Physics and God

[islandclimber]

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.


Erwin Schroedinger


the man who gave us one of, if not the most, important equation in all of science... It is interesting that most physicists, at least well known physicists are theists, or deists, or agnostics... I have said science requires faith many times in this part of the forum, and I believe this... but science does do as said above in helping us live and better understand the universe we live in...

but that does not mean it has to run counter to the idea of god or some form of prime mover/ original creator... most physicists would say that even theories such as the big bang theory and the ripples discovered in 1992 show more evidence for the existence of a creator god than against the existence... just in the fact that something had to get the ball rolling...
for as Frederick Burnham said just after the discovery of the "ripples"

These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years

in any case I just find the link between so many famous and well known physicists and belief in some kind of god/creator to be quite interesting.. here is Dr. Henry Schaefer, a renowned chemist, on atheism and science...

It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, "Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect." Martin Rees, one of Hawking's colleagues at Cambridge, notes the same facts. Rees recently stated "The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences." Science writer extraordinaire Paul Davies adds "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming." Some scientists express surprise at what they view as so many "accidental occurrences." However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.

Against powerful logic, some atheists continue to claim, irrespective of the anthropic constraints, that the universe and human life were created by chance. The main argument seems to be "Since we human beings are here, it must have happened in a purely reductionist manner." This argument strikes me a bit like the apocryphal response of a person waking up in the morning to find an elephant in his or her bedroom. The individual in question concludes that this is no surprise, since the probability of the elephant being in the bedroom is a perfect 100%. Obviously this is a philosophical rather than scientific response to the situation.



interesting, isn't it... so the arguments atheists use against the existence of god, well, for the most part aren't even supported by the people who came up with the theories that allow these arguments to be made.. which coincidentally as said fall into the realm of philosophy and are pretty much absurd and illogical.. there is far and away more evidence for intelligent design in the universe than the opposite.. this is readily apparent in the sheer impossibility of our existence.. the infinitesimal chance that we would exist obviously and logically points to some kind of creator god and some kind of intelligent design, as do scientific theories like the big bang theory...

anyways here is a link to a lecture by Dr Schaefer, take a look, you may find it enlightening...

http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html

I would be interested in any rational discussion on this... if anyone else is interested post away... science and god, link texts, lectures, essays, your own thoughts and ideas.. but please don't come in here with blanket statements with no argument for them.. at least try to explain and lay out your thoughts and ideas and statements... provide us with reasons for what you think, not just I think this because I do... that is not constructive nor enlightening at all... let's have a real discussion here in the religious section...

[DapperDrake]

interesting, isn't it... so the arguments atheists use against the existence of god, well, for the most part aren't even supported by the people who came up with the theories that allow these arguments to be made.. which coincidentally as said fall into the realm of philosophy and are pretty much absurd and illogical..

absurd and illogical? I'm afraid not, nice try but no. The reductionist explanation for our existence and the remarkable fine balancing of physics that allows us to exist is perfectly logical and not in the least bit absurd. Occam's razor tells us it's not absurd and it is, in its own right, purely logical - which is perhaps why people might object to it... How can the explanation for these remarkable things be so simple and logical? - well I'm sorry but in physics that's the hallmark of a correct theory.



there is far and away more evidence for intelligent design in the universe than the opposite.. this is readily apparent in the sheer impossibility of our existence.. the infinitesimal chance that we would exist obviously and logically points to some kind of creator god and some kind of intelligent design, as do scientific theories like the big bang theory..


Evidence? there is none that cannot be satisfactorily explained by a simpler and more plausible theory.
The infinitesimal chance of something not happening does not mean that if it does happen we have free licence to start inventing pixies, fairies, angels, and gods to make sense of it.

The big bang theory says nothing of design, and nothing of intelligence, it merely describes a beginning. What was before that beginning and what precipitated it are not a part of the theory and should not be extrapolated unscientifically. Just because something has a beginning does not mean that it was created by an intelligent being. When it begins to rain does it mean that someone has designed the cloud and "started" the rain at that point? no, its is effect of the dumb process of evaporation and convection and chance combination of other factors.

[Bitterfly]

The first scientist you quoted was a man of his time: the beginning of the twentieth centur. The second is not a scientist but a historian. And the last, Dr Shaefer, is interesting, but obviously preaching for his parish, ie intelligent design.

I went to have a look at the article you suggested, and liked it (he seems rather open-minded, in spite of his bias); and there are counter-examples cited in it: Einstein and Hawkings, who don't seem to be convinced that a God is necessarily at the origin of the universe. I think you're focusing mainly on American scientists, who must be representative of their country, and forgetting European scientists, who on the whole are more atheist than theist.

Furthermore, I find your connection between philosophy and lack of logic ("fall into the realm of philosophy and are pretty much absurd and illogical") more than debatable. All we have for the moment, anyway, are hypotheses, and the theory of intelligent design is just as "philosophical" as any other theory. Especially, it's based on interpretation rather than "evidence".

[Virgil]

Islandclimber, I for one found much sympathy with what you present here. As an engineer who not only has studied physics but makes use of it on a daly level (albeit only Newtonian physics) the more I ponder the universe the more I cannot see things as having come together by chance. There is an order to it, a consistency, and a pattern that defies randomness. For such an order to exist it would have to violate the notion of entropy, the second law of thermodynmics.


Against powerful logic, some atheists continue to claim, irrespective of the anthropic constraints, that the universe and human life were created by chance. The main argument seems to be "Since we human beings are here, it must have happened in a purely reductionist manner." This argument strikes me a bit like the apocryphal response of a person waking up in the morning to find an elephant in his or her bedroom. The individual in question concludes that this is no surprise, since the probability of the elephant being in the bedroom is a perfect 100%. Obviously this is a philosophical rather than scientific response to the situation.

Yes. A couple of years ago I was at university (I think it was Georgia Tech or University of Georgia, I can't remember, but it was in Atlanta, Georgia) who had this offshoot company that had developed a software code of assessing various probalities of highly complex situations. One of the pitches they put out was an analysis of an air plane engine and the question of why don't we by chance dig up and find an air plane engine in the ground. Thoeretically all the parts and mateials of an air plane engine exist in the ground and so they calculated the odds of someday someone digging in their back yard and finding an air plane engine that had come together by chance as 7 billion or 7 trillion (I can no longer remember the decima place) to one. Now an airplane engine is rather complex but life itself with all it's complex subsystems is even more complex than an engine. Now ponder what the odds must be for human life to come together by chance. First the universe must form by chance to have certain forces that allow molecules to interconnect that build carbon based materials, planets and solarsystems to exist at precse locations, equilibrium of forces for stability, proteins that convert into life (whatever life is), genetic codes to formulate that reproduce the life entity, and then a sequence of genetic events that leads to complex life and ultimately to human life. I'm sure I'm even leaving something out, but the odds for that to happen must be trillions upon trillions to one, probably greater than hitting the lottery a hundred times in a row.


interesting, isn't it... so the arguments atheists use against the existence of god, well, for the most part aren't even supported by the people who came up with the theories that allow these arguments to be made.. which coincidentally as said fall into the realm of philosophy and are pretty much absurd and illogical.. there is far and away more evidence for intelligent design in the universe than the opposite.. this is readily apparent in the sheer impossibility of our existence.. the infinitesimal chance that we would exist obviously and logically points to some kind of creator god and some kind of intelligent design, as do scientific theories like the big bang theory...
Just fathom such odds. Atheists claim to be rationalists. Ha! As an engineer who has to make decisions with limited data one has to make decisions based on probabilities. For someone to believe that such trillions upon trillions could occur verses some organizing intelligent force is irrational. The rational argument is that a God has arranged the universe.

I still wait for someone to dig up an airplane engine in their backard. :D

[NikolaiI]

I just wrote for half an hour and then lost it...*sigh*

[DapperDrake]

Islandclimber, I for one found much sympathy with what you present here. As an engineer who not only has studied physics but makes use of it on a daly level (albeit only Newtonian physics) the more I ponder the universe the more I cannot see things as having come together by chance. There is an order to it, a consistency, and a pattern that defies randomness. For such an order to exist it would have to violate the notion of entropy, the second law of thermodynmics.


Yes. A couple of years ago I was at university (I think it was Georgia Tech or University of Georgia, I can't remember, but it was in Atlanta, Georgia) who had this offshoot company that had developed a software code of assessing various probalities of highly complex situations. One of the pitches they put out was an analysis of an air plane engine and the question of why don't we by chance dig up and find an air plane engine in the ground. Thoeretically all the parts and mateials of an air plane engine exist in the ground and so they calculated the odds of someday someone digging in their back yard and finding an air plane engine that had come together by chance as 7 billion or 7 trillion (I can no longer remember the decima place) to one. Now an airplane engine is rather complex but life itself with all it's complex subsystems is even more complex than an engine. Now ponder what the odds must be for human life to come together by chance. First the universe must form by chance to have certain forces that allow molecules to interconnect that build carbon based materials, planets and solarsystems to exist at precse locations, equilibrium of forces for stability, proteins that convert into life (whatever life is), genetic codes to formulate that reproduce the life entity, and then a sequence of genetic events that leads to complex life and ultimately to human life. I'm sure I'm even leaving something out, but the odds for that to happen must be trillions upon trillions to one, probably greater than hitting the lottery a hundred times in a row.


Just fathom such odds. Atheists claim to be rationalists. Ha! As an engineer who has to make decisions with limited data one has to make decisions based on probabilities. For someone to believe that such trillions upon trillions could occur verses some organizing intelligent force is irrational. The rational argument is that a God has arranged the universe.

I still wait for someone to dig up an airplane engine in their backard. :D

Oh come one Virgil, human life did not come together by chance, no one is saying that. life evolved in the environment available to it and human beings are one of the evolved manifestations of that life, that doesn't mean that the first human beings popped into existence by the random concurrence of the necessary components - though perhaps that is how some of the simplest precursors of life came about.

"First the universe must form by chance to have certain forces that allow molecules to interconnect that build carbon based materials, planets and solarsystems to exist at precse locations, equilibrium of forces for stability, proteins that convert into life (whatever life is), genetic codes to formulate that reproduce the life entity, and then a sequence of genetic events that leads to complex life and ultimately to human life."

What you're talking about there is the probability of the exact manifestation of life right here and right now on earth exactly as it is. The probability of any complex situation being exactly so are infinitesimally small.

I look out of my window and I see a unique sky, the clouds have never formed this exact pattern before - the chance of this exact sky coming to be are absurdly small and yet here it is, this exact sky... obviously the logical conclusion, because the chances of this exact sky occurring are so small, is that an intelligent creator made it....

I hope you see the point I'm rather crudely trying to make here.

As for the odds of digging a naturally formed aircraft engine in your back garden... I think you'll find their software is wrong, i.e It can't possibly be smart enough to workout something like that and they must be working with some crude and inaccurate assumptions :)

[Virgil]

I look out of my window and I see a unique sky, the clouds have never formed this exact pattern before - the chance of this exact sky coming to be are absurdly small and yet here it is, this exact sky... obviously the logical conclusion, because the chances of this exact sky occurring are so small, is that an intelligent creator made it....


Yes, it is. You proved my point! A point made by most scientists who are not atheists.

[DapperDrake]

I'm sure you realise I was actually trying to highlight the flaw in the argument by Reductio ad absurdum so I won't bite, but you do understand my point right?

[Virgil]

I'm sure you realise I was actually trying to highlight the flaw in the argument by Reductio ad absurdum so I won't bite, but you do understand my point right?

I understand your point, and you don't seem to understand mine. ;) Your point is wrong because order doesn't happen by accident.

[zolasdisciple]

:flare:order is order because it is order i mean if not it would be called anarchy or chaos. It i makes since that a creator made the sky and the earth how else would there be the resources so needed to humans. what is important is that people respect each others beliefs no matter what god they believe in. I m sure this sounds confusing so ill simplfy it.VIRGILS right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[islandclimber]

ahhhh... i just spent 45 min writing a response to previous posts and had it vanish... *tear* well here I go again I suppose...

Virgil thanks for your posts.. they are great... the study on the aircraft engine in the backyard is interesting... is it posted anywhere online do you know?? and yes I agree, atheists claim to appeal to logic and rationality, but the rational explanation for existence and why we are here and how we are here, when looking at through science and discoveries made by science, is that god/intelligent design does exist... and that is why so many physicists believe this.. they looked at the evidence in their own fields and decided that it decisively pointed to existence of some form of god and not atheism, which is why most physical scientists aren't atheists as stated...

Dapper reductio ad absurdum is where you take what Virgil's position and show it to reach and absurd and illogical conclusion which you have only done if you believe the existence of god to be absurd and illogical... second your argument is more of a "straw hat" argument.. you brought up an entirely different situation than the existence situation Virgil and I are talking about, the position you set up only superficially resembles the existence position and therefore is not the same thing to argue... try again..

next Occam's Razor to prove that immensely complex scientific theories and infinitesimally small chances are the simplest solution to existence.. you can't be serious.. I mean there are arguments on your side and often good ones... but using Occam's Razor is silly... it requires almost no complex assumptions to believe that god created the universe and got things rolling whereas to believe that random chance and fluke did so requires huge assumptions and huge leaps in logic... which is why there are no theories in science on the how or why we exist, on what got the ball rolling...

ontological reductionism is not a valid argument for explaining existence... I don't know why it would be brought up.. it can possibly (and this is still only a slight possibility) explain what is at the base level of existence, the essence, the indivisible building blocks... but it can't even begin to suggest where this essence/ these blocks came from, why they just spontaneously and randomly started combining... please show me a scientific theory on these things and I will be happy to read it... also I would argue that being able to find a finite beginning, indivisible builiding blocks at the root of things, provides more evidence for a god that would have had to create these things to begin existence, to start them combining in the exact ways needed to create the universe in the way it is today... just my honest opinion... the other argument of the universe existing ad infinitum and an infinite and timeless essence beneath this illusion of reality provides an argument in line with hinduism and buddhism, for that suggests that we are all part of the infinite essence, or as those religions call it, the godhead... on some level we all exist infinitely and timelessly...

again you talk about simpler theories for existence in science, and evidence that god does not exist.. but I have never seen a scientific theory on why or how we the universe began so that is balderdash, and the evidence in my opinion strongly suggests existence of a god or intelligent design.. just the order in the universe, the apparent design of the universe, the arrangement of everything that otherwise has to be random chance.. the evidence is heavily in favour of some form of god existing...

and yes the big bang theory says nothing of design, it just points to it, suggests it.. says how did this randomly just begin without something there to start it.. are you trying to tell me that it is logical and rational to assume that all these condensed building blocks sitting there for an infinite and timeless period (cuz if there is no god they must have always been there) just up and started randomly expanding and in the perfect way to create order in the universe, to allow life to come to be??? that is so irrational it is absurd...

Bitterfly, Schroedinger wrote that in 1954 not at the beginning of the century but after both relativity theories and quantum mechanics.. and you counter with Einstein but he was of the same period... also Einstein is widely regarded regarded as having been a deist.. he believed in god and thought there was rational explanation for god in science, or one could be discovered in any case.. Hawking also denies any assertions that he is an atheist and often seems to be either a deist like Einstein, or agnostic.. so 2 poor examples...

also I would like to know where I can find something showing that most euro physical scienstists are atheistic as opposed to theistic and deistic... several of the scientist's he mentions believing in god are European...

and lastly I am not saying science proves the existence of god.. that would be silly.. what it does is point to the existence of god much more strongly than to the non-existence of god.. and this is why so many physicists are theists and deists... it is more rational and logical that god does exist...

Nikolai, that is too bad you're response disappeared, I would have enjoyed reading it, as per usual with your posts :)

Zola, I like the face at the start of your post.. hehe... :D

[DapperDrake]

Dapper reductio ad absurdum is where you take what Virgil's position and show it to reach and absurd and illogical conclusion which you have only done if you believe the existence of god to be absurd and illogical... second your argument is more of a "straw hat" argument.. you brought up an entirely different situation than the existence situation Virgil and I are talking about, the position you set up only superficially resembles the existence position and therefore is not the same thing to argue... try again..

I know, I didn't say it was a good or well put example, in fact I think I said it was crude. but the basic principle of my argument was by reductio ad absurdum (although I seem to of failed).



next Occam's Razor to prove that immensely complex scientific theories and infinitesimally small chances are the simplest solution to existence.. you can't be serious.. I mean there are arguments on your side and often good ones... but using Occam's Razor is silly... it requires almost no complex assumptions to believe that god created the universe and got things rolling whereas to believe that random chance and fluke did so requires huge assumptions and huge leaps in logic... which is why there are no theories in science on the how or why we exist, on what got the ball rolling...

"it requires almost no complex assumptions to believe that god created the universe"

Oh what would I give for a raised eye-brow smilie right about now. :) I would say that God is a pretty complex assumption. Occams razor as I understand it says, more or less, the theory that requires the least external assumptions to be added to it is probably correct. Or to put it another way the simplest solution is best.
Now to my mind it is a simpler theory that we arose naturally by chance than that a supernatural all powerful being created us.
However I can see we disagree here so lets not argue about our difference of opinion.


again you talk about simpler theories for existence in science, and evidence that god does not exist.. but I have never seen a scientific theory on why or how we the universe began so that is balderdash, and the evidence in my opinion strongly suggests existence of a god or intelligent design.. just the order in the universe, the apparent design of the universe, the arrangement of everything that otherwise has to be random chance.. the evidence is heavily in favour of some form of god existing...

whoa there, I didn't say there were any theories for existence in science or anything like that, nor did I say there is evidence that God does not exist. What I said was that the so called evidence for intelligent design can be explained away by simpler theories in each case.


and yes the big bang theory says nothing of design, it just points to it, suggests it.. says how did this randomly just begin without something there to start it.. are you trying to tell me that it is logical and rational to assume that all these condensed building blocks sitting there for an infinite and timeless period (cuz if there is no god they must have always been there) just up and started randomly expanding and in the perfect way to create order in the universe, to allow life to come to be??? that is so irrational it is absurd...

I don't pretend to know how things started or what was happing, if anything, before the big bang. Though it seems to be to be simpler to assume some inscrutable natural cause than to say that it was God who set things in motion, after all, where did God come from and how long was he sitting around before he decided to start things off, what was he doing before that? how did he do it? and a thousand other questions arise.


Bitterfly, Schroedinger wrote that in 1954 not at the beginning of the century but after both relativity theories and quantum mechanics.. and you counter with Einstein but he was of the same period... also Einstein is widely regarded regarded as having been a deist.. he believed in god and thought there was rational explanation for god in science, or one could be discovered in any case.. Hawking also denies any assertions that he is an atheist and often seems to be either a deist like Einstein, or agnostic.. so 2 poor examples...


I disagree, Einstein and hawking are simply two men who are much too smart to make sweeping statement such as "I do not believe in God" and yet neither of them are Christians and neither of them has asserted that there is a supernatural, personal, God.

By the definition we seem to be using on these forums they are atheists, I.e. if you don't believe in a personal supernatural God then you are an atheist.

However by the other definition which rarely gets used they are not atheists and neither am I, that is the belief or doctrine that there is no God. i.e actively believing there is no God as opposed to simply not actively believing there is one.

Einstein's beliefs are humanist by the way rather than deist, though he is often misunderstood by Christians to be deist.

[islandclimber]

I disagree, Einstein and hawking are simply two men who are much too smart to make sweeping statement such as "I do not believe in God" and yet neither of them are Christians and neither of them has asserted that there is a supernatural, personal, God.

By the definition we seem to be using on these forums they are atheists, I.e. if you don't believe in a personal supernatural God then you are an atheist.

However by the other definition which rarely gets used they are not atheists and neither am I, that is the belief or doctrine that there is no God. i.e actively believing there is no God as opposed to simply not actively believing there is one.

Einstein's beliefs are humanist by the way rather than deist, though he is often misunderstood by Christians to be deist.

as I stated many times and Hawking claims not to be an atheist, so he is not an atheist.. that is just common sense... he is agnostic at times saying he cannot know and other times he states things that clearly suggest he is deist...

you're definition of atheism according to discussions on this site is wrong... it is irrelevant what people on this site suggest is the definition of atheism.. whether it is a personal supernatural creator god or a pantheistic god that is part of all nature or is all of nature... all those beliefs are some kind of theism... Einstein if anything was humanistic like you say.. I agree, and my labelling him as deistic is slightly misleading if you assume his idea of god is a personal creator god which he repeatedly denied... but he did believe in the buddhist idea of a godhead, a kind of pantheism.. he even stated if he did believe in a god it was the god of spinoza not a personal creator god.. stated that cosmological religion, the religion of the future that fit what was needed was buddhism.. einstein realized that there was something hidden behind all of science and that this infinite godhead that was in everything, well, he thought it could be understood and explained with science...

by the way, your post, I quite like.. and agree with much of it.. but the problem is, we do have a difference of opinion.. well not that it is a problem... I think the chance that, if our universe is finite, a god created it is the simplest solution and not the one in trillions upon trillions chance that it happened randomly and by accident... that is why i find all the evidence there is in science points towards existence of some form of god..

the simpler theories on the evidence for god existing, what are they?? that is what I wanted to know?? the big bang, how did it begin without a prime mover like god?? is there a theory on this??

now on the questions of what was god doing before, how long was he there, all those things, well god is necessarily in a timeless and infinite state.. temporal and spatial definitions require time of course and being in a finite state.. therefore the questions you asked can have no answer... how long is infinite?? can that be answered?? no... the problem with any argument without god is the same, how long were those infinitely condensed building blocks sitting there?? why did they just randomly decide to explode and start combining??? all of these can be asked of a god, and of building blocks supposedly behind everything.. but at least in the case of god, there is some reason why it would begin, whereas there no rationality or logic as to why it would be begin with the other argument...

now, just to clarify I am not a theist, deist, atheist, or agnostic... and my religion and faith and beliefs are not at all part of any organised.. the closest they could come to would be what I believe Siddhartha originally taught and has been twisted into current buddhism, which is still imo one of the most compassionate and wonderful religions on the planet... but still out of sorts with what siddhartha originally said... if we followed the label you suggested for lack of belief in a personal/supernatural god, I would be an atheist... but I would reject that label... in a sense I would be a pantheist with somewhat atheistic tendencies.. but I have trouble agreeing with the large majority of atheists, because they are far too reactionary and fall far and away from logic and rationality on so many issues because they are so concerned with the terrible monster that religion is.. look at Dawkins and his followers... my problem with this is too many people want to label themselves as something and I am not quite sure why... to find somewhere they fit in? but I find this argument based upon physics and god quite interesting especially considering the vast number of eminent physicists who do believe in some kind of god... that is why I am interested in other opinions on it, or theories that show otherwise, any other links to pages on this, etc...

so thank you to all who have replied so far...

[Virgil]

Virgil thanks for your posts.. they are great... the study on the aircraft engine in the backyard is interesting... is it posted anywhere online do you know??
I'm afraid not. It was not presented or generated in response to anything to do with an theism/atheism debate. It was prepared to show how variables can be managed to find an optimum design. It stuck in my brain becasue I thought it was a perfect argument for times like these. :D


Oh what would I give for a raised eye-brow smilie right about now. :) I would say that God is a pretty complex assumption. Occams razor as I understand it says, more or less, the theory that requires the least external assumptions to be added to it is probably correct. Or to put it another way the simplest solution is best.
Now to my mind it is a simpler theory that we arose naturally by chance than that a supernatural all powerful being created us.
However I can see we disagree here so lets not argue about our difference of opinion.

Dapper, I think you're not understanding Occam's razor correcty. All Occam's razor says is that when arguments are presented with many justifications, only the fewest should be used. It's really a statement of being succinct. To be honest, it's not much of a theory. I'm not criticizing you here, but like Island says, you have better arguments to make. Like for instance, how do you prove a negative. There is no proof for a negative.

I believe the whole argument comes down to this: If you look at the order in the universe one either sees God or sees chance. As one who was an atheists in my youth, I have grown to see that order does not come about by chance.

[DapperDrake]

if we followed the label you suggested for lack of belief in a personal/supernatural god, I would be an atheist... but I would reject that label...

I don't like that definition either, and I reject the label too. Its just that using the stricter definition on this forum often leads to misunderstandings, in my experience anyway.


but I have trouble agreeing with the large majority of atheists, because they are far too reactionary and fall far and away from logic and rationality on so many issues because they are so concerned with the terrible monster that religion is...

I can't agree more! I was an atheist leaving school but upon delving into the arguments and philosophy behind atheism I was disgusted to find that atheist books are all full of illogical and almost venomous arguments that I was quite happy to reject almost out of hand. That, and many other things eventually lead to me becoming a Christian, for about five years anyway.


I believe the whole argument comes down to this: If you look at the order in the universe one either sees God or sees chance. As one who was an atheists in my youth, I have grown to see that order does not come about by chance.

Well I won't pretend I don't wonder about this myself or have doubts about my beliefs. It often strikes me that the human condition is just too remarkable to not be special and that God must be involved. But that is just a feeling I often get, I can't support it in argument and the vast majority of the time I don't believe it.

Edit: One thing though, you say "I have grown to see that order does not come about by chance." well I don't see order, I see chaos. At least, chaos with a certain regularity about it.

[curlyqlink]

It cannot tell us a word about red and blue
Erwin Schroedinger said that science-- physics-- cannot tell us a single thing about color? A fundamental property of light??!!

[Virgil]

Well I won't pretend I don't wonder about this myself or have doubts about my beliefs. It often strikes me that the human condition is just too remarkable to not be special and that God must be involved. But that is just a feeling I often get, I can't support it in argument and the vast majority of the time I don't believe it.

Edit: One thing though, you say "I have grown to see that order does not come about by chance." well I don't see order, I see chaos. At least, chaos with a certain regularity about it.

Hey don't think I don't have doubts either. :lol: We're not too disimilar after all. We just err on opposite sides. ;)

Edit: And I see order within the chaos. :D

[Pendragon]

Evidence? there is none that cannot be satisfactorily explained by a simpler and more plausible theory.
The infinitesimal chance of something not happening does not mean that if it does happen we have free licence to start inventing pixies, fairies, angels, and gods to make sense of it.

I've said it before, chance is bad science. I notice they always bring up things like you mention when discussing chance proving them wrong, but when they want to say life formed (simple celled) by chance and that man evolved from a common ancestor as apes, then chance is OK. No, chance being next to impossible is bad science and just wrong thinking. God is the simplest explanation for our world.

God Bless

Pen

[DapperDrake]

Our understanding of physics and reality isn't good enough to say what the chances are, its an assumption based purely on the fact that it seems remarkable. For all we know it could be inevitable.
So we don't know that the chance was infinitesimally small, i.e. the chance that the universe would be able to support all these fine balances and the further chance of somewhere in the countless trillions of trillions of trillions of star systems the conditions would be right to foster life, we just don't know.
And we know absolutely nothing of the cause or reason for the big bang so any talk of chances related to that are pure speculation.

I'd like to take the liberty of quoting an excerpt from one of Einstein's essays:


The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.

This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

[zolasdisciple]

Our understanding of physics and reality isn't good enough to say what the chances are, its an assumption based purely on the fact that it seems remarkable. For all we know it could be inevitable.
So we don't know that the chance was infinitesimally small, i.e. the chance that the universe would be able to support all these fine balances and the further chance of somewhere in the countless trillions of trillions of trillions of star systems the conditions would be right to foster life, we just don't know.
And we know absolutely nothing of the cause or reason for the big bang so any talk of chances related to that are pure speculation.

I'd like to take the liberty of quoting an excerpt from one of Einstein's essays:

yeah you can only guess. ;)

[mangueken]

the more I ponder the universe the more I cannot see things as having come together by chance. There is an order to it, a consistency, and a pattern that defies randomness. For such an order to exist it would have to violate the notion of entropy, the second law of thermodynmics.

Just because you can't imagine it only talks about your capacity to imagine and not science. http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confront-Intelligent-Design-Creationism/dp/0393050904 This book will help you understand why the second law of thermodynamics argument you present is wrong as well as explain the history of the ID movement.

[Virgil]

Just because you can't imagine it only talks about your capacity to imagine and not science. http://www.amazon.com/Scientists-Confront-Intelligent-Design-Creationism/dp/0393050904 This book will help you understand why the second law of thermodynamics argument you present is wrong as well as explain the history of the ID movement.

That's clearly an ideologically driven book. I don't get into these religious ideological battles. If you're so smart, why don't you explain it to me.

[islandclimber]

That's clearly an ideologically driven book. I don't get into these religious ideological battles. If you're so smart, why don't you explain it to me.

neither do I.. well at least most of the time I try not to... sometimes it is just so hard though :p I like to discuss things rationally rather than the "you're wrong, I'm right and I don't need to prove it, it is fact" arguments that this religious section is so amazing for... :D

I agree though, that appears to be quite a biased book...

[mangueken]

That's clearly an ideologically driven book. I don't get into these religious ideological battles. If you're so smart, why don't you explain it to me.

The reasons why:
1. This is a forum for readers
2. Reading the other side, if nothing else, helps clarify one's own views
3. I thought you might be interested
4. I thought others might be interested
5. You should have asked me kindly

[Virgil]

The reasons why:
1. This is a forum for readers
2. Reading the other side, if nothing else, helps clarify one's own views
3. I thought you might be interested
4. I thought others might be interested
5. You should have asked me kindly

You are right, I was rude. Nonetheless I'm just not interested in one of the religious battles. Thanks for the info. I probably will never read it though.

[islandclimber]

Erwin Schroedinger said that science-- physics-- cannot tell us a single thing about color? A fundamental property of light??!!

I just noticed this.. I think you miss the point of what he was saying... completely.. literal interpretations of what someone says don't always give what is meant... if you actually read the quote you would realize Schroedinger was saying science can't tell us about passion, love, feelings, interests, desires... about beauty, about wonder, about awe... can't tell us why we feel such wonder about a beautiful painting, or why we think a sunset is beautiful, or why we fall in love with someone else... why do we climb mountains? why do we surf? why do we snowboard? why do we read books? why do we write poetry? science can't explain this... science can't explain the things we enjoy in life and that is what is being said...

[NikolaiI]

My opinion, islandclimber, is that God does exist. There are near infinite world systems. We are somewhere in the middle; whether we stay where we are, go up or down, depends on the actions of humans... it's predicted that we are in an age of decline; lifetimes will become shorter, morality will become less; but before we experience the worst of this age, we'll have about 10,000 years of a golden era, which began about 500 years ago. And this is just prediction, it isn't necessarily set in stone, at least as far as I understand it... so it could go either way.

Anyway physics is good, but only if it is done and used for Good. Rather, only if it done and used for God. You see physics used for ourselves, with no mention of God is not good. Godless society is not good. God is the most important thing. Lord Jesus Christ said, the most important thing to do is love God with all of yourself. The second most important is to love your neighbour as you would yourself. I read a really wonderful book called "Works of Love" by Soren Kierkegaard. He explains this well, and it's quite clear-- if you follow Jesus' words logically; the way to love your neighbour is to help them love God. To be helped to love God is to be loved truly.

Physics is part of the universe. Part of us exists in the physical dimension. We are governed by the laws of nature, or physics. God is not in opposition to physics; merely physical laws are part of the administration of the universe.

So what is God? God is one thing, originally; yet He is Supreme and unlimited. God is not merely the universe, or reality; but the universe is one form of God. God is the Supersoul-- of which all individual souls are parts and parcels. Each soul is like the Supersoul, yet is limited and exists only in one body. In the body, the soul spreads throughout, and so is conscious of the entire body. The Supersoul knows all that the individual souls know, but the individual souls do not know beyond their own limits. In every body exist both an individual soul, and the Supersoul. The Supersoul is made up of all souls, which are its fragmented parts.

What is God? God is the complete whole-- we are all parts. This does not mean any person here is God-- no, God is Supreme and none of us are supreme. We are finite, while God is infinite.

There is an argument, why is God conspicuously absent? Why cannot we see Him? But He is not absent; He is here in His commandments. He exists here by His words, by his disciples, He is also present in the heart of every living entity. God is the Whole-- yet He is more than that, since He is the source of the Whole. God is the source of the universe; and the universe cannot be more than Him, nor can we be more than Him. Thus He is infinite. But to the question of why we cannot see Him; that is answered by understanding that He is the whole. He is reality-- yet, He is the source of reality, so reality is not exactly Him. We cannot see reality, yet we can understand logically and rationally that reality exists; we are all part of reality, we exist in reality. Similarly, since reality is resting in its source, so are we too connected to God. This is very, very important, that people can search this out... always search and you will be satisfied. Believers, for Heaven's sake, are not irrational. Belief in God is rational as belief in something you might call reality. Except it's a little bit more complicated to understand that reality has a non-dualistic source. But it's true... the only question is whether or not this source is personal or impersonal, and I'll leave that up for debate. :)

Yippie, I didn't lose it! :)

[El Viejo]

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil. We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior. We expose our bodies in unseemly ways. We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects. We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living. We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

Fortunately, God still has His faithful. They reap the benefits of fire, electricity, email, but chastely preserve themselves from the practice of critical thinking, by which such things came to be in our hands. They learn by rote, but do not measure or examine the unknown themselves. They do not allow themselves to be thrust into the cold, bright, noisy world but retreat into a soft, cozy, muted womb where they can imagine the universe to be whatever they wish, where they can dwell upon the meaning of red and blue, but never defile them by touching them.

[islandclimber]

Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil. We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior. We expose our bodies in unseemly ways. We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects. We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living. We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

Fortunately, God still has His faithful. They reap the benefits of fire, electricity, email, but chastely preserve themselves from the practice of critical thinking, by which such things came to be in our hands. They learn by rote, but do not measure or examine the unknown themselves. They do not allow themselves to be thrust into the cold, bright, noisy world but retreat into a soft, cozy, muted womb where they can imagine the universe to be whatever they wish, where they can dwell upon the meaning of red and blue, but never defile them by touching them.

ummm is this supposed to insult all religious people in the forums.. because it is kind of offensive... did you even read the lecture I linked at the start. do you even realize that a huge number of prominent scientists (coming up with these discoveries you speak of) are religious, are christian even.. which sounds like the main religious group you are attacking.. I mean your post is entirely condescending, arrogant and offensive... and entirely false...

read the article at the start maybe before posting in this thread... and then you won't be so quick to post nonsense.. it is about physics and god, and it is by a quite prominent chemist who is also a christian.. and he brings up many physicists who are also religious... but no, religious people shut themselves away from helping in progress, from discovery, from science, from examining things... yes, of course you are right because you are an atheist, and atheists have the monoply on the truth, right???

[El Viejo]

Erwin Schroedinger said that science-- physics-- cannot tell us a single thing about color? A fundamental property of light??!!

This could be a fun discussion by itself.

Is color a fundamental property of light?

Using arbitrary measures that we've concocted we describe electromagnetic energy as being waves of various lengths. The spectrum is vast. A tiny sliver of it tickles our retinas and we perceive it as light. Gradations of frequency within that range we call 'colors.' The rest is the same stuff, but is it light if we can't see it? Does it still have color?

A small segment in the range of another sort of wave we perceive as sound. We've named discrete frequencies with letters of the alphabet. Is it still sound if we can't hear it? Is a frequency still a "C" if we can't hear it?

We see only one 'octave' of light ranging from infrared to ultraviolet. But like sound, in which we can hear a repeating pattern, there is a repeating pattern in in light, arguably with 'reds' we can't see? Are they still colors?

[qspeechc]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

[Bitterfly]

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being

I agree. It's a very anthropocentric idea, when you think about it, more than a theocentric one.
And wasn't the intelligen design theory carried out to an extreme when someone said that if melons had ridges, it was to help us cut them and eat them? Or that bunnies have white tails to allow us to shoot them better? :D

[qspeechc]

I'm not so bothered with the anthropocentric part of it, although you do show very nicely how silly it is, since someone who believes in intelligent design wil probably take delight in anthropocentric arguments. My biggest qualm is with the fact that people are looking at the argument from the wrong end, if you like. I'm worried that people seem to think it's quite incredible we live in the wonderfully perfect universe that we do. Could one examine the universe and find that it was not perfectly suited to life? That's quite impossible. Not because of a gracious god, but because if the universe was not 'perfect' we would not exists to marvel at it.

[islandclimber]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

first of all if I had said the majority of scientists that is not intended to be my point, as I made this clear the thread is about physics and god, and the large number of prominent physicists who believe in some form of god... and also believe physics provides evidence for god..

second, your point on not giving any weight to their views on religion and the origin of the universe.. If physicists are likely to believe that what they are discovering and experimenting, the new theories and observations they make, if they seem to believe that these things provide evidence for god, well, they must have some reason and I am much more likely to put weight on their opinion here than someone who knows very little about science...

proof of intelligent design.. no one said proof... there is a large gap between proof and evidence.. I have said evidence and that this "evidence" seems to point towards it in my opinion... second your argument here is beyond absurd.. of course the universe has to be perfectly designed for our existence for us to exist.. that is pretty obvious.. and you are worried about it, it is wrong to marvel that against extraordinarily enormous odds, everything happened in the perfect way for us to exist, and of course it did because otherwise we would not be here, that is such a pointless statement to make... and that is not the reason people are suggesting this provides "evidence" (not proof) for existence of something behind it.. the insanely high odds against the universe developing in the way it did, to create complex life forms are what provides evidence (again not proof), at least for people who have open minds...your argument there is just stating the obvious, and using that to say what?? that the universe needing to be perfect for us to exist means there is no form of god out there.. hmmmm.. I would say this more or less provides evidence for the idea of some form of god.. same with the finite existence theories that are so prevalent today.. if the universe is finite in temporal and spatial definitions it is necessary there is something infinite behind it.. necessary... and whatever that is, it will never be explained by science in my opinion, because science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way, because all definitions fall apart against them... you can't measure something that has no properties... my idea of god, or the godhead if you know what that means, is just the infinite source or essence of everything, or behind everything... whether it is personal or impersonal is up for debate though i am inclined to think the latter...

and bitterfly those extreme examples you suggest.. people often take things and provide extreme examples of possibilities that "could" be implied by them to ridicule beliefs... in some cases that is called reductio ad absurdum...the example you provide is more of a "straw man"... second anthropocentrism requires me to say I think humans are the most important thing in the universe, that universe was created so we could exist.. not my opinion in the slightest... the universe was created so everything that exists can exist, obviously.. and a stone, or rock, or an inhospitable planet is just as important as any human, or the earth..

[billyjack]

..

. of course the universe has to be perfectly designed for our existence for us to exist.. that is pretty obvious.. and you are worried about it, it is wrong to marvel that against extraordinarily enormous odds, everything happened in the perfect way for us to exist, and of course it did because otherwise we would not be here, that is such a pointless statement to make... and that is not the reason people are suggesting this provides "evidence" (not proof) for existence of something behind it.. the insanely high odds against the universe developing in the way it did, to create complex life forms are what provides evidence (again not proof), at least for people who have open minds...your argument there is just stating the obvious, and using that to say what?? that there needing to be perfect for us to exist means there is no form of god out there.. hmmmm.. I would say this more or less provides evidence for the idea of some form of god..
.

wouldnt the perfection of the universe suggest a lack of creator? why would something which is perfect need someone to create it? wouldnt existence's perfection imply the ability to grow itself? for instance, things which are created by men, ie building, roads, governments are never perfect. but that which is without a creator such as the seasons of the year, the growth of a tree, the development of a child in the womb are always quite right

[qspeechc]

Whatever weight you want to give to a physicists thoughts is your own business. Because you are an expert in one field does not mean your intelligence there translates to intelligence elsewhere- there is no necessary connection. By the way, lets please distinguish between physics and science. Physics is one branch of science.

You seem to like arguing semantics. Let's not. If you will, you will find this is in fact the exact error you make, and now you act as though it's 'obvious'. Me worried about it? Anyhow... You really don't seem the point of my post, or you're acting as though a fallacy many people fall into is obviously wrong, and we are all so smart as to see that. I don't think you've yet grasped the other end of the argument. And you like adding to my post. Nowhere did I say that this argument provides evidence that there is not a god, rather if you had read it calmly and correctly you would see that I am refuting the argument that it is evidence for a god: I am saying that your argument cannot be used as evidence of a god, my post nowhere said my argument was proof that there was no god. I still don't think you fully grasp the fact that you are looking at this argument from the "wrong end".

And when you state "science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way" you throw ignorance and what appears to be a lack of understanding and/or clear thought/speech into your reply. Pease define your concepts clearly. Infinity is a mathematical concept with a very precise definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite
For an "infinite" set there exists a bijection between the set and a proper subset of the set. Your incoherent nonsensical rambling at the end of an argument does it no good.

[DapperDrake]

This could be a fun discussion by itself.

Is color a fundamental property of light?



Colour is clearly not a property of light, we see different colours at different wavelengths of visible light but the colour is created by our brains as a way of distinguishing between the wavelengths.
Blue, red, green etc have nothing to do with physics, that was what Schroedinger was on about, there is no equation or theory that can tell you what blue is... Can you explain to a person born blind what the colour blue looks like by quoting theories and equations?

[Bitterfly]

and bitterfly those extreme examples you suggest.. people often take things and provide extreme examples of possibilities that "could" be implied by them to ridicule beliefs... in some cases that is called reductio ad absurdum...the example you provide is more of a "straw man"... second anthropocentrism requires me to say I think humans are the most important thing in the universe, that universe was created so we could exist.. not my opinion in the slightest... the universe was created so everything that exists can exist, obviously.. and a stone, or rock, or an inhospitable planet is just as important as any human, or the earth..

The examples I gave are not particularly extreme; I've seen and heard them countless times before. And what you don't understand is that it already seems ridiculous to me to think that the universe has a purpose, any purpose! Why should it have one? To satisfy your thirst for meaning? But what if there just wasn't any...


If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

Quite true.

[DapperDrake]

The examples I gave are not particularly extreme; I've seen and heard them countless times before. And what you don't understand is that it already seems ridiculous to me to think that the universe has a purpose, any purpose! Why should it have one? To satisfy your thirst for meaning? But what if there just wasn't any...

The purpose of anything is only from a certain point of view. Purpose is about meaning as you say and meaning is subjective.
From my perspective the purpose of me going to work is to be paid, from my employers perspective the purpose of me going to work is to provide a service to our customers, to the government the purpose of me going to work is to perpetuate the economy etc..
Things have purpose when someone believes that they have purpose. The issue here is was the universe created? or did it just happen. I'm not sure we can answer that with just discussion.

[islandclimber]

Whatever weight you want to give to a physicists thoughts is your own business. Because you are an expert in one field does not mean your intelligence there translates to intelligence elsewhere- there is no necessary connection. By the way, lets please distinguish between physics and science. Physics is one branch of science.

You seem to like arguing semantics. Let's not. If you will, you will find this is in fact the exact error you make, and now you act as though it's 'obvious'. Me worried about it? Anyhow... You really don't seem the point of my post, or you're acting as though a fallacy many people fall into is obviously wrong, and we are all so smart as to see that. I don't think you've yet grasped the other end of the argument. And you like adding to my post. Nowhere did I say that this argument provides evidence that there is not a god, rather if you had read it calmly and correctly you would see that I am refuting the argument that it is evidence for a god: I am saying that your argument cannot be used as evidence of a god, my post nowhere said my argument was proof that there was no god. I still don't think you fully grasp the fact that you are looking at this argument from the "wrong end".

And when you state "science can't explain or understand infinite and timeless in any way" you throw ignorance and what appears to be a lack of understanding and/or clear thought/speech into your reply. Pease define your concepts clearly. Infinity is a mathematical concept with a very precise definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite
For an "infinite" set there exists a bijection between the set and a proper subset of the set. Your incoherent nonsensical rambling at the end of an argument does it no good.

I thought I just did distinguish between between physics and science.. at the start of my last post.. you might want to take a look... second I am not saying there is a necessary connection, that is pretty apparent... all I'm saying is that it is interesting that so many prominent physicists believe in god in some way.. that is pretty apparent from the posts... nowhere do I say because physicists believe it, we all have to believe it, which kind of sounds like what you are trying to imply.. which is utter nonsense... but whatever...

it is a matter of opinion whether science can be used as evidence for god... stating that it cannot as though that is fact is just silly in my opinion and many others obviously.. but you go ahead... I find that the infinitesimal chance that we could exist provides great evidence for some kind of god... same with finite existence.. and yes I do understand your side, I even subscribed to your views at one point, but no longer.. I am sorry if I took your post wrong with regard to implying physics provides evidence there is no god... I will look more carefully next time...

"infinite" is a mathematical concept that is quite irrelevant to try to define with science, to state otherwise is ignorance... first of all because all definitions necessarily fall apart... because it implies there are no spatial or temporal definitions... and science requires spatial and temporal definitions for any theory or thing to be meaningful.. and it is necessary that existence is infinite at some level, because otherwise existence would not be, although on an infinite level terms like existence and non-existence lose all meaning.. I think you need to read up on philosophy and maybe touch into hinduism and buddhism, they speak of what infinite does and doesn't mean.. it is quite interesting... infinite is a human word made up to describe a state we can't really understand.. even the word lacks meaning, for if something is truly infinite we can't measure it in anyway, we can't perceive it, we can't name it, for it is beyond definition... this is why originally what Siddhartha taught has a degree of empiricism in it.. meditation was experimentation, meant to come to awareness of anatta and nirvana , which are basically just names to describe the state of existence and non existence/ of nothing and everything/ of infinite awareness... whether you agree or not the whole point of buddhism originally was to provide enlightenment and understanding of infinite being and non being through self experimentation which was meditation... siddhartha said that each must arrive at this enlightenment through his/her own path... modern buddhism has forgotten this... but in my opinion the countless people who have followed this path or their own path to this enlightenment are just more evidence for the existence of infinite state of existence and non existence...

[islandclimber]

The purpose of anything is only from a certain point of view. Purpose is about meaning as you say and meaning is subjective.
From my perspective the purpose of me going to work is to be paid, from my employers perspective the purpose of me going to work is to provide a service to our customers, to the government the purpose of me going to work is to perpetuate the economy etc..
Things have purpose when someone believes that they have purpose. The issue here is was the universe created? or did it just happen. I'm not sure we can answer that with just discussion.

I'm not sure we can ever answer with discussion or any other means.. but it is sure fun to discuss... ;)

[mangueken]

I think there are a couple points to I would like to make. First, as far as scientific research is concerned 100% of the world's scientists could believe in whatever form of God they want. None of their beliefs are calculated into their observations, tests or theories. Scientists are just as varied in their personal beliefs as non-scientists are but their opinions are just that - personal opinions. They are not based on any scientific evidence.
On the other hand, there are tons of things that science can't explain. There is no science that can explain the wonder we feel towards art or hearing great musicians. Divine inspiration probably is the best explanation for John Coltrane's A Love Supreme album. But that would have more to do with Coltrane's personal beliefs and his capacity to translate that through his sax. Who am I to argue whether what he believed in is definable by science or not. To the end result it doesn't matter.
My last point is about trying to find comfort in the wrong places. Science has absolutely no fight whatsoever with faith. They are two completely different areas of our lives. One of the reasons I suggested that book in a previous post was to help people understand that saying things like evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics sounds as bad to scientists as someone suggesting that it was the apostle Paul who parted the Red Sea and helped the Israelite people escape the Pharaoh's army. And even if it were true would that provide any spiritual comfort to believers?

[qspeechc]

I thought I just did distinguish between between physics and science.. at the start of my last post.. you might want to take a look... second I am not saying there is a necessary connection, that is pretty apparent... all I'm saying is that it is interesting that so many prominent physicists believe in god in some way.. that is pretty apparent from the posts... nowhere do I say because physicists believe it, we all have to believe it, which kind of sounds like what you are trying to imply.. which is utter nonsense... but whatever...

it is a matter of opinion whether science can be used as evidence for god... stating that it cannot as though that is fact is just silly in my opinion and many others obviously.. but you go ahead... I find that the infinitesimal chance that we could exist provides great evidence for some kind of god... same with finite existence.. and yes I do understand your side, I even subscribed to your views at one point, but no longer.. I am sorry if I took your post wrong with regard to implying physics provides evidence there is no god... I will look more carefully next time...

"infinite" is a mathematical concept that is quite irrelevant to try to define with science, to state otherwise is ignorance... first of all because all definitions necessarily fall apart... because it implies there are no spatial or temporal definitions... and science requires spatial and temporal definitions for any theory or thing to be meaningful.. and it is necessary that existence is infinite at some level, because otherwise existence would not be, although on an infinite level terms like existence and non-existence lose all meaning.. I think you need to read up on philosophy and maybe touch into hinduism and buddhism, they speak of what infinite does and doesn't mean.. it is quite interesting... infinite is a human word made up to describe a state we can't really understand.. even the word lacks meaning, for if something is truly infinite we can't measure it in anyway, we can't perceive it, we can't name it, for it is beyond definition... this is why originally what Siddhartha taught has a degree of empiricism in it.. meditation was experimentation, meant to come to awareness of anatta and nirvana , which are basically just names to describe the state of existence and non existence/ of nothing and everything/ of infinite awareness... whether you agree or not the whole point of buddhism originally was to provide enlightenment and understanding of infinite being and non being through self experimentation which was meditation... siddhartha said that each must arrive at this enlightenment through his/her own path... modern buddhism has forgotten this... but in my opinion the countless people who have followed this path or their own path to this enlightenment are just more evidence for the existence of infinite state of existence and non existence...

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

[islandclimber]

You might want to be more careful in your use of the words science and physics. You said you value a physicists opinion more since you would value a scientists opinion more, that you would putmore value on the opinion of a person that has studied science; but physics is only one branch of science. I physicist cannot tell you about what biology or chemistry says.

I used "necessary" in quite a technical sense, I appologise. What I meant was: simply because someone is an expert in one field, does not mean he/she has any expertise in another, no matter how closely related. If I am an expert in, say, one specific aspect of general relativity, prey tell how that logically requires that I can assuredly be an expert on some other topic, say the matter of the existence of a god etc. ?

You only chose to quote certain physicists that support your beliefs, as I said earlier, that sampling is by no means repesentative of all or even the majority of physicists beliefs. It may in fact be the case that most physicists are atheist, and then what sir?

Of course science can and must be used as evidence for or against the existence of a god, I never argued that! How else are we to definitively settle this question if not by fact and science?

Look, my post was to point out a very subtle logical flaw in your argument. If you understood the flaw, you would certainly not be calling it "obvious". The fact that you stated what I was arguing was obvious, and then retorted using the same fallacy suggests to me you have not really grasped the subtly of the argument. I cannot give you th exact name of the fallacy, but men greatly smarter than me have pointed out that it is not a simple error. Perhaps you need to read the argument a few more times, it really is not simple at all. Imagine, if you can, a great number of universes. Now most of them will not be conducive to life. A very few will, and we will only ever find ourselves in one of those universes that are conducive to live, so it is in fact not miraculuos that we should find ourselves in such a universe. And where did god come into this argument?

Infinity as a mathematical concept is not irrelevant to science. Mathematics is the language of all science. We could not have physics, say, without mathematics. And are you claiming that the mathematician has no grasp of the infinite? Perhaps you should study more mathematics. And I cannot argue with someone who bring bhuddism and other religions into a scientific argument. Infinity is a concept mathematicians and most physicists are quite comfortable, and quite old school to the mathematician in fact.

Btw, if the universe were finite in extent, there would not be anything beyond it, for if there were it would be part of the universe. The universe may be "closed on itself" and thus finite in extent.

I am not claiming that because someone is an expert physicist we should value their opinion on the existence of god more.. and whether I have interchanged physicist and sciientist on occasion that is a mistake, and I think I have made that clear already...

and if we did look at all physicists, and the majority were atheists.. well that doesn't change anything.. As I said at the start and several times since I think it is interesting that there are quite a few prominent physicists who think that physics points directly at the existence of god...

also this question will never be settled by physics or science.. that is apparent in my opinion.. there will never be proof there is a god, and there will never be proof that there isn't a god... that is obvious... just arguments for and against, and evidence that could be said to go either way...

you're logical error argument is absurd.. and many other men as smart as those men have argued counter to that... fallacy.. only assuming you are right lol.. of course we find ourselves in a universe that is conducive to life... otherwise we would not be... it is not a miracle that we are in this universe, what is a miracle is that the universe turned out like this, when the odds are so ridiculously small that the universe would turn out in a way that would support life.. if you can't see the difference between those two things than it is you who are blind... and god doesn't have to be put into this argument.. you can call it chance that the universe turned out this way... that every possible turn went the right way for life to evolve as it did... or some will call it design.. it really doesn't matter.. of course it is not a miracle we are in a universe that supports life, this is obvious... as I said what is a miracle is that the universe expanded and evolved in the way it did.. two very different things sir...

ummm i have heard this argument before.. about the universe being finite in extent and closed upon itself.. people bring it up all the time.. lol.. compare it to say the earth if you walk around the earth you will eventually end up in the same spot.. well that is obvious.. lol.. tell me what is outside this closed universe... if it is say a sphere..and even if you cannot leave the sphere.. what is outside the sphere?? more of the universe?? the universe in my opinion is infinite spatially and temporally.. and therefore the universe is not closed on itself in my opinion.. if the big bang is correct what is the space a tiny infinitesimal universe is expanding into.. is it imaginary space that doesn't exist?

second infinite with regards to spatial and temporal definition has nothing to do with mathematics.. that is obvious.. timeless doesn't mean time just goes on forever.. temporal infinite means there is no time.. everything is a single moment.. infinite means a singularity in space and time.. which is impossible to define.. whatever science theorizes... if you cannot define infinite temporally and spatially then it falls outside of science and for the most part math too.. unless you are just talking about the mathematical infinite which is different in my opinion from infinite existence... buddhism in my opinion is better than theoretical science.. you meditate in your own mind to reach a certain state of infinite awareness.. it is self experience.. and if you want proof of infinite existence/ godhead well there it is.. or are these people all delusional?

[blazeofglory]

Well, firstly, let me just say, you have only looked at a very few scientists (mostly physicist) and then you draw conclusions about the majority of scientists. There have been millions of scientists in human history, all with greatly varying opinions, some are die-hard atheists, others staunch Christians, or Jews, or whatever. No-one has actually quoted a scientific study on what scientists believe in, so rather not discuss scientists in general, but what a few individuals believe.

And let me add, simply because these people are physicists, extremely intelligent men and women, it does not, emphatically, mean that they are more qualified to speak truths and make brilliant judgements about religion, the origin of life etc. They are physicists, but other than that they are just humans. You would not ask a physicist his opinion on a medical matter and take his response seriously.

Lastly, when one looks at the universe, and all the life on earth etc., and one sees how fine-tuned everything is, one should NOT take this as proof of intelligent design. This argument goes: ok, since the universe is so perfectly taylored to OUR existence, this must mean there is a higher being (whatever you want to call it) that made this universe so perfectly, just so we could survive in it. This is, in fact, the converse of the correct statement.
If the universe WAS NOT so perfectly in every respect, we would not be here to marvel at its perfectness, i.e. BECAUSE the universe IS perfect, we are able to exist in it. It is NOT possible for us the look out at the universe and see that it is not perfect for our existence, because then we would not exists! It must be that when we look at the universe that it is in fact perfect for existence because that is the only way it can be!!!

Do you see just there is orderliness or perfection in creation presupposes that this is created by some intelligent being, or there is super intelligence that designed this universe?

I call this is folly folly and there is no essence in thinking so. I am siding with physicists nor go against the idea of theists. I am still exploring and can not settle myself with any particular sets of ideas or theories to approve of or disregard any of these arguments. All I say this planet is mysterious, and man can not get to the root of the reason or purpose or meaning or any idea with regard to the creation of this universe.

Siding with particular sets of ideas or beliefs can not help us arrive at better and more logical ideas at all. Beliefs or faiths taken to their extremes do not help humanities at all and they become detrimental.

I beleive in moderate ideas.

Maybe physicists are right or theologists with regard to the idea of creation in point of fact and we are in dilemmas and can not say anything conclusively at all, for we all make conjectures and can not arrive at solid and substantive ideas.

[El Viejo]

...insult...offensive...attacking.. ...condescending, arrogant...offensive...false...

... you are an atheist, and atheists have the monoply on the truth, right???

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

[mangueken]

I did read your post/quotes, and read them again. Then I read mine again. I don't see the problem.

I will say that 'huge' is rather an overstatement re: the number of scientists who fall back on God to explain whatever they don't yet know.

Your closing statement is amusing. Years ago, when I was a zealous evangelical Christian, my brother made a similar accusation: that I acted as if I knew all the answers that mattered.

Here, as a gesture of good will, I offer a link to a site full of God-celebrating quotes from famous scientists in history:

http://www.eadshome.com/Sciencequotes.htm

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

[weltanschauung]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/facist_jockitch/cmx/aton1561l.jpg

[RichardHresko]

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

[islandclimber]

The scientific enterprise/mindset is devoted to discovering the truth of how things work. It does not answer the question of what the universe means (if anything). This is not a failing of science, but rather a triumph of its discipline. Philosophy (in metaphysics) and theology deal with the question of the ultimate nature of reality in itself (not just operationally). This is why an attempt to use one field to answer questions in another inevitably generate more heat than light. That being said, if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

:thumbs_up

[mangueken]

if used cautiously, insights from one field can aid those in another at least in an analogical sense.

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

[islandclimber]

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

For the same reason many on the atheistic side use science for their beliefs.. Everyone, or close to everyone, (especially on the fundamentalist side) wants to prove that their set of beliefs is right, if not, well, we would most likely not have wars... at least not religious wars.. dissenting beliefs do not fit into fundamentalist religion..

theists often will claim science proves that god is real, and try to marry faith and reason because faith isn't always strong enough, and when both fail well in the past we have had religions resort to faith by the sword.. but atheism, and again not in all cases, commits the same error in saying science supplies evidence and proves there is no god.. where? in the fact that science hasn't discovered a god in the universe?? well that is not evidence, nor is it proof... whether I think science provides a small degree of evidence for some form of god or not, I agree with you, it is a little contradictory to use objective science as a support for faith (assuming you believe science is objective truth, and not just relative to our viewpoint, to our ideas, our language, and most of all the fact science is theoretical and never fully truth or fact.)... faith is supposed to be there regardless of needing proof.. that is the point of faith and that is what can make it so incredibly beautiful at times but also so incredibly dangerous at other times when it overpowers all sense of reason...

i've been all across the board in what I've believed and studied... I've been atheistic for the large majority of my life, but I find when I meditate there is something else there, and I have complete faith in it... and I don't need science to prove this for me.. I have my heart and my mind for that.. science is great for a better understanding of the physical universe but it will never prove or disprove the existence of god, and it will all depend on opinion whether you see evidence for god in science, or see evidence against god..

[RichardHresko]

I agree with you about the two differing functions of science and theology. Unfortunately, the caution you talk about is nearly always forgotten, and with it respect. I'm not just talking about respect between individuals debating the two sides but about the respect that comes from actually knowing what the other side is talking about.
I may be an atheist but I spend a lot of time reading about various religious subjects. That probably comes from the fact that I studied history and you can't study history in the western world without looking at religion. I also take time to read the creationists / ID arguments. I admit that I find the history of religion more interesting. The other stuff I read because many groups try to change public / educational policies with it.
I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

I agree that learning, and thereby wisdom, can be achieved only by moving beyond one's comfort zone, and doing so respectfully.

I am not sure that it is fruitful to consider why people use certain arguments inappropriately.

In the Christian tradition since the time of Augustine it has been accepted that there can be no contradiction between correctly reasoned non-Christian science (or, in those days, philosophy) and revealed Christian truth. Augustine himself first came to be a Christian by reading "certain Platonists" (Confessions Book VII). The whole enterprise of Scholasticism was based on the premise that Christian beliefs and the best of pagan thought must be compatible.

There was a falling out about that with the collapse of scholasticism under the attack of William of Ockham and others in the 14th Century, but the enterprise in one form or another has continued in Christianity.

A relatively recent phenomenon has been fundamentalism (or literalism). This movement began no earlier than the 16th Century and really became vocal in the 19th Century onwards. It has broken with centuries of Christian tradition and has looked to interpreting the Bible in a way that few before Calvin's would have thought responsible (whether Calvin himself would have agreed with fundamentalism is a matter of debate, and I hazard no opinion on it).

Given the fundamentalists' lack of historical roots and tradition, they must look elsewhere for validation. While the fundamentalist must claim that all the validation he/she needs is to be found in the Bible, the position itself is so extreme and so unforgiving (by its very nature) of nuance and interpretation that it must either force all other knowledge within the narrow confines of its framework or else reject it entirely.

I hope this helps.

[mangueken]

Thanks for the response Richard, it does help. I agree about the fruitfulness of questioning why ideas are misused. Heck, even within a given system some people misuse and abuse ideas. I was really trying to get my head around the brief history you presented. Since I was born in a Catholic family in a Catholic town I don't have much experience or knowledge of fundamentalist's beliefs except for their tireless push to influence public policies and science. I will have to try to find some books on this topic, because it seems that they don't share the Catholic tradition of education. Off the top of my head I can't think of any example of a Kepler or Copernicus. It doesn't mean they don't exist but at least I found a direction to go in to find out more about this other part of Christianity.

[teleios]

Hey El Viejo,
I felt this post wasn't adequately responded to, so I thought I might interject.


Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil. We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior. We expose our bodies in unseemly ways. We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects. We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living. We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.

I wanted to take this paragraph from you and break is down sentence by sentence.


Our entire society would be seen by our forebears as flagrantly consorting with the devil.
I agree most wholeheartedly. Our forebears were very intelligent with their simplicity.

We grant equality to those decreed by God to be inferior.
There are none that God has claimed to be inferior, according to the Christian Bible. If this statement was concerning a different god, forgive my intrusion. Could you expand on this? I'm curious as to what you are referring to by it.


We expose our bodies in unseemly ways.
Our forebears certainly were more modest. Do you find nothing wrong with the way people dress nowadays? I would imagine that just how much of an issue sex has become in this culture serves as enough proof that something is wrong with our 'exposing' of our body.


We violate God's will by easing pain, fighting disease, correcting his divinely administered defects.
Again, referring to the Christian God...
There is nothing wrong with easing pain - there is something wrong with doing away with pain completely, or becoming slaves to the various medicines we have created to dull pain. Fighting disease is fine. Disease is a product of sin entering into the world. As for 'correcting his divinely administered defects', I would first say that not all defects are 'divinely administered'. Of those that are, often enough they are not meant as a crippling condition that is meant to be with that person for the rest of their life, but a temporary condition that is there to help them grow through a specific part of their life.


We dare to scrutinize the heavenly spheres and reveal them to be imperfect, not living.
Just because life doesn't exist makes them imperfect? :)
I think they are absolutely beautiful in the night sky.


We fly, yet have no wings. We dare to teach others what we've learned.
For better or for worse. Some knowledge it absolutely wonderful when shared, but I've come to realize that some knowledge truly should never be shared (nor should have been found in the first place).

Just my own thoughts though.

God bless.

-Teleios

[NikolaiI]

First let me say I was really excited to see everyone's post on this thread... very exciting debate going on.


...

I do have one question for those on the theological side that I have been mulling over and would like some insight on. Why do many on the religious side try to use science for their beliefs? It seems contradictory to me, to try to use objective science as a support for faith. It most reminds me of Moses tapping the stone twice, his moment of doubt in God's word.

I saw this earlier but was otherwise engaged, now I wanted to reply a little... why they would use science for their beliefs... I couldn't tell you about anyone else, but I have a couple of ideas which have not so much to do with proving God, but using science as well...

First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences. In this vein, I would first really like to share with people the name of Milarepa, a Tibetan saint-mystic who is deeply revered in Buddhism. Now, I've read collections of his songs, and even though I'd studied psychology and psychotherapy, I haven't seen anything deeper or truer than Milarepa's songs... nothing that went as deep or as penetrating as his insights-- and this was from a sage from over a thousand years ago! So in this vein; Hinduism and Buddhism both, for a very long time, have had a much deeper understanding of psychology, which is a mental science.

Now also self-realization, in Hinduism, is considerd a science. The science of self-realization-- this is a process, especially it is called bhakti-yoga, or devotional yoga. It is scientific because it is a system which gives you quantifiable results... "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." It is all about spiritual growth, which is the culmination of mental development. In this connection there are also many Hindu mystics who have made contributions to the discipline... the same is true with Buddhism. These have very good understandings of psychology.

Gopi Krishna was a... "yogi, mystic, teacher, social reformer, and writer..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi_Krishna - who did work about spirituality and other topics. He invited scientists to read his work and to communicate, he was always trying to increase communication. He made the good point that in today's society, the physical side of our universe has gotten an unbalanced greater attention than the mental or spiritual side. Humanity, we, have both physical and spiritual aspects to us; and if we learn about one exclusively and never learn about the other side; it will be unbalanced and lead to... well, something-- despair? Who is to say.

And, another teacher who did wonderful work for all of us, was Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo had a really good message, hopeful, etc... because he described things like Truth-Consciousness, the Consciousness-Force...described various parts of spirituality in great detail... the idea is that the "Truth" is a good thing... it is much better than pessimistic or gross materialistic, etc... of course almost all atheists on this website have good intentions, but I sincerely believe God is real, and so I am engaging them also with the intention of sharing... And some people I have been insulted by...they would say something about Aurobindo insulting him, though they have not read him... close-mindedness above all is an enemy of finding the truth... for either side. For myself, I do not see a difference between atheism and other beliefs... on an absolute level, either way is immaterial, but in our daily lives, faith is very sacred.

I think it's very important to share that faith and reason are not at odds. Writers like Aurobindo are not preaching ignorance, quite the opposite their writings are often guided by light...

Aurobindo spoke of an awakening of the entire race... sort of a radiant apocalypse, to use the words of Andrew Harvey... other religions taught the same thing... Buddhism speaks of Shambala, Gaudiya Vaishnavas speak of the 10,000 year long golden age, began about 500 years ago; Christian mystics spoke of eras similar to Awakening... so this is a very important message, I believe.

The main thing is that these teachers are saying there will be peace. I heard a Kabbalist say that nothing worldwide, or societal, can be put in effect without the individuals of society changing their inner values, to develop their inner qualities until they are reflections of the light of their Creator. There is actually a very wondeful world beyond this material one; beyond the material universe exists the spiritual world. It is where we came from and to which we may return... all religions have some elements of the truth, I would say sometimes they do not have it all correct, and there are bits that are off-center... but there are certain truths.. there are things that we can know, we can learn, having to do with spiritual maturity, growth, etc... it is a predicition but will not come true unless the individuals in society and in the world do not develop their inner qualities and spiritual lives.

Atheists ask why God is conspicuosly absent, but mystics/prophets speak of awakening... there is great and detailed knowledge from many sources, about the science of self-realization, of the long, gradual process until one has knowledge of the self. As soon as one develops true vision, then all the deluded and suffering-causing concepts one has held up in the mind, are simply transformed. Mainly, if we take to the path of self-realization, then we can know for sure that the future will be bright. We ourselves can cross over birth and death; we can transcend the suffering of existence, after this the only thing to do is to continue living and exploring... helping others to find realization-- or not disturbing them if to speak to them would disturb them, etc... just my ideas!

And... to come back to topic... again, it's simply the scientific part of these writers... Aurobindo's was not so much a vision because it was so scientific... how he described everything up until the end. Gopi Krishna always called for science to come into the spiritual part of it, and to learn and share and collaborate.. okay I know I've written enough, hope this helps.

[Edit; Milarepa was an individual, not 'some people' :)]

[mangueken]

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons for participating in this discussion is to find some common ground between those who believe in something and those who have a scientific view. If we could at least understand how our perspective sides approach questions then we could at least agree to disagree, respectfully.
When you said, "First of all we must acknowledge that there is more to science than just physical science. Psychology for instance is part of the mental sciences."
I'm not sure if you phrased what you wanted to say accurately. I agree that there is more to life than science but not that there is more to science than physical science. There is good scientific work done in psychology but there is also a lot in that specific field that is not done with any scientific basis.
But beside that, I have no problem with the philosophical aspects of Buddhism (I know nothing of Hinduism, so I won't comment upon that) or other philosophies of life like the Tao Te Ching. We all search for some type of internal harmony through our personal journeys in life. Honestly, I don't begrudge any one's religion or beliefs. I know some atheists have some type of campaign to belittle people who believe, as if smug insults were a good recruiting tool, but that is not my approach.
I think I have always been an atheist, religion has never been important or comforting to me in my daily life. I also don't have any "classic" trauma stories to tell of growing up Catholic and going to Catholic school. As I feel that it is something personal, I do not try to interfere with other people's personal lives.
However, saying all that, I do try to help people understand what is the scientific method and I try to help correct the misunderstandings they may have about different scientific ideas. For example, Islandclimber and Virgil, both used mistaken views about science to bolster their support of their religious ideas. I directed them to a book, written by scientists that help explain the science part.
In my opinion religion and science do not need to fight. It is a false war. Science only has tools to deal with the natural, physical world. It can not say, infer, measure or quantify anything in the supernatural world. Any scientist who says different is just expressing his personal opinion, he definitely cannot prove his views for or against any belief system.
Religion on the other hand, has no need of the scientific tools for any type of spiritual salvation. Where is the spiritual comfort to be found in understanding how viral DNA attaches itself to human DNA? Science deals with the physical temporal part of life and religion deals with the spiritual, atemporal part.
I also think there is a universality to religions, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade is a great book to read about this subject. Now, whether they all have a kernal of truth or not, is not likely to proven scientifically. Each of us will discover the truth on that lonely day we die.

[NikolaiI]

Nikolai1:
Thanks for your input. One of my reasons ...

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov! :) But looking it up it seems generally to be accepted as science. Now that we speak of it, I am remembering in my high school psych class how psychology struggled as a discipline to enter the scientific communities as a real science. In Asimov's book, that was an underlying theme, that psychology got less funding, etc. because there was more research than results; whereas physical science gave us comforts and greater entertainment, etc..

But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.

Now I am also not interested in interfering with people's lives... or rather, not forcing them into anything, that's absurd; however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this? I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.

Physics are part of the physical universe but again, that's not all there is to us. There is an infinite world, as well as the physical world.

Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...

[mangueken]

Well, you gave me pause and I had to look up psychology; since I called it a mental science and got this from the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov! :)

That is one of my my favorite sci fi pieces!



But yes, as you said, they are not at odds... like I said Gopi Krishna was always calling for communication and collaberation between scientists and religionists.


I think scientists and people of faith can work on social problems that plague all sectors of society. But that requires respect on both sides and a willingness on both sides to use what each side is best at rather than belittle each other. I heard a podcast of an atheist (Perry DeAngelis) who said he hated extremism of all kinds whether it was from the religious camp or the atheist camp. He said both were just a fervent, just as bigoted and just as loud-mouthed as the other. (you can find the podcast on iTunes (it's free) from The Skeptics Guide to the Universe #109 August 24 2007).




however, I will ask you this. If you had an experience which was revelatory in nature, which was an illumination and you felt, you knew it was true; and more importantly, you knew this was absolutely the most important thing, because you were viewing truth... the rest of your whole life was not real in comparison to this one truth... wouldn't you wish to share this?


While I find that it is very improbable that I would have a moment like you talk about, I do understand that people do feel that and I surely agree with desire to share it. From my own perspective I do the same. I love to share my information, my views and if I am not qualified or able to explain something from the various fields of science, I can usually point a person in the right direction to find out from a good source. As I think it wrong that some atheists dismiss people's beliefs, I think it is wrong of faith based people to dismiss or misstate scientific principles.



I've had several experiences like this, when I had to tell myself, you cannot forget this! And so I am always speaking of faith, trying to get people to think about God, because I know God is real. I'd studied different mystics, yogis, philosophies, so many things before I had these experiences, and... I remember Dostoyevsky's character from "The Dream of a Ridiculus Man," and I can only say that I feel exactly the same as him... to go forever with my message, even though it may not be received.


Some of my favorite thoughts about religion and secular society come Dostoyevsky. Particularly, The Brothers Karamazov. I haven't read the story you mention, but I will look for it.



Buddhists state that there is no independent phenomena, that all phenomena is interdependent. But they don't have any statements about God. In fact all belongs to God. If we take food but do not recognize where it came from, we are being thieves. Therefore God should be at the center of all one's thoughts and actions. Are doing what God wishes? Are we pleasing Him? We should simply act to please Him. And when we study physics, when we use it, we should not use it against people, or for our own glory...


I would say something similar of faith. Do not use it against people or one's own glory. And like the master painters learn how to paint by copying and recreating their masters. If there is some real god type being, science is but trying to explore and understand the work of that master.

[El Viejo]

EL Viejo,
I would ask you to refer back to my post #42. No one has a monopoly on the truth but scientific work deals with what we can work with in nature not the supernatural.

We agree on some points. Where we disagree is on the matter of the supernatural. You're saying nature and the supernatural are different things. I'm saying the supernatural is simply nature as yet unknown.

We also disagree that faith and science can peacefully coexist. In "When Prophesy Fails" Festinger et al found that when believers are faced with fact not aligning with their faith, it is easier to simply disregard the facts.

[mangueken]

We agree on some points. Where we disagree is on the matter of the supernatural. You're saying nature and the supernatural are different things. I'm saying the supernatural is simply nature as yet unknown.


I'm think we may be able to agree that science deals with known nature because that is what is able to be studied in direct objective form. I can agree that the supernatural is nature not yet known. Who knows, maybe one day a new science field will develop that has the intellectual and physical tools to study what we currently call the supernatural. Of course once we are able to study and measure effects in that area it will no longer be the supernatural but just the natural.



We also disagree that faith and science can peacefully coexist. In "When Prophesy Fails" Festinger et al found that when believers are faced with fact not aligning with their faith, it is easier to simply disregard the facts.

I do not know that book but as I am headed to the library today, I will check to see if it is there. But I think, and this may not have been you're intention, that you have exaggerated our disagreement. As I wrote in previous posts here that I think science and religion not only can but they must peacefully coexist. That peaceful existence can only come from respect and understanding of each others viewpoints. I could state this in a specific way. Scientists of any field as they are today have no tools available to them to prove or disprove any god-like being. For now that is the realm of the supernatural.
On the other hand, people of faith should understand that their faith does not have tools to explain natural phenomenon. Their faith is a personal question and not everyone need subscribe to one or another of the faith systems to work together on solving common social issuses.
I see extremists on both sides picking on supposed weaknesses of the other rather than on each coming with their strengths to resolve what has a better chance of being resolved if there were more people involved.

[skasian]

Physics is a obviously a branch of science which is a human invention, a set of laws of matter that governs the physical aspects of what we are all surrounded by. Physics tend to include the laws that we cannot particular see as physical such as wavelength and energy.
Let me discuss these two subjects and link it with God.
We all know that Einstein's E=mc2 is the relativity between energy, mass and the speed of light, and we also know that light is in fact a form of energy. We often hear that God infact is light and energy that have created the universe. As light is indeed energy, God can be described as energy. Never formed and never distroyed. Energy is everywhere, so is God. Now let me elaborate on light energy. Where there is light, we can see the truth of the form of an object that light bounces off from. Where there is God, we can see the truth of things, and see what is right and wrong. We often link light with hope, safety and goodness. So is God. Now light makes up the colours ROYGBIV, the colour of the world, where in absence of light makes up shade or a shadow. We know shadows are bottomless pit black, darkness giving sense of hopelessness, horror and death. With out light/God, there is death. With God, there is eternal life, a salvation.
Let us think about the word bright. As it can depict the essence of light in dark places, it can also depict an intelligent person. A bright person is a person who is able to think critically and thoughtfully with accuracy. A bright person's brain seems "switched on" well and well functioned. This is where electrical energy can come in which can also represent God as God can be any energy.
Remember energy gives us life, strength to carry out life function. Without energy we die, therefore without God, we die. Now let us think back to the beginning God created Adam, and He created Him out of his image. Other than physical image, He created us with the same component that functions our body with something he also represents. Electrical energy. Our brains function with billions of neurons, and each neurons have to pass on information in order to carry out our body functions. It is electrical energy that passes from one neuron to another, a spark with critical information to tell the body to do a particular task. So, our brain contains activity of wild electrical energy flow, and without it we die. As God can represent electrical energy, without Him, we die. Back to the word "bright" a person with the most brain activity, thus electrical energy in their brain is most closer to God, where is infinite in every aspect of knowledge and wisdom.
There is another connection. As God who can represent electrical energy, controls the universe, our brain containing electrical energy controls the body. As the word "Christian" means little Christ, this is a linking factor that we are in fact imitators of our God.

[blazeofglory]

Physics and God do not go together. Maybe there is far-fetched relationship but not direct.

[skasian]

Why wouldnt God and physics go together, is there anything in the natural world that he created that doesnt go together with God? Physics contains laws of matter that are invented by man, and these matter are all created by God. Simply, mankind attempts to understand the physical world and matter that God has created. There isnt any barrier God has with physcis however physics is greatly limited to explain a small aspect of God's creations.

[Taliesin]

Physics is a obviously a branch of science which is a human invention, a set of laws of matter that governs the physical aspects of what we are all surrounded by. Physics tend to include the laws that we cannot particular see as physical such as wavelength and energy.
Let me discuss these two subjects and link it with God.
We all know that Einstein's E=mc2 is the relativity between energy, mass and the speed of light, and we also know that light is in fact a form of energy. We often hear that God infact is light and energy that have created the universe. As light is indeed energy, God can be described as energy. Never formed and never distroyed. Energy is everywhere, so is God. Now let me elaborate on light energy. Where there is light, we can see the truth of the form of an object that light bounces off from. Where there is God, we can see the truth of things, and see what is right and wrong. We often link light with hope, safety and goodness. So is God. Now light makes up the colours ROYGBIV, the colour of the world, where in absence of light makes up shade or a shadow. We know shadows are bottomless pit black, darkness giving sense of hopelessness, horror and death. With out light/God, there is death. With God, there is eternal life, a salvation.
Let us think about the word bright. As it can depict the essence of light in dark places, it can also depict an intelligent person. A bright person is a person who is able to think critically and thoughtfully with accuracy. A bright person's brain seems "switched on" well and well functioned. This is where electrical energy can come in which can also represent God as God can be any energy.
Remember energy gives us life, strength to carry out life function. Without energy we die, therefore without God, we die. Now let us think back to the beginning God created Adam, and He created Him out of his image. Other than physical image, He created us with the same component that functions our body with something he also represents. Electrical energy. Our brains function with billions of neurons, and each neurons have to pass on information in order to carry out our body functions. It is electrical energy that passes from one neuron to another, a spark with critical information to tell the body to do a particular task. So, our brain contains activity of wild electrical energy flow, and without it we die. As God can represent electrical energy, without Him, we die. Back to the word "bright" a person with the most brain activity, thus electrical energy in their brain is most closer to God, where is infinite in every aspect of knowledge and wisdom.
There is another connection. As God who can represent electrical energy, controls the universe, our brain containing electrical energy controls the body. As the word "Christian" means little Christ, this is a linking factor that we are in fact imitators of our God.

Skasian, you are treading on thin ice with argument like these, I am afraid.
Firstly, the fact that in English, "bright" is used as a metaphor for an intelligent person shows things about language and culture, if even those.
The thing is that you seem to draw parallels between energy and what is perceived as God - which do exist, but it doesn't show that they are the same thing.

God is of course a bugger to define so your arguments do hold water when you define God as energy, but the problem is that then you will be losing a bunch of properties of God that are commonly associated with it- like personality, for starters. Also, it will lose a lot of mysticism, makes praying and meditation a strictly psychological phenomenon.
But from your text, it seems that God is somehow linked to morality - as you say that we can see right and wrong when we watch things by God - the problem is, when you equate God to energy, one is something transcendent while the other is measurable.
(By the way, when you equate God with electromagnetism, you would do well to attach the three other basic forces too - otherwise it would be a bit weird. )
Or did I totally misunderstand you and you meant it as a simile, a comparison? In that case I beg pardon.

[blazeofglory]

God is a subjective idea and physics is an objective idea.

[skasian]

Skasian, you are treading on thin ice with argument like these, I am afraid.
Firstly, the fact that in English, "bright" is used as a metaphor for an intelligent person shows things about language and culture, if even those.
The thing is that you seem to draw parallels between energy and what is perceived as God - which do exist, but it doesn't show that they are the same thing.

God is of course a bugger to define so your arguments do hold water when you define God as energy, but the problem is that then you will be losing a bunch of properties of God that are commonly associated with it- like personality, for starters. Also, it will lose a lot of mysticism, makes praying and meditation a strictly psychological phenomenon.
But from your text, it seems that God is somehow linked to morality - as you say that we can see right and wrong when we watch things by God - the problem is, when you equate God to energy, one is something transcendent while the other is measurable.
(By the way, when you equate God with electromagnetism, you would do well to attach the three other basic forces too - otherwise it would be a bit weird. )
Or did I totally misunderstand you and you meant it as a simile, a comparison? In that case I beg pardon.

Yes, similie is quite correct, I believe that God is like energy, as He can be in this form when He communicates and moves us. Unless you are not thinking that God is actually everything expect evil and unholiness, then I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe that God is everything good and pure, including energy. The reason why I linked and connected God with physics was because I believe that God made energy, therefore as Physics is the study of energy, by studying physics, we can understand God's creations and complex perfection He had attained.

Actually the word bright I was discussing about is precisely used as a metaphor, as an intelligent person will have more brain activity than the average person, the brain will contain more electric pulses than the average person, therefore supporting that electricity is like God as He has infinite knowledge.

Do you reckon I should edit my previous post so people will know that I was making a similie?

[skasian]

God is a subjective idea and physics is an objective idea.

As God created the matters and substances of physics, there are obvious connections.

[blazeofglory]

As God created the matters and substances of physics, there are obvious connections.

The word God did not create anything. God is beyond creation. Creation is a process that goes autonomously and God has little to do with it.

Of course on the surface you are right. Once you get at the room of it your level of understanding will be intenser.

[skasian]

The word God did not create anything. God is beyond creation. Creation is a process that goes autonomously and God has little to do with it.

Of course on the surface you are right. Once you get at the room of it your level of understanding will be intenser.

God has little to do with creation? I dont mind what ever you think about God, but as a religious person, I do believe that God created the universe and everything organic in it. As energy is included in God's creation, everything he created is connected to Him like a Father.

[blazeofglory]

God has little to do with creation? I dont mind what ever you think about God, but as a religious person, I do believe that God created the universe and everything organic in it. As energy is included in God's creation, everything he created is connected to Him like a Father.

This is a fairy tale and nothing else. If you do not take every word in the bible literally you will understand the fact.

[skasian]

This is a fairy tale and nothing else. If you do not take every word in the bible literally you will understand the fact.

This is where our main differences in our thoughts of religion part our thoughts once again. It really depends on whether you believe in God or not, therefore accepting if there was a Creator or not. As you do not believe in God, you do not believe in a Creator, thus your thoughts of God creating all matters of the world probably is close to nil.

[blazeofglory]

This is where our main differences in our thoughts of religion part our thoughts once again. It really depends on whether you believe in God or not, therefore accepting if there was a Creator or not. As you do not believe in God, you do not believe in a Creator, thus your thoughts of God creating all matters of the world probably is close to nil.

Your inferential conclusion is flawed in point of fact. Do not dupe yourself with ideas that are not convincing.

[skasian]

Your inferential conclusion is flawed in point of fact. Do not dupe yourself with ideas that are not convincing.

Convincing or not, if it is the truth, it holds power.
If it was not, then you would of had disagreed.
The fact that you do not believe in God, it is natural for you to think He and His works are "fairy tale and nothing else".
I say once again, if one speaks the truth, then they dont require persuasion.

[blazeofglory]

Convincing or not, if it is the truth, it holds power.
If it was not, then you would of had disagreed.
The fact that you do not believe in God, it is natural for you to think He and His works are "fairy tale and nothing else".
I say once again, if one speaks the truth, then they dont require persuasion.

Not subscribing to your idea does not entail the fact that I am not a believer.

You need an internal eye to see things beyond the visible.

[Serput]

I advise everyone, regarding this topic, a book entitled God's Formula, by José Rodrigues dos Santos, a portuguese author! It's a romance, in the way of writing, but it's based on up-to-date, modern, scientific theories, particularly physics, about the Universe! If you read portuguese you can find it on the publisher Gradiva!