If Evolution was proven to be a fact 100% would there still be creatonists?

[atreas]

Again, this is bringing some unwarranted assumptions to the table, namely that "cause and effect" at the beginning of the universe are consistent with what we see today. This does not apply in a universe absent time, though. The conditions that existed at the moment of the inflation are such that the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate, so insisting there has to be a "nothing" before a "something" is simply not valid.

Look at it this way: some theories posit that our universe is the result of a "black hole" forming in another dimension--that we are, in essence, a bubble of space-time "inside" that black hole. The nature of that dimension is, of course, unknown to us, and to categorically assert that it had to require something coming from nothing is unwarranted, since we wouldn't know how that dimension operates. We have a natural tendency to be locked into thinking everything operates by the laws of physics we've come to understand, but theoretical physics is about getting beyond those biases, as there's little reason to assume that's how it works everywhere.

If my little post was an assumption, what can I say for all these? How can anybody be happy with a hypothesis about a black hole, with an unknown dimension, unknown laws, etc. In other words, do you not feel it's answering nothing at all?

Additionally, my question still stands. How was this black hole created in the first place? (That's just to show you a discussion with such assumptions leads nowhere.)

Samson provided some links for this, I'd like to see you address them.

Generally, it's not a good policy to skip posts (otherwise you would notice I have already spoken about that, as also Samson).

I've read plenty of theology, thank you, and you can leave the condescension at the door. If you want to have a civil exchange, that fine, but cut the pomposity.

And this is simply philosophical gobbledy-****, as far as I can see. It's not naive at all to say "God is something." Nothing/something is an either/or state, a boolean value, if you will. It's either nothing, or it's something. A god--whether his omnipotent or omniscient or extra-dimensional or whatever--is clearly "something," by any meaningful definition of the word. The claim that "you don't need an answer" for God's existence is just being lazy. I see that as theists being uncomfortable with the proposition just opting to end all inquiry and say "it's a magical mystery!" This is completely unsatisfying from a scientific perspective, of course.

I don't know your background on philosophy and theology, but forgive me to say you use terms in that aspect with extreme "easiness". Before answering it in detail, note also that I will not post MY view - I will just try to explain why in the domain of theology your premises are wrong. Also note that I am not taking the side of any specific religion.

By confining God to a specific dimension you immediately deny the very status of God. You even deny the status of God by talking only for the revealed side of God - thus, when you say "God is something" you are immediately confining the term to the dimensions of the created universe (however many those dimensions you want to be). That's not enough (a better term would be "God is the whole creation plus another unrevealed part"), and that's the reason I think you will find nobody who has read a bit of theology to agree with your phrase (which equates a creator with the creation). You can, of course, name that "philosophical gobbledy" or with whatever else term you want; you will still be as inexact as it can be on this specific domain.

On the other hand, the last part of your paragraph is of course correct; it's true that theists use the "magical part" to stop all inquiries. Who said this is right? (I have specifically said the opposite.)

The simple fact is that we have not one shred of empiric evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Supernatural causes have been posited for many things in the past (magnetism, gravity, volcanic activity, the formation of the earth, etc.), but have always fallen aside to natural explanations. Therefore the proposition of there being a supernatural ultimate cause for the existence of everything (i.e. God), when we don't even know there is such a thing as the supernatural, is inevitably a less rational explanation than one that posits purely natural phenomenon, no matter how theoretical it may be.

To whit, as much as theists may roll their eyes and protest, there really is no difference between saying that "God did it!" as an ultimate answer than there is to say the universe was created by the sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. Wrapping things in mystical, sacred language hardly endows them with more sensibility.

Here I completely agree with you that the absense of evidence and knowledge doesn't mean we should immediately conclude there is something supernatural. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean we can prove the absense of such a cause.

What I have said repeatedly is that the crucial thing is to know what you know and what you don't know. I haven't the slightest thing to add if you know that limit and then either decide to believe in a God or decide to believe in the absense of a God - as long as you know that this is just your belief, and not something backed with scientific evidence.

For the record, I do not say god(s) are impossible and that it's certain they don't exist. However, until I see empiric evidence that they do exist (or that even supernatural things exist), I have zero reason to believe they are real beyond the selfish and irrational. And it's fine for people to take things on faith and believe in supernatural things sans evidence, but let's not pretend it's just as rational as not believing in supernatural things, considering the lack of evidence.

I don't want to look philosophical again, but now you are trying to calculate beliefs with rationality standards, and this is by itself a contradiction. I take it you wanted to say that you believe only what seems logical to you - but you can't go more than that and establish a global rationality measurement based on your standards (this is also equally selfish and irrational).

 

[Samson]

If my little post was an assumption, what can I say for all these? How can anybody be happy with a hypothesis about a black hole, with an unknown dimension, unknown laws, etc. In other words, do you not feel it's answering nothing at all?

There are some unknown laws, but we are only talking about 1 dimension "up" in the energy scale to what we know. There reason for the hypothesis was that (I think, I wish I could find the articale again) the predicted curvature of a 5 dimensional black hole is that same as the observed cuvature of space time.
[EDIT] And I think they were talking (in the articale) about particale accerators coming on line around 2008 that would have the power to detect a 5th dimension. So it is a field where we may get more answers in the near future.

Additionally, my question still stands. How was this black hole created in the first place? (That's just to show you a discussion with such assumptions leads nowhere

Have you been skipping posts;

It does not, but surely it is an accumalation of matter in 5 dimensional space beyond the point where repulsive forces can not resist the force of gravity.

 

[atreas]

It does not, but surely it is an accumalation of matter in 5 dimensional space beyond the point where repulsive forces can not resist the force of gravity.

Have you been skipping posts;

Great. So let's play this game, since you don't see it's futile. Where did this matter come from?

 

[Samson]

Great. So let's play this game, since you don't see it's futile. Where did this matter come from?

I do not know. Are you getting at that if you invoke some pre existing something to explain start of the universe we know then the explanation has no value? If so, I would dissagree with your definition of value. This theory (just one of many, and a bit out there as they go) does not answer all questions you could ask, but may take us 1 step closer to understanding were we have come from. Remember we have no information from this 5th dimension, as we do not have anything powerfull enough to detect it. It may not even exist.

If you are really expecting me to come up with a creation theory for 5 dimesional space, the only one I can use is the other I mention up there ^ somewhere, that the universe is in an infinate cycle of big bangs and big crunches. Does that keep you happy?

 

[atreas]

@Samson: It isn't a matter of happy, and "don't know" is the best answer of all. Remember where this discussion started - it started when I suggested that only an explanation that started from absolutely nothing and resulted in the current world would be a definite answer. That's the only point of the "where did it come from" question: to show that with any other starting condition you wouldn't have a definite answer, but just a point for further investigation.

Don't put words in my mouth - where did you see anything about "value"? I LOVE scientific research, and I really like the fact that each day adds one more piece of knowledge. But we can't really say we currently have definite answers, so (IMO) we can't be so rigid in our statements. Is it clear enough?

 

[warpus]

@Samson: It isn't a matter of happy, and "don't know" is the best answer of all. Remember where this discussion started - it started when I suggested that only an explanation that started from absolutely nothing and resulted in the current world would be a definite answer.

What makes you so sure that a definite beginning is required at all?

 

[atreas]

What makes you so sure that a definite beginning is required at all?

I am not talking about a definite beginning, but about a definite (or as close as possible to that) answer. I even don't know if "definite" is the best word to use (perhaps "conclusive" is better).

 

[warpus]

I am not talking about a definite beginning, but about a definite (or as close as possible to that) answer. I even don't know if "definite" is the best word to use (perhaps "conclusive" is better).

Maybe there is no conclusive answer to this question.

 

[3 EMS]

After reading this thread, it seems appearant, that people will still be argueing about the beginning. Even if evolution becomes a fact.

 

[carlosMM]

Just one page ago I asked a very simple question. I repeat it here, for clarity:

no need - I answered it indirectly with my counterquestion.

We both agree on evolution, we both agree that there is no proof or even indication whatsoever for the existence of any god. No need to run through those parts of astrophysics that even the scientists studying them hardly understand.

The simple answer, if you need it expressis verbis is: We do not fully know (yet).

So, in the ABSENCE of knowledge and the ABSENCE of indications for existence, what does it matter if something is theoretically possible? Why do you cling to the less-than-1-in-a-billion-billion possibility that somewhere, some slug of spaghetti-like thingy locomotes through air and creates stuff....erh, some god does some things?

I wouldn't call it remote since I have seen no alternative theory.

This is really what I have been driving at: do you know the number of mountain goats in the Rocky Mountain 2,000 years ago?

No?


Then there WERE none?
Or there were mountain goat gods instead?
Or what other absurd phantasy?

Why does, in your opinion, the difficulty man has in researching a subject have a direct influence on the probability of the existence of a supernatural explanation? Why is human stupidity for you a proof for god?????

So I reverse your question: since you haven't the slightest idea of what happened and why and how, how can you so easily exclude the possibility of God?

a) the ideas are not so 'slight' as you make them
b) all through history, science has gained explanatory power. Still does. I take my chances with that, instead of the umpteen times disproven myths.

Note that I am talking about the "possibility of existence", and I will accept (as good scientist) any good argument that shows it's very remote. Also note that I don't care about what you like to BELIEVE - quite simply, when we speak about science, we shouldn't invoke science only when it is convenient for us.

Indeed, indeed, theoretically possible. But there are so many other things so much more likely and still highly unlikely that nobody would ever believe....

 

[atreas]

@carlosMM: It is tiring to say and listen to the same stuff. Summing up, I could say that I just read a repetition of the "absense of evidence -> evidence of absense" statement, together with a highly personal probabilistic estimation. As usual this carries no proof - the impressive thing is that there are so many people who think they can prove such statements, towards the one or the other direction.

This kind of stuff might be good when you want to counter the usual religious creationist arguments - but especially the probabilities part is NOT scientific at all, and can't withstand any kind of serious examination. If you think this is the only way to see the world, it's just not true.

I leave aside your phantasies about goats. They can't be good enough as arguments even for my 9 years old daughter, as you make serious logical errors. Since you have so clearly understood what I believe, could you also tell it to me? Why is it so difficult to understand that there can be people who don't fit into your nice little boxes?

 

[Samson]

@Samson: It isn't a matter of happy, and "don't know" is the best answer of all. Remember where this discussion started - it started when I suggested that only an explanation that started from absolutely nothing and resulted in the current world would be a definite answer. That's the only point of the "where did it come from" question: to show that with any other starting condition you wouldn't have a definite answer, but just a point for further investigation.

You started this sub-discusion by asking for an explaination of the existance of the universe that made sence, not one that is certain. I have propesed 2 explainations which do not require comeing from nothing. I have also given indications that things can come from nothing (I have no knowledge about theories that include the whole universe coming from nothing, but I am sure someone has come up with one).

Please note that when you are talking about a 5 dimensional black hole, the time dimension is of little more significance that the other 3, so you have to be very carful about asking where it came from.

I really wanted to give a fuller answer than this, but I am a bit busy today. Perhaps later.

Don't put words in my mouth - where did you see anything about "value"? I LOVE scientific research, and I really like the fact that each day adds one more piece of knowledge. But we can't really say we currently have definite answers, so (IMO) we can't be so rigid in our statements. Is it clear enough?

Sorry if I missinterpreted you. You called it futile, which I interpreted as without value. I can see how it might have meant something different. I never claimed definate answers, and you never asked for them (AFAICR). I have tried to be as "un-rigid" as possible.

 

[carlosMM]

@carlosMM: It is tiring to say and listen to the same stuff. Summing up, I could say that I just read a repetition of the "absense of evidence -> evidence of absense" statement,

funny, to me it seems you SHOULD read this again, maybe then you'd understand it.

I am not talking about AoE-->EoA, but rather about the weird fact that for AoE, you usually do not bother to BELIEVE int he Existence. just in this one case - and you seemingly cannot explain why!

You are as bad at it as any other Christian I have ever met - maybe you try again to answer my question?

together with a highly personal probabilistic estimation.

As usual this carries no proof - the impressive thing is that there are so many people who think they can prove such statements, towards the one or the other direction.

a) YOU keep talking proof, smart guy. Not me.
b) You still do not answer my question why you chose to believe THIS improbable thing, while refusing so many others. Can you answer it? or is there no answer?

This kind of stuff might be good when you want to counter the usual religious creationist arguments - but especially the probabilities part is NOT scientific at all, and can't withstand any kind of serious examination. If you think this is the only way to see the world, it's just not true.

I am asking you, not countering you. Please read before replying.
Also, please prove that there are other ways to see the world

I leave aside your phantasies about goats. They can't be good enough as arguments even for my 9 years old daughter, as you make serious logical errors. Since you have so clearly understood what I believe, could you also tell it to me? Why is it so difficult to understand that there can be people who don't fit into your nice little boxes?

Why is it so hard to answer my question??????????

 

[atreas]

funny, to me it seems you SHOULD read this again, maybe then you'd understand it.

I am not talking about AoE-->EoA, but rather about the weird fact that for AoE, you usually do not bother to BELIEVE int he Existence. just in this one case - and you seemingly cannot explain why!

Of course you haven't the slightest clue about how science proceeds. When you see a result that you can't understand, you create a theory that tries to explain it. At this theory you sometimes have to propose entities for which you haven't the slightest evidence of existence (do you really think that Democritus had a microscope when he proposed the existence of atoms?). The theory might be correct or might be wrong - but scientists have proposed the existence of things for which they had no evidence all the time, since the first days of science. When they proposed their theories they BELIEVED they are correct - that doesn't mean they were BLIND so as not to see they are wrong if a sufficient proof was found.

But you clearly can't understand the difference between a "theory" (i.e. a belief) and an "evidence" (i.e. a proof).

You are as bad at it as any other Christian I have ever met - maybe you try again to answer my question?

That's the very finest of your arguments . No my friend, I am even WORSE because the Christians say I am not a Christian and the atheists say that I am a Christian.

a) YOU keep talking proof, smart guy. Not me.
b) You still do not answer my question why you chose to believe THIS improbable thing, while refusing so many others. Can you answer it? or is there no answer?

Logic 101: The phrase "I can prove that <insert statement> is true/false" CAN be examined logically. The phrase "I don't think that you can prove that <insert statement> is true/false" belongs to a different kind. Which of the two do you pursue - because I happened to have proposed the second. Isn't it logical to expect a proof from you, since you so religiously claim that I am wrong?

I am asking you, not countering you. Please read before replying.
Also, please prove that there are other ways to see the world

Sorry, but I can't explain to you that the world is more diverse than you think. This is something that you might understand when you grow up. Until then you can make a quick internet search for the terms "strong atheism", "weak atheism", "methodological naturalism", and "ontological naturalism" - among many other examples that show how many opinions have been expressed on this subject.

Why is it so hard to answer my question??????????

I will do my best (will not be so hard): as I stated REPEATEDLY I don't care to present my beliefs because they aren't of any interest to anyone. But you even dared to go one step further: not only you presupposed what my beliefs are, but you even asked me to give a rational explanation about the beliefs that YOU supposed I have, despite the fact that I have also said that for me beliefs don't need rational explanations - they are just a declaration of ignorance on a subject.

GREAT LOGIC!!!!! Is this science too, or you just made another probabilistic guess?

 

[carlosMM]

atreas, in a few posts, you have gone from a rational logical poster to an extremely defensive ranter - why? Because of my question?

You insult left and right, you make condescending and arrogant remarks designed to take this debate off track - to avoid the question?

All I wanted was to get a ratinoal explanation of your adherence to non-rational beliefs. I never wanted a rational explanation OF your beliefs, just of why you use totally seperate rules for the application of logic and rationality when religiuon is concerned.


Your replies show me, as they usually do when I debate religious people, that you simply choose to kick rationality out the window, and are unwilling to discuss it. OK, your choice! But couldn't you simply have said so? It would have been an entirely normal and satisfactory answer. Instead you insult, sidetrack, pull all the dirty tricks of rhethorics you can find. Thank you, that is answer enough for me!

 

[atreas]

@carlosMM: I don't throw rationalism out of the window at all, and I tried to explain it already. Let me try to put it in different words (today I am much more calm, and it is true that yesterday I was in a much more defensive mood, for a quite different reason).

I can't give a rational explanation why people believe anything, carlos, because I am not in their minds. The only one that I could speak about is me, but I don't want to talk about my beliefs because I don't regard them as rational. The best I can do is to present what I have seen as the most rational reasonings on this subject, and I will present them just to show my good intentions for a discussion. Please don't ask me to defend either of them, because this isn't necessarily what I believe and so I am not qualified for such a defence.

The philosophs (including those who are involved in the philosophy of science) have proposed two lines of thought: one that accepts the presence of a creator, in order to explain how was the matter created and how the physical laws were enforced, and a second one that speaks about an "eternal matter" (or eternal matter+energy, if you prefer). Unfortunately, our current reliable evidence can't help to prove or disprove either of the two, so it remains a matter of belief what each one will choose. Note that this is already different from the typical creationist view, at least in the form that it is believed in Christianity.

The rational arguments behind each side, as I can understand them, is (for the "supernatural theory") that it explains everything, that you can't find in nature something that is created "from nothing", and that it also explains why the physical laws are what they are. The rational arguments behind the "materialist theory" is that until now we have been able to explain everything through science without need for supernatural entities, that we have no evidence of a supernatural entity, and that given science's progress we might have answers to the other issues soon. Unfortunately BOTH sides don't present evidence to back their claims - they are just making what is called "wishful thinking".

Apart from that, there have been various "mixes" of the two extremes (for example, to catter for immaterial ideas like ethics, etc). But I think I am fair in saying that these are the two major positions. MY problem is that I can't see any of the two as more or less rational than the other - I will be able to do so if there has been some evidence to allow me a critical reevaluation of the situation. For the moment I just say that IMO you can't have a rational estimation of something without evidence - and I really find equally unprobable both the "eternal matter" and the "eternal God" theories.

Was than an answer to your question?

 

[carlosMM]

atreas, thank you! That IS INDEED quite an answer to my question! I now understand WHY you chose the stance you take, which is what I was really after (even if I may not agree with you).

THANK YOU!

IMO you can't have a rational estimation of something without evidence

this is, essentially, the part that (I guess) escaped me in your previous posts. I'll read them again now.

 

[El_Machinae]

Apart from that, there have been various "mixes" of the two extremes (for example, to catter for immaterial ideas like ethics, etc).

This is my concern. While I can easily accept that something created our universe on purpose (I certainly don't know), I cannot easily accept that there are universal ethics constants. As well, just because something can create a universe (like I talk about in this thread), doesn't mean it cares about its creation!

 

[warpus]

Of course you haven't the slightest clue about how science proceeds. When you see a result that you can't understand, you create a theory that tries to explain it.

Does "And a magical being came down from the heavens and made it so" sound like a proper scientific theory to you?

It doesn't satisfy me one bit!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Does "And a magical being came down from the heavens and made it so" sound like a proper scientific theory to you?

It doesn't satisfy me one bit!

Alternatively, "oh there are infinite chains of big bangs, all of them caused by the previous, so we don't have to worry about causes" sounds like a fairly poor one too. Positing an infinite chain of events is not really better than positing a prime mover.

@El_Machinae - universal ethics constants aren't dependent on the universe's creator. Make sure you read that book I sent you.