On the Sixth Day, God Made the Dinosaurs

[Retro Rob]

It can also be said that the pinnacle of arrogance is to create conscious beings so they can worship the creator.

I will agree that many gods were created for this very reason, but the consesus was, even well before modern science, that we haven't always been. I guess that science has finally caught up with religion is this regard.

I was reading a Stephen Hawking speech in which he stated that many people were uncomfortable with the universe having a beginning because it implied the existence of a supernatural being [Emphasis Mine]

If this isn't close-minded bias, I don't know what is.

 

[sandorski]

Well, what I'm saying is that its the pinnacle of arrogance and irrationality to say "well, there's no need for a creator - so he/she/ it didn't do this, and there's equally no evidence that something comes form nothing", but then use math to attempt to explain the latter. There is ample evidence that things are made from existing materials.

Any scientist who attempts to explain something from nothing is equally as faith-based and foolish as the theists some of them like to criticize.

No Scientist states something comes from nothing. At least, not the "nothing" you are talking about.

 

[Retro Rob]

No Scientist states something comes from nothing. At least, not the "nothing" you are talking about.

Yeah, I was referring to complete nothing, completely empty void. I can't even comprehend that, to be honest.

It seems you'd be referring to this?

 

[Bitek]

I'm sure it happens, because we are all humans, and humans can be irrational. But it's not the norm, and it's not something that lasts very long in science, as you said. That lies in stark contrast to religion, where irrational beliefs persist for centuries. So while I can't dispute the claim, I don't see that it really matters -- it's somewhat tautological that there would be some irrationality in a field as long and broad as science, but it is not representative of the field as a whole.



I've read his objections, and everything I've seen suggests that you have things backwards. He did not object to the Big Bang on the basis that because it resembled creation myths it had to be wrong. He objected to it because he considered it scientifically unsound in the same manner as religious arguments are.

To wit:


Emphasis mine.



Provide some sources and I'll consider it.



Sorry, you're trying to shift the burden of proof here.

I fully accept that Hoyle could have had personal bias. I just won't accept that he did have personal bias on this issue until you provide some evidence to back up that claim.

It happens quite a lot in academia. In fact one could argue the system is setup to create hardheaded defenders of personally created bodies of work. Even when the evidence is strongly against them.

In one way its critical to have people like this. Without a considerable amount of thick skin and faith in ones own work, many scientists would be pressured into conformity under heavy peer scrutiny. Science needs scientists who are both logical and dogmatically ruthless.

Otoh, this does leave some scientists defending ideas that are way past their prime.in the end the system works as these people are discredited and discounted. The recent debacle with Rogoff-Reinhart is a great example. Note they are still defending their work, but the academic community has discredited them as fools.

It's this intense self scrutiny that weeds bad ideas out rather quickly and separates science from religion.

 

[sandorski]

Yeah, I was referring to complete nothing, completely empty void. I can't even comprehend that, to be honest.

It seems you'd be referring to this?

more or less

 

[PowerEngineer]

I think that the prejudice is toward a Creator -- to the point of trying to throw math in there to prove that something comes from nothing.

I haven't seen any evidence the Universe came from nothing.

I think you might have meant to say "against" rather than "toward", but I'll agree that how people approach scientific reasoning/thought is often prejudiced by their beliefs about a creator in both directions. As I stated earlier, these prejudices are hopefully filtered out over time through the feedback loop of continuous testing and correction.

I'd like to hear what evidence you have seen that the universe came from something. 😉

Well, what I'm saying is that its the pinnacle of arrogance and irrationality to say "well, there's no need for a creator - so he/she/ it didn't do this, and there's equally no evidence that something comes form nothing", but then use math to attempt to explain the latter. There is ample evidence that things are made from existing materials.

Any scientist who attempts to explain something from nothing is equally as faith-based and foolish as the theists some of them like to criticize.

I understand that you are particularly irked by the views expressed by Stephen Hawking, but the point he is trying to make is that there's enough of a scientific explanation for everything in the universe (from beginning to now) to not require some miraculous supernatural intervention to account for anything. This isn't saying that we haven't gotten some of it wrong; we have (but we will correct it). It's saying that everything about the universe seems to fall within the realm of what science can explain with increasing accuracy as time goes on.

It is saying that the existence of the universe does not require a creator (i.e. the universe is not proof that a creator exists). It does not prove that a creator does not exist.

Math seems to set the boundaries for what science can attempt to explain. I have my doubts about anyone being able to push our explanations of the universe into time (if there was time) before the "big bang", but I look forward to seeing the results of their efforts. It may turn out that they can't do it, but trying to do it is not "foolish" IMHO.

I will agree that many gods were created for this very reason, but the consesus was, even well before modern science, that we haven't always been. I guess that science has finally caught up with religion is this regard.

I was reading a Stephen Hawking speech in which he stated that many people were uncomfortable with the universe having a beginning because it implied the existence of a supernatural being [Emphasis Mine]

If this isn't close-minded bias, I don't know what is.

I think you flipped the meaning of ch33zw1z's post, in which he suggested that a god that created beings (like us?) solely to receive worship from them was on that pinnacle of arrogance. Do you really mean to suggest that we created our gods?

Stephen Hawking's admission that a steady-state bias existed isn't very surprising. Einstein included a non-zero value for the "universal constant" in general relativity for this same reason. The point that should impress you is that these biases, even when promulgated by the most respected experts in their fields, can't stand up for long against the feedback loop of continuous testing and correction.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you might have meant to say "against" rather than "toward", but I'll agree that how people approach scientific reasoning/thought is often prejudiced by their beliefs about a creator in both directions. As I stated earlier, these prejudices are hopefully filtered out over time through the feedback loop of continuous testing and correction.

I'd like to hear what evidence you have seen that the universe came from something. 😉

Thanks for the good responses.

Well, the evidence that I can present that the Universe can come from something, in this case something more complex, is that everything I know in life -- from a pencil to a car engine -- was produced by a complex being... a human.

This is not to say "God did it", but it is just to show my rationale behind it - that's all.

I understand that you are particularly irked by the views expressed by Stephen Hawking, but the point he is trying to make is that there's enough of a scientific explanation for everything in the universe (from beginning to now) to not require some miraculous supernatural intervention to account for anything. This isn't saying that we haven't gotten some of it wrong; we have (but we will correct it). It's saying that everything about the universe seems to fall within the realm of what science can explain with increasing accuracy as time goes on.

I get that, however, we can't say for sure... scientifically. All science can measure is what they see and can observe -- what irks me is when it attempts to deal with something they cannot hope to test becasue it falls well beyond natural forces -- the supernatural. On this basis alone, science cannot say that the supernatural "can't" happen. Why? Well, can they prove this in a lab? They can speak to the improbability -- other than that, it becomes faith-based.

It's logical to simply not accept a creator looking at this from their angle, but to say a Creator isn't required when creatorship is demonstrable here on Earth and required to make our life the way it is, isn't scientific at all.. IMHO. This much is observable. I think it's irrational to say that every structure on this planet required a builder or maker, but the Unverise doesn't. I can't reconcile that.

It is saying that the existence of the universe does not require a creator (i.e. the universe is not proof that a creator exists). It does not prove that a creator does not exist.

I think creation is evidence of a creator. I don't see a well-built home and think it came via natural causes.

I think you flipped the meaning of ch33zw1z's post, in which he suggested that a god that created beings (like us?) solely to receive worship from them was on that pinnacle of arrogance. Do you really mean to suggest that we created our gods?

Oh, we've created gods. Do you think money is treated as a god by some people? I sure do! 😛

Stephen Hawking's admission that a steady-state bias existed isn't very surprising. Einstein included a non-zero value for the "universal constant" in general relativity for this same reason. The point that should impress you is that these biases, even when promulgated by the most respected experts in their fields, can't stand up for long against the feedback loop of continuous testing and correction.

I've seen SS get torn down, but I know humans are not easily changed -- espeically those alive during the 20th centrury that are still alive today and are working in the field of science who were proponets of the SS theory.

I think a religious bias is still alive and well in the community, though. Look at the many books by prominent Atheists in the field of Biology etc. Nothing's really changed, IMO.

 

[bshole]

I understand that you are particularly irked by the views expressed by Stephen Hawking, but the point he is trying to make is that there's enough of a scientific explanation for everything in the universe (from beginning to now) to not require some miraculous supernatural intervention to account for anything.

What was there 1 trillion years before the big bang? What was there 1 quadrillion years before that? What was there a googleplex years before that? How can there be real no beginning to all of this? Science doesn't have a prayer of answering this. Humans will never know and never have a clue. I'm dogmatic about my agnosticism, dammit.

Question: What irreparable harm is done to the child and society at large if a fundamentalist christian is allowed to send his own child to a PRIVATE religious school that rejects evolution? It is my understanding that the ONLY clash currently between fundies and science is with respect to the origin of species.

Question: Why is evolution theory more important than reading, writing, computer, math, history, etc? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot interest by evolutionists in government monitoring of these vital subjects in private religious schools.

I went to a private religious school for a few years and I can tell you this, the school I attended was DREADFULLY lacking in math, english and science (chemistry and physics). It was a complete joke academically. I would rather the government force academic standards on the whole spectrum of subjects and give the private religious schools a pass on evolution theory.

PS. I was taught that homosexuality was a sin at the school too (LOL, like God created people who were attracted to other people of the same sex as some kind of cruel joke). I was also taught that when bad things happened, it was the judgement of God on us. Actually all kinds of stuff like this I was taught. I mean it was a fundamentalist Christian school after all.

 

[Timorous]

What was there 1 trillion years before the big bang? What was there 1 quadrillion years before that? What was there a googleplex years before that? How can there be real no beginning to all of this? Science doesn't have a prayer of answering this. Humans will never know and never have a clue. I'm dogmatic about my agnosticism, dammit.

No idea. I doubt there was any 'time' before the big bang at all. Based on the evidence we have there is no such thing as before the big bang. It breaks relativity for there to be time before the big bang. There are mathematical models that suggest how it started but there is no evidence to support those models currently and there may never be any evidence for them. Besides the closer you get the the singularity the slower time travels so could we even ever go back to 0?

I get that, however, we can't say for sure... scientifically. All science can measure is what they see and can observe -- what irks me is when it attempts to deal with something they cannot hope to test becasue it falls well beyond natural forces -- the supernatural. On this basis alone, science cannot say that the supernatural "can't" happen. Why? Well, can they prove this in a lab? They can speak to the improbability -- other than that, it becomes faith-based.

Here are the problems I have with supernatural explanations.

1) If the supernatural itself cannot be detected but the effects can be then it is interacting with our reality and as such it is probable we will eventually detect what causes the effect and it then becomes natural. I guess Dark Matter might fall into this category but we don't call it supernatural just because we cannot explain what causes the effects we see.

2) If the supernatural cannot be detected and the effects cannot be detected then it is not even interacting with our reality and as such even if it might exist it makes no difference to us so for all intents and purposes it does not exist. To me the idea of something that is beyond nature is a nonsense, either it exists in our reality and is part of nature or it does not.

If you argue to say that the supernatural exists outside of nature but can have an effect on it then I would respond by saying that our concept of what is natural would need to be expanded to explain any new discoveries we might make in this area.

 

[bshole]

No Scientist states something comes from nothing. At least, not the "nothing" you are talking about.

If that is true, then how can something exist forever and not have a beginning? Those are your choices, either "something" came from "nothing" or "something" has always existed, neither one makes a lick of sense.

 

[Quantos]

It's logical to simply not accept a creator looking at this from their angle, but to say a Creator isn't required when creatorship is demonstrable here on Earth and required to make our life the way it is, isn't scientific at all.. IMHO. This much is observable. I think it's irrational to say that every structure on this planet required a builder or maker, but the Unverise doesn't. I can't reconcile that.

I think creation is evidence of a creator. I don't see a well-built home and think it came via natural causes.

Extrapolating from this idea, though, everything would need to have been built by the creator. Is that really the case? Wouldn't you agree that some processes just... happen? Let's concentrate on the Earth. Removing all human life from its surface does not stop creation taking place. Mountain ranges are created by plate tectonics, the flow of water and wind carve rivers and smooth rocks and mountains, etc.

Following the same idea, two creators would be possible. Either one that actively created (and perhaps still creates) everything, by itself, or one that only created the beginning, from which all further creation sprouts (essentially a "big bang" exnihilator). While the first scenario includes such things as creationism, which I do not agree with in the slightest due to lack of evidence, the latter is actually logical in itself. It is logical, and philosophically proven that a creator is needed, whatever it is, at the very least to start a chain reaction.

To me, the rational to reach this conclusion is not based on faith, though.

 

[werepossum]

If that is true, then how can something exist forever and not have a beginning? Those are your choices, either "something" came from "nothing" or "something" has always existed, neither one makes a lick of sense.

I have a difficult time with those concepts as well, but there are three possible solutions. Either G-d (being inherently outside our understanding and the laws of physics) created the universe, or the universe sprang into being through a natural process outside our understanding and therefore also outside the laws of physics as we know them. It's worth noting that for all practical purposes except salvation, either solution is functionally the same. The third possibility is that time is a true dimension and before the universe's spontaneous self-creation, none of our four common dimensions existed, thus removing the inconsistency in believing that the universe either existed forever or spontaneously self-created from nothing. That seems completely illogical and altogether unlikely to me, not to mention disturbingly convenient, but then my understanding is inherently limited by the four-dimensional reality in which I gained awareness. I don't even have the tools to know if those few super-intelligent physicists/mathematicians who can think beyond these common limitations are truly transcendent geniuses or merely self-deluding geniuses.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And I'd love to debate that with you, but I can't find any evidence to support the claims you are making, and you don't seem to want to provide them yourself. *shrug*

It was impossible from a practical POV to do much while working and using a phone, but others have brought up points addressing the issue.

Getting back to fundamental scientific concepts and theories, the Big Bang (or variants of it) create conceptual difficulties which I'm not sure we will be able to overcome. We can speculate but it sets a limit on how far we can go back. We can create models which we can test, the CBR being a prime example, but human minds don't grasp concepts like what happened before time. If the universe is cyclic then there was a "before" but that information was lost, which presents problems in itself. Then we have the "many worlds" concept which states that all possible outcomes are actualized, but when they are all but one is perceived. Even weirder is that those universes split off with another copy of ourselves. Completely uneconomical, but it works as a theory. How do you test for things which are inaccessible by nature? Science is great for knowing that which can be known, but that doesn't mean we can know all that there is. It's fun!

 

[fskimospy]

I get that, however, we can't say for sure... scientifically. All science can measure is what they see and can observe -- what irks me is when it attempts to deal with something they cannot hope to test becasue it falls well beyond natural forces -- the supernatural. On this basis alone, science cannot say that the supernatural "can't" happen. Why? Well, can they prove this in a lab? They can speak to the improbability -- other than that, it becomes faith-based.

You can't prove a negative, but saying that there is no evidence for the supernatural isn't about faith, it's about evidence.

It's logical to simply not accept a creator looking at this from their angle, but to say a Creator isn't required when creatorship is demonstrable here on Earth and required to make our life the way it is, isn't scientific at all.. IMHO. This much is observable. I think it's irrational to say that every structure on this planet required a builder or maker, but the Unverise doesn't. I can't reconcile that.

It's definitely scientific; there is no evidence for a creator. Furthermore, any god we might think up to solve the creation of matter problem suffers from all the same first cause issues that matter does, only he's much more complex so it is an even bigger problem. There is no argument that can be made about matter that can't be made about a god. The only way out of it is to simply declare god supernatural and therefore outside of the rules of the game, but that's just an arbitrary decision. Why not just declare the initial creation of matter as outside the rules of the game and save a lot of time?

 

[Retro Rob]

Extrapolating from this idea, though, everything would need to have been built by the creator. Is that really the case? Wouldn't you agree that some processes just... happen? Let's concentrate on the Earth. Removing all human life from its surface does not stop creation taking place. Mountain ranges are created by plate tectonics, the flow of water and wind carve rivers and smooth rocks and mountains, etc.

I am not really comfortable with the idea that something just happened, but good thoughts, though!

If I were to say everything was built by a creator, this isn't to say the creator personally builds everything. It simply means he put the things in place, and ultimately deserves the credit.

For example, a CEO doesn't personally write all the software his company uses. If he has an idea, he passes it down to be implemented by the programmers, who in turn writes it, and if it makes the company millions, then who gets the credit for coming up with the idea? The CEO, of course.

Going back to the Earth analogy, if this "creator" put all the natural processes in place and lets it take over from there, then we can say he created all things.

Following the same idea, two creators would be possible. Either one that actively created (and perhaps still creates) everything, by itself, or one that only created the beginning, from which all further creation sprouts (essentially a "big bang" exnihilator). While the first scenario includes such things as creationism, which I do not agree with in the slightest due to lack of evidence, the latter is actually logical in itself. It is logical, and philosophically proven that a creator is needed, whatever it is, at the very least to start a chain reaction.

To me, the rational to reach this conclusion is not based on faith, though.

I kinda mix the two, personally. While I do believe a creator started things, I don't believe he's actively "creating". Natural causes are just operating, IMO.

Sorta like when you put an inital copy in the flatbed of a copier, and the machine handles the rest,

 

[Retro Rob]

It's definitely scientific; there is no evidence for a creator. Furthermore, any god we might think up to solve the creation of matter problem suffers from all the same first cause issues that matter does, only he's much more complex so it is an even bigger problem. There is no argument that can be made about matter that can't be made about a god. The only way out of it is to simply declare god supernatural and therefore outside of the rules of the game, but that's just an arbitrary decision. Why not just declare the initial creation of matter as outside the rules of the game and save a lot of time?

First off, thanks.

If there's no evidence of a creator, then there's no evidence of a creator. There's no evidence you can point to that shows I didn't have a passing thought about swimming in the Bahamas just now -- doesn't at all mean I didn't think about it.

If we can't tap into the supernatural, that only means we can't tap into the supernatural.

Since we can't do it now.. or can't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there or that it's undoable - just like asprins would probably have been magical back during the days of Moses, it's a common remedy for headaches and nothing new to us.

I bet people in science of those day would have laughed at the idea of a headache being cured by taking a small pill and a drink of water. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

First off, thanks.

If there's no evidence of a creator, then there's no evidence of a creator. There's no evidence you can point to that shows I didn't have a passing thought about swimming in the Bahamas just now -- doesn't at all mean I didn't think about it.

While a lack of evidence doesn't disprove a creator it also doesn't provide any reason to believe one is there. That's basically the point of the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing. There is also no evidence of a celestial floating teapot, the Greek gods of Olympus, etc, but presumably you don't believe in those. Why not believe in them as well?

If we can't tap into the supernatural, that only means we can't tap into the supernatural.

Since we can't do it now.. or can't see it, doesn't mean it ain't there or that it's undoable - just like asprins would probably have been magical back during the days of Moses, it's a common remedy for headaches and nothing new to us.

I bet people in science of those day would have laughed at the idea of a headache being cured by taking a small pill and a drink of water. :thumbsup:

This is true, but again there's no evidence that suggests such things exist.

 

[shadow9d9]

Not teaching that there could be or is a God is also child abuse, regardless of what anybody says....

That makes absolutely no sense though.

 

[Retro Rob]

While a lack of evidence doesn't disprove a creator it also doesn't provide any reason to believe one is there. That's basically the point of the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing. There is also no evidence of a celestial floating teapot, the Greek gods of Olympus, etc, but presumably you don't believe in those. Why not believe in them as well?

No, the FSM etc is simply a tool used to ridicule religious people -- that's all they're for.

I don't believe in those others gods because I believe that the God of the Bible is real.

When science tries to disprove God by saying life doesn't have a purpose, we don't really have free will because we're subject to the natural laws (actually, Richard Dawkins was saying this) and don't make arbitrary "choices" and hence, that determines what we actually do in life, this is when it becomes anti-god, biased, and faith-based to me. How can they say for sure life doesn't have a purpose? Or, as in the words of Lawrence Krauss: "there is no evidence for purpose, so there's no need for God". What is "evidence of purpose", anyway? And who says purpose is directly linked to a "need for God"?

 

[shadow9d9]

No, the FSM etc is simply a tool used to ridicule religious people -- that's all they're for.

I don't believe in those others gods because I believe that the God of the Bible is real.

When science tries to disprove God by saying life doesn't have a purpose, we don't really have free will because we're subject to the natural laws (actually, Richard Dawkins was saying this) and don't make arbitrary "choices" and hence, that determines what we actually do in life, this is when it becomes anti-god, biased, and faith-based to me. How can they say for sure life doesn't have a purpose? Or, as in the words of Lawrence Krauss: "there is no evidence for purpose, so there's no need for God". What is "evidence of purpose", anyway? And who says purpose is directly linked to a "need for God"?

The FSM has no more or less evidence than your god of choice.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the FSM etc is simply a tool used to ridicule religious people -- that's all they're for.

You realize that it serves to illustrate a point, right? Sure it is mocking religion, but the point remains that every single point you have brought up applies equally well to the FSM. If those arguments work as well for an item as absurd as the FSM, doesn't that say something about the strength of those arguments?

I don't believe in those others gods because I believe that the God of the Bible is real.

When science tries to disprove God by saying life doesn't have a purpose, we don't really have free will because we're subject to the natural laws (actually, Richard Dawkins was saying this) and don't make arbitrary "choices" and hence, that determines what we actually do in life, this is when it becomes anti-god, biased, and faith-based to me. How can they say for sure life doesn't have a purpose? Or, as in the words of Lawrence Krauss: "there is no evidence for purpose, so there's no need for God". What is "evidence of purpose", anyway? And who says purpose is directly linked to a "need for God"?

Presumably you believe there is purpose to life, on what evidence are you basing this? Outside of something written in the bible (which of course is circular reasoning) what would be the basis for believing life has a purpose? All of these positions aren't anti-god or faith based at all, they are just a rejection of theistic claims that have no evidence behind them. If you're claiming a god is the creator of all that is, the burden of proof is on you. I see literally zero evidence for such a construct, so rationally the right move is to reject that hypothesis.

 

[Retro Rob]

You realize that it serves to illustrate a point, right? Sure it is mocking religion, but the point remains that every single point you have brought up applies equally well to the FSM. If those arguments work as well for an item as absurd as the FSM, doesn't that say something about the strength of those arguments?

No it doesn't. If you argue against what I believe, argue on its own merits. If I say "I believe in the God of the Bible", the fallacy is thinking you can equally insert Thor in there. What does Thor have to do with the Bible? Nothing. What does Thor have to do with Christianity? Genetic fallacies follow the same bad logic -- trying to attack a belief system on its origin instead of its merits. It's weak...

This is just a red herring.

Presumably you believe there is purpose to life, on what evidence are you basing this? Outside of something written in the bible (which of course is circular reasoning) what would be the basis for believing life has a purpose? All of these positions aren't anti-god or faith based at all, they are just a rejection of theistic claims that have no evidence behind them. If you're claiming a god is the creator of all that is, the burden of proof is on you. I see literally zero evidence for such a construct, so rationally the right move is to reject that hypothesis.

Having a purpose is as natural as breathing. The burden is on you to prove it isn't. "Why" is as natural a question as there is, which itself, presupposes purpose.

 

[Paul98]

Thanks for the good responses.

Well, the evidence that I can present that the Universe can come from something, in this case something more complex, is that everything I know in life -- from a pencil to a car engine -- was produced by a complex being... a human.

This is not to say "God did it", but it is just to show my rationale behind it - that's all.

Most things aren't created by something more "complex". You take a large amount of the most basic and abundant element in the universe along with gravity and you end up with a star. To get heavier elements you take that same star and gravity for fusion. These elements which are created can later be blasted into space if the star goes supernova. You then have a cloud of elements which are able to combine, you will get lots of compounds including organic compounds.

Or look at weather or other complex systems created because of basic physics.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ekimospy,

You're an atheist, right? If I would challenge on that, would it acceptable of I said the only reason you are one is because you were born to a certain set of parents? If you were raised by my parents, you'd be a Chrstian.

See how that works? It would be a stronger argument to challenge you why instead of based on where you were born or who your parents were.


Or, there is no more evidence that an atheist is right than there is that a Muslim is.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Or, there is no more evidence that an atheist is right than there is that a Muslim is.

Yes, this is exactly right! And when we have no evidence of it either way we take the null hypothesis. Why? Because we know that there are an infinite number of things that are untrue but a finite number of things that are true.
So, if we are presented with something that has absolutely no evidence to determine it's truth we know that it is more likely to be UNTRUE then TRUE.