Science
- Thread starter flogger
- Start date
The Berean
Well-known member
never mind double post...
Skeptic
New member
It is a lie that a person must rely upon the Bible to know the truth regarding the origination of the universe
But, since there is ZERO evidence for any supernatural things or processes, it is not logical to believe that anything could arise in a supernatural manner.
The universe has been changing form, since the Big Bang. At the time of the Big Bang, there was a quite radical change in the form of the universe - from a singularity to a rapid expansion. The clock of our timeline starts at the singularity. There may be other "prior" timelines, but they are probably forever inaccessible to us. If "prior" timelines are inaccessible, then what happened "before" the universe expanded from a singularity, including its alleged creation, is inaccessible.
But common sense (which might be wrong) tells us that something must have been eternal, either (1) the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe itself, or (2) some unknown factor that created the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe. I think (1) is more likely than (2), because we already have evidence of the existence of the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe (just look around), but we do not have any evidence of any unknown creative factor that is outside of this universe.
Why should it make more sense that a hypothetical supernatural entity with a personality is eternal, but the matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever of the universe itself is not? It does not make sense to me.
All alternative viewpoints are nonsense to a person who blindly follows a literal interpretation of Biblical fairy tales and superstitions.
The joke is that the "uphill" / "downhill" dichotomy inserted into discussions about evolution is not even scientific. :chuckle:
Skeptic
New member
Re: Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Re: Science
The unnecessary introduction of a hypothetical supernatural eternal entity with a personality who created matter/energy out of nothing IS a violation of the 1st Law.
Just because something is not yet explainable and may never be fully explainable in naturalistic terms, it does not logically follow that one must introduce some far-fetched hypothetical supernatural entity or process, for which there is ZERO evidence, to explain it.
Re: Re: Re: Science
The very existence of the universe is evidence for the very existence of the universe. When talking about the universe as a whole, evidence of its existence is not necessarily evidence of a time when it did not exist.
Until I have some rational reason to suppose something, I tentatively presuppose it does not exist.
I am a naturalistic agnostic. Currently, I think it is likely that the matter/energy of the universe did not create itself, and was not created by anything else. It is likely that it was never created in the first place! In which case it would be eternal.
The unnecessary introduction of a hypothetical supernatural eternal entity with a personality who created matter/energy out of nothing IS a violation of the 1st Law.
The supernatural is hypothetical, and there is ZERO evidence that it has ever existed at all.
Just because something is not yet explainable and may never be fully explainable in naturalistic terms, it does not logically follow that one must introduce some far-fetched hypothetical supernatural entity or process, for which there is ZERO evidence, to explain it.
And if matter/energy was not created, but is eternal? What then?
Skeptic
New member
The evolutionary logic that tells us that life probably evolved from a single type is contrary to your literal interpretation of your Bible, and you can't allow that.
What percentage of scientists agree that your assumption is a better scientific explanation?
I know of no evolutionary scientist who thinks that evolution "progressed" to allow human beings to become the "pinnacle" achievement of evolution. Evolution does not have any long-term goals that it progresses toward. Since the dawn of life, every generation of DNA was selected for by the unique ecological circumstances in which it found itself. Each generation did not strive toward increasing sophistication or intelligence. The notion that humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution is quite anthropocentric.
You have failed miserably to provide convincing evidence that your supernaturalistic fairy-tale hypotheses are "better ideas."
aharvey
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
This doesn't say, Science assumes God does not exist. This says, Science does not include God, nor exclude God from theories, because science has no way to collect evidence about God one way or the other."
Are you guys constitutionally unable to see the differenc?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
Um, Lucky? They're exactly the same. Skeptic's quote, to which Turbo replied, was: "Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?"
This doesn't say, Science assumes God does not exist. This says, Science does not include God, nor exclude God from theories, because science has no way to collect evidence about God one way or the other."
Are you guys constitutionally unable to see the differenc?
aharvey
New member
bob, you are such a liar. I'm sorry, but I'm just sick to death of your attributing petty motives that you can't possibly believe are true to others simply because they have a different viewpoint from yours. You know full well that evolutionary logic doesn't assume anything about the impossibility of "multiple types at the beginning;" it infers that all life could have a common ancestor, and available evidence re: DNA and other commonalities suggests that this is a pretty good inference. Period. The fact that the Bible says otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You keep saying this over and over and over and over and over, and you never even fully develop it, much less provide the slightest shred of support beyond "it's absurd to think otherwise." Fine philosophy from a former "aerospace engineer."
So, the presupposition here isn't that "science assumes God does not exist." The presupposition is that "science has no way to collect evidence about God." Point taken.
Now, I agree with Skeptic in that "why introduce [into science] a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?" Empirical science is based on observation. And there is no way to empirically investigate something that beyond our ability to observe, correct?
aharvey
New member
Oops, your recall isn't quite total. Here, let's try again, in order:
quote: (from Skeptic)
Science is about evidence. This is why science does not introduce God into theories. Why introduce a variable that is beyond the ability of science to empirically investigate or beyond our ability to rule out?
Turbo's direct response to this quote: So you presuppose that God does not exist? (my emphasis)
[Me: Skeptic's quote doesn't say that at all. Why do creationists continuously conflate "lack of assumption" with "assumption of lack"?]
Skeptic: Until I have some rational reason to suppose something, I tentatively presuppose it does not exist.
So Turbo, what you say in this post is technically true, but irrelevant. You're the biblical wordsmith around here, you tell me why you started your reply (not new question) to Skeptic with the word "So," if not because you based your notion that Skeptic presupposes no God on the quote to which you are replying. Get it? Skeptic's statements about how science deals with God do not follow from his personal views about the existence of God. So the fact that he assumes God does not exist does not allow you to conclude that when science makes no assumptions about God, it's the same as science assuming there is no God.
aharvey
New member
Thank you. It's even better to say that science makes no assumptions about God one way or the other, with the main reason for this being that it's not clear how one could use data from the natural world to falsify hypotheses about the supernatural.
As long as by "observe," you don't mean "see"!
aharvey
New member
Let's just say that there are enough silly word games played out here that it pays to be cautious. A scientific observation requires the collection of data. That data could be based on any of our senses, as enhanced as need be (and possible!) by our technology. As always, it pays to be aware of the fine line between observation and inference.
There's nothing wrong with "but," incidentally. The people who are least likely to know what they're talking about are the ones who never qualify or limit their statements.
I was drawing a conclusion based not only on Skeptics statement that I had quoted, but also on previous posts of his that I have read. And I put a question mark at the end of it in hopes that he would either correct me or confirm that my conclusion was correct. (And he did confirm it.)
:duh: I wasn't talking to science; I was talking to Skeptic. I didn't say "So science presupposes..." I said, "So you presuppose..."
Skeptic often claims that there is no scientific evidence for God. But when he is shown that based on what we do know through science, all possibilities for a naturalistic origin of the universe are eliminated and therefore point to a supernatural origin, he claims that there must be a naturalistic explanation that we just can't figure out yet. He would rather put blind faith in the possibility that maybe "science" is wrong about the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and perhaps there are natural conditions under which they do not apply, than concede that the universe had to have a supernatural origin. He more readily abandons the laws of thermodynamics than his presupposition that God does not exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science
Then why is there still increasing entropy? Why hasn't the universe reached a state of cold equilibrium?
A supernatural entity, by definition, is not bound by laws of nature.
Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it isn't there. See the last paragraph of my previous post.
Then you run into big problems with the second law of thermodynamics.
aharvey
New member
Hmm, so you were reconfirming what you already know about Skeptic's persoanl views on God by putting it in the context of a quote by Skeptic about how science deals with God? That makes a lot of sense!
So what was the purpose of the "so" again?
First, remember that natural "laws" are not legally binding documents, they are descriptions of natural phenomena under a wide range of natural conditions.
Second, the fact that there are lots of scientists doing original research as we speak should clue you in that there is rather a lot we don't fully understand about how natural processes operate in the natural world. In theory, science could accept a supernatural process as necessary for an observation, but this would require more than a "we can't explain it given our current understanding." It would require that we actually know where the limits of natural possibilities lie (e.g, the dark line around the red box ). Do you honestly think we're anywhere near there yet?
aharvey
New member
Me too. I only bother with these discussions on the origin of the universe, and the origin of life, because they are inevitably used to discredit the theory of evolution. You know, "if evolution can't explain the origin of the universe, and if it can't even explain the origin of life, then surely it can't be trusted to explain anything else either!"
Skeptic
New member
After further reflection, I take back what I said about science being neutral on the question of God. Science does not lead us to make the claim that there is no God. But, science operates by presupposing that supernatural entities and processes do not exist. If science did not presuppose the nonexistence of God, in which case God might be included as a possible variable, then the search for naturalistic possibilities might cease. Since God and supernatural possibilities are beyond our ability to investigate and rule out, introducing God as a variable does not benefit scientific theories in the least. Better to presume there is no God and proceed to look for naturalistic explanations, than allow God as an unverifiable and unfalsifiable possibility.
Let me ask you, Turbo, do you presuppose that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy does not exist? Please explain your answer.
Science has not ruled out all naturalistic possibilities for the origin of the universe. And science does not in any way "point" to a supernatural origin. At this stage in our scientific understanding, the jury is out as to whether the fundamental substance of the universe ever had an origin. We know there was a Big Bang, but we do NOT know that nothing preceded the Big Bang, or the singularity from which the universe expanded.
The believers in supernatural origins are the ones who believe that the universe popped (poofed) into existence out of nothing by some hypothetical unverifiable supernatural entity with a personality.
No, I do not say that there must be a naturalistic explanation. Rather, I say that there might be a naturalistic explanation, and we may or may not someday be able to decipher such an explanation. Of course, there also might be a supernatural explanation, but such an explanation is beyond the ability of science to decipher. This is why science does not bother to look for supernaturalistic explanations (methodologically presumes they don't exist), and sticks to searching ONLY for naturalistic explanations.
Science may be wrong about a lot of things. Science, as we know it today, does not violate the 1st and 2nd Laws. Remember, science does NOT presume the substance of the universe poofed into existence out of nothing. As far back as science can go, there is something (matter/energy/quantum flux/whatever). The supernaturalists are the ones who believe there was once a time when absolutely nothing existed!
If the singularity physicists are correct, then it is doubtful that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a singularity. The 2nd Law didn't kick in until after the Big Bang.
If, however, the singularity is simply one of an eternal series of singularities in an oscillating kind of universe, then the 2nd Law might get reset before every Big Bang, Or, perhaps, some other unknown (unknowable?) Laws of Thermodynamics might have applied to "previous" universes.
I've already laid out a few alternative possibilities to your supernatural origin hypothesis. What makes you such an expert that you know that there just had to be a supernatural origin of the universe? On what do you base your certainty?
What good does it do to suppose that God exists? Does it such a hypothesis give you any better ability to predict things? Does it advance science in any way?
But you maintain that you are neutral about the evaluation of evidence. This is where your fatal flaw is. You are not neutral at all, you are an enemy of God and all the evidence in the world or lack thereof has nothing to do with why you are an unbeliever.
I would like it very much if you could respond to the following quote from Battle Royalle VII...
- Oringinaly posted by Bob Enyart
Transcendental Proof for God
As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here’s why:
God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. Unbelievers require theists to provide evidence for God which is not circular, which does not beg the question, that is, they insist that we do not assume that which we should try to prove. They claim that faith puts theists at a disadvantage, because we trust in God. Contrariwise, they claim that they reject faith, and constrain themselves to the laws of logic and reason. Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. For [BA10-9] if atheists attempt to justify “logic and reason” by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph.
On the other hand, as a last ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a no-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen successfully used the transcendental proof for God while debating a leading atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California at Irvine.)
A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines “faith” as accepting “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).
In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of [BA10-7]) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. So, in an atheist’s attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist’s ability to persuade.
Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said “surely!” I’ve used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ’s statement that, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.
Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). So naturally, the atheist community is most ready to admit to the moral consequence of atheism that denies the possibility of ultimate righteousness. But as the intellectual ramifications of atheism continue to work their way into mankind’s corporate thinking, eventually, atheists will lose their hesitancy and admit the same effect regarding logic. Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance.
With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein’s Gulf: “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.”
What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner’s point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical!
So try this: go and find an unsuspecting atheist, and ask him two questions. First, Q1: Is atheism logical? Second, Q2: Are the laws of logic absolute or has society only agreed upon them by convention? He will be happier with the first question than with the second. To the first, a typical atheist today will answer, yes! A1: Atheism is logical. (Why that answer? Atheists crave a foundation and so they are still substituting an indefensible, reasonless rationalism for the reasonable God whom they rebel against.) But for the second question, the atheist’s fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: “No, the laws of logic are not absolute!” as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. (When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: “What validates logic?” What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can’t be done. And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today’s atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible [BA10-9], and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God’s existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis.
Resting in Him,
Clete