

I think that you and I (and Stephen Hawking) might all agree that whatever explanation of the universe's evolution that science comes up with (and however it changes with more information), the possibility of something supernatural behind it will never be ruled out. We just have different ideas on the likelihood.

 

[Retro Rob]

And I think this is a much more reasonable statement from you.

I think that you and I (and Stephen Hawking) might all agree that whatever explanation of the universe's evolution that science comes up with (and however it changes with more information), the possibility of something supernatural behind it will never be ruled out. We just have different ideas on the likelihood.

I think it can't be ruled out because science doesn't (shouldn't) operate in absolutes, or then it would become a religion, and wouldn't be open to question.

I find it funny how Hawking can be sure there is no god, but if asked how could he know since he can't technically disprove it, he'd likely say that he cannot see god or measure him by some means, I'd probably give him this to think about:

Dark Matter can neither be seen nor measured, yet, that doesn't mean it cannot exists. Simply put, we can see the effects of it holding our universe together, or what have you, so we can hypothesize from there.

Then I'd ask: What would be the invisible effects of a God? What markers would you expect from a Creator?

I think you have to ask the right questions, and only then can we know how to look for the answers.