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

[El_Machinae]

Don't we easily posit an infinite chain of events in the future? I mean, it will get more boring during the Long Cool (tough for those of us trying to remain immortal) - but we assume that things will just keep going on forever.

So, like Mise asks? Why does going backwards make a difference?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Don't we easily posit an infinite chain of events in the future?

No idea, but I don't posit a "magical being" either. I was trying to get across that accusing the other side of not having a proper scientific theory after caricaturing their position is the truly unscientific thing to do here.

 

[warpus]

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.

That's like saying that

"And a magical being pulls the Earth around the Sun"

is just as ridiculous of a theory as:

"Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

I don't have a problem with postulating that there was an "original mover", but that sort of implies that this "original mover" has existed forever.. and if you're going to postulate that then what's wrong with postulating that the Universe has existed forever? It's just as believable.

Introducing "magical being" into any scientific theory is just nonsense, though.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Woosh goes the point over warpus' head. Now you're trying to compare theories again; my point was that both sides are usually attacking strawmen because they caricature the other side's position.

and if you're going to postulate that then what's wrong with postulating that the Universe has existed forever?

Our observations tell us that it's 13 milliard years old?

 

[Mise]

@Erik, a few things:

1. Is the characature actually false?

2. Science doesn't claim that any particular hypothesis we currently have for how the universe came into being is the absolute truth on the matter, nor does it expect anyone to worship their guess. Science invites criticism, whereas religion doesn't. (...or was that another caricature?)

3. The scientific reasons are based on something, for example the existing laws of the universe, whereas any (or most) forms of "God" aren't.

 

[warpus]

Woosh goes the point over warpus' head. Now you're trying to compare theories again; my point was that both sides are usually attacking strawmen because they caricature the other side's position.

I was? What is God but not a magical being?

Our observations tell us that it's 13 milliard years old?

That's the observable Universe.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was? What is God but not a magical being?

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's magical. If He actually exists, what does that have to do with magic?

Maybe He operates with rules outside of what we've observed (being conscious in multiple dimensions does that to a person, you know), but that's about it.

It's like claiming that the hand animating a puppet is magical, it isn't, but the puppets don't understand.

Anyway, no need to be too hostile.

Mise: good points.

 

[warpus]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's magical. If He actually exists, what does that have to do with magic?

Maybe He operates with rules outside of what we've observed (being conscious in multiple dimensions does that to a person, you know), but that's about it.

It's not me claiming that God is magical, it's Christians

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It's not me claiming that God is magical, it's Christians

The word "magic" has almost no meaning in sociology or theology. I believe that God operates according to a set of laws that He can't violate without seriosu consequences. But within these laws there is a great deal that He can do, and some of these laws are by there nature beyond the capacity of humans ever to understand, let alone manipulate.

 

[warpus]

The word "magic" has almost no meaning in sociology or theology. I believe that God operates according to a set of laws that He can't violate without seriosu consequences. But within these laws there is a great deal that He can do, and some of these laws are by there nature beyond the capacity of humans ever to understand, let alone manipulate.

If God is bound by a set of rules or laws - then he's not all-powerul - and not the God that Christians claim is described in the Bible.

All-powerful implies that God lies outside of any rules whatsoever - and is able to do as he pleases - and that's "magic".

I'd have no problem with creationism if its proponents didn't assume things such as "God is all-powerful" and "God didn't have a beginning" without some sort of evidence to back that up with.

If creationists found some sort of evidence to support the theory that we were created - say - a copyright notice on our DNA - and didn't assume anything about the creator until there was evidence to back up their claims, then that'd be at least credible! Right now they're just pulling things out of thin air and assuming them to be fact. That's not science.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If God is bound by a set of rules or laws - then he's not all-powerul - and not the God that Christians claim is described in the Bible.

All-powerful implies that God lies outside of any rules whatsoever - and is able to do as he pleases - and that's "magic".

Well, I have never believed that God is omnipotent. And the Bible doesn't actually attribute true omnipotence to God, just that He is "all-powerful" in the sense that He can do anything that can be done. Understand, of course, that this is a belief of mine that I know isn't backed by science.

I do agree that ID and Creationism aren't scientific.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

Without (please pretty please) making me read all the posts, how did we get to anybody talking about an infinite chain of big bangs? Isn't one enough?

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between an infinite "chain" of big bangs and an infinite set of "parallel universes" i.e. disconnected space-times? I suspect the hardcore physics answer is that there is no physically meaningful difference between the two hypotheses.

 

[Rossiya]

there are always going to be creationsists. where there is science, there is religion, where there is evolution, there are creationists. where there are english people, there are paraguayan people...

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

Love among the less evolved.

 

[Bluemofia]

That's the observable Universe.

That means that light has traveled for 13 milliard/billion/whatever-number-equal-to-10^9 billion years.

So that means that the universe has to be at least that old. (allowing for minor observational errors)

 

[Samson]

Without (please pretty please) making me read all the posts, how did we get to anybody talking about an infinite chain of big bangs? Isn't one enough?

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between an infinite "chain" of big bangs and an infinite set of "parallel universes" i.e. disconnected space-times? I suspect the hardcore physics answer is that there is no physically meaningful difference between the two hypotheses.

It was me. Someone asked for a possible explaination of where the universe came from prior to the big bang without us comeing from nothing. I gave 2 (5 dimensional black hole and infinate chain of big bangs).

The other question, I do not know. Is it more likely that 2 universes that are joined by a big crunch / big bang would have similar phisical laws? Similar sizes? I do not know.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Without (please pretty please) making me read all the posts, how did we get to anybody talking about an infinite chain of big bangs? Isn't one enough?

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between an infinite "chain" of big bangs and an infinite set of "parallel universes" i.e. disconnected space-times? I suspect the hardcore physics answer is that there is no physically meaningful difference between the two hypotheses.

Assuming the "infinite chain of big bangs" refers to some sort of cyclical big bang/big crunch model, there is a physical difference, in that the starting conditions of successive universes are to some extent determined by the ending conditions of the previous one. Depending on details (viz. if there are no actual singularities at the crunches/bangs), it may be possible to draw a timelike trajectory thru them all. In the parallel universes case, there would be no connection at all between the different continua.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Depending on details (viz. if there are no actual singularities at the crunches/bangs), it may be possible to draw a timelike trajectory thru them all.

But if the bangs are singularities - then no connection? Isn't it widely thought that our Big Bang is a (naked?) singularity?

 

[Rad Chris]

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? -- Mr Hawking

 

[Ayatollah So]

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? [...] -- Mr Hawking

I prefer to think of it this way.

Pretend you're making a list of all the logically possible ways that things might have been. On this list will be one, count 'em, one scenario where nothing exists. There will be an uncountable infinity of scenarios where something exists.

Now from that perspective, if nothing existed, THAT would be remarkable!