Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[bilby]

Unlike science, theists claim to know how the Universe came about: it was created by God (whatever that's supposed to be).

Theists make the Faith statement that God created the Earth, so I'd say you're right in that case. Atheists have made faith statements because they believed the science of yesterday was sound e.g. the best explanation of the time until something new comes along etc... Will this still be the case today?

Those are not "faith" statements. Humans make probabilistic assessments based on the available information all the time (an AI would do as well). That is no faith, just like, say, it is not on faith that I believe that Biden won the election, or that Tesla's cars are electric, or that you are human. Those are vanilla everyday assessments.

It strikes me as very odd that a person trying to defend his decision to use faith as a means to truth would do so by implying that his opponents do the same, and are therefore unable to claim to know the truth.

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Learner's assessment that a person who made 'faith statements' that were later contradicted by new scientific evidence was wrong. I just don't understand why he doesn't apply the exact same critical reasoning to his own epistemology.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems to me that the evangelizing theists have no concept of the methodology originated by natural philosophers and expanded by later science. The theists start with the answer they firmly believe then try to shape their arguments to support that answer. They appear to assume that science uses that methodology too. They can't seem to even imagine that the scientific method is to start with an open questions and seek answers to those questions that can be tested for validity.

A question posed by the old natural philosophers back in Newton's time was what was it that kept the planets in orbit about the sun. Theistic philosophers at the time asserted that god had angels push them around. Newton (a natural philosopher) proposed his laws of motion and his formulation of universal law of gravitation as an answer to planetary motion. The theistic philosophers' assertion could not be tested for validity but it was an assertion that supported their belief that goddidit. Newton's proposals could be and were tested for validity. They were found to be a very reliable understanding for centuries until more accurate measurements could be made and minor errors observed. This led to a new open question of the reason for the errors. An answer was proposed by uncle Albert that can be and has been tested and, so far, has proven to be valid. However, Newton's answer is so reliable for anything but extreme conditions that it is still used even by NASA. I don't know of anyone who still relies on the angels pushing the planets around model but there probably still are a few. I would imagine that it would be 'extremely difficult' to plan and carry out a mission to land rovers on Mars using the angels pushing planets model.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those are not "faith" statements. Humans make probabilistic assessments based on the available information all the time (an AI would do as well). That is no faith, just like, say, it is not on faith that I believe that Biden won the election, or that Tesla's cars are electric, or that you are human. Those are vanilla everyday assessments.

It strikes me as very odd that a person trying to defend his decision to use faith as a means to truth would do so by implying that his opponents do the same, and are therefore unable to claim to know the truth.

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Learner's assessment that a person who made 'faith statements' that were later contradicted by new scientific evidence was wrong. I just don't understand why he doesn't apply the exact same critical reasoning to his own epistemology.

Not to mention that, a'DUH, yeah, those are fucking faith statements.

At some point, we have to believe something. At some point we all have faith. Some faith is in the universe existing. Some faith is in the idea that the universe (and, in fact, the metaverse) never actually contradicts itself. Some faith is in the idea that things can be known.

A faith statement is one in which a premise is assumed to be true.

It is not faith to say Biden won the election because we can, and have, verified that heavily. We can pull open the ledger and count again. We DID do that in many jurisdictions. We CAN and often people DO pull apart tesla cars and do in fact see a lack of combustion engines and tailpipe. It is trivial to do so. I don't assume out of hand that every name here that posts is human. I have my doubts about some of them ever passing a Turing test but then again I accept that some people are absolutely trapped in the Chinese room anyway. I accept that on faith; I haven't verified it.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
There is a great difference between accepting something on faith as true and accepting something as a very likely probability (even just shy of certainty) because of overwhelming evidence.

 

[fromderinside]

More importantly the probability of the data presented must be based upon verified material data/observation.

 

[Jarhyn]

^ ^ ^
There is a great difference between accepting something on faith as true and accepting something as a very likely probability (even just shy of certainty) because of overwhelming evidence.

And so too there is a difference between "that in which we do not share faith" and "that in which we share common faith".

The entire conversation of what is, and is not "faith" colloquially is really an explosion of the idea of SHARED faith. When discussing whether something is a "faith statement", really the discussion is whether something is a "faith statement outside of common axioms of the interlocutors."

 

[Swammerdami]

It seems to me that the similarity would be only that the two view the universe is eternal.

My understanding of the Penrose CCC is that the universe is continually expanding and that black holes are only temporary as they will eventually evaporate. That the universe will eventually reach a condition of maximum entropy, 'smoothness', or uniformity. As this is the condition of the early universe shown in the CMB, applying conformal geometry means that the 'end' of the expansion is indistinguishable from what is commonly seen as the 'beginning' in the BB theory. It is a compelling cosmological model and I see the math but have qualms about the physics.

The nested black hole model also proposes an eternal universe but suggests that what would be seen as an expanding universe from within one of the 'black hole universes' would actually be an ever collapsing of space time. This is also a compelling cosmological model but again I have qualms about the physics.

Black Holes ARE temporary. In the blink of an eye. !

That's the thing. There is NO time involved.

What ever has happened is not in the past but in the NOW....Same as what's not happened Will happen...No change. Infinitely.

Horrible conclusion. But it's what I personally believe in.

("Horrible"). Penrose says he invented CCC because otherwise the default conclusion — that the Universe would spend endless googols of years in a maximally boring state — saddened him hugely.

 

[steve_bank]

Philosophy covers widely, and in some minds, sometimes mistaken for, or disguised as theoretical.

Maybe one in disagreement should suggest to the science community, to change the academic titles: Doctor Philosophiae, Doctor of Philosophy or PhD... to something else.

Science sprang from 'natural philosophy' (Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher). Natural philosophy is concerned with understanding the nature of the universe as opposed to the philosophy where questions such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin was argued for years and years. So a PhD for the sciences seems quite appropriate.

Issac Newton was a natural philosopher - understanding the nature of the universe...

... who also studied theology, and was a member of the Anglican church while studying nature - like others who were religious, who contibuted to science in the same mind etc.,

So, this philosophy in particular has some validity then, and should be appropiate when theists use it today?

Yeah nice one, bringing him up. (I wanted to make a similar point with nature)

Whatever you label Newton the point is he translated his ideas into quantifiable verifiable mathematical models. which we still use today.

That is what differentiates science form philosophy and religion.

If you want philosophy one of mu favorite quotes is from Kelvin. It goes something like if you can't quantify something with numbers your knowledge is 'of a meager and unsatisfactory king; not yet sconce.

Descartes wrote apply yourself to problems that are solvable, leave the rest to the astrologers, mean the woo, rekifion, and philosophy.

In the intro to his history of philosophy Durand said the same thing. Sconce deals with what can be quantified, the rest falls under religion and philosophy.

And one of my all time favorites. 'In god we trust, all else bring data'..

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
There is a great difference between accepting something on faith as true and accepting something as a very likely probability (even just shy of certainty) because of overwhelming evidence.

And so too there is a difference between "that in which we do not share faith" and "that in which we share common faith".

The entire conversation of what is, and is not "faith" colloquially is really an explosion of the idea of SHARED faith. When discussing whether something is a "faith statement", really the discussion is whether something is a "faith statement outside of common axioms of the interlocutors."

My understanding of the word faith is belief without convincing evidence, or even in spite of contrary evidence. This would be why the word faith is so appropriate in religious belief. In religion there is devout belief based only on some old texts and traditions and even in spite of very convincing contrary scientific evidence. How many people have faith that Noah's flood is a factual account? Why? How many people have faith that the story in Genesis is absolutely true? Why?

 

[DBT]

Confidence in the objects and events of the world is built through direct experience with them, which is evidence. Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

^ ^ ^
There is a great difference between accepting something on faith as true and accepting something as a very likely probability (even just shy of certainty) because of overwhelming evidence.

And so too there is a difference between "that in which we do not share faith" and "that in which we share common faith".

The entire conversation of what is, and is not "faith" colloquially is really an explosion of the idea of SHARED faith. When discussing whether something is a "faith statement", really the discussion is whether something is a "faith statement outside of common axioms of the interlocutors."

My understanding of the word faith is belief without convincing evidence, or even in spite of contrary evidence. This would be why the word faith is so appropriate in religious belief. In religion there is devout belief based only on some old texts and traditions and even in spite of very convincing contrary scientific evidence. How many people have faith that Noah's flood is a factual account? Why? How many people have faith that the story in Genesis is absolutely true? Why?

I wonder if it's the other way around, that people write those stories because inventing such stories is emotionally satisfying. When another person discovers the story it hits the same buttons. They really don't have faith that the story is true, rather it agrees with their emotional identity and so they embrace it as their own.

When I was young, aside from religious stories and claims, there were other things I thought were real like magic and professional wrestling and the Harlem Globetrotters. All these things were just staged and marketed for my consumption. Religious stories and fables fill the same need, but the need comes first, the stories are invented and adopted to satisfy the need. The need is what's real, not the stories.

If I'm not a scientifically curious and informed person my embrace of those childhood stories will never go away. This is faith. My universe will always need a magic creator.

 

[WAB]

Yeah, you know, now I'm thinking the '69 Jets Super Bowl win was staged and marketed! I mean, come freakin on, the freakin JETS win the Super freakin Bowl?

Nah, no way. Not in a Euclidean universe, not in a non-Euclidean universe!

No freakin way! My whole childhood has been roont! Roont!

(Sorry, my New York came out a lil bit there. Lil bit...)

 

[fromderinside]

G-eye-ant far are yee?

No way Jose are they allowed in Neu-yark any mor-ah in dis Un-ee-verse.

I know 'cause my step mom came from Hadley on Lake Luzerne outside Bhingham-tun.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

If I'm not a scientifically curious and informed person my embrace of those childhood stories will never go away. This is faith. My universe will always need a magic creator.

Being comforted and having those "warm fuzzies" over childhood stories is not faith, it is emotionally appealing or embracing the familiar. Actually believing the stories are literally true only because someone had once told you they were would be faith. Both together would also be faith.

 

[DBT]

Faith needs a conviction of truth...to have faith, to believe regardless of an absence of evidence or even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It seems atheists often define “faith” as belief without evidence (or even in spite of contrary evidence) whereas it seems many religious people define faith as deeply-held beliefs and thus assign atheists’ beliefs in science as “faith” equal to their own.

They would likely argue with the atheists’ definition, as they think they do see evidence all around them.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me post an argument distinguishing between your two concepts Shadowy man.

Operations are procedures that link materiality to observations

There is no operation set for material deeply deeply belief because it is not observable, it is not material.
.
On the other hand operations for any scientific belief begins with material operations. It can be tested by everyone and it will yield the same material result every time which everyone can see.

 

[steve_bank]

It seems atheists often define “faith” as belief without evidence (or even in spite of contrary evidence) whereas it seems many religious people define faith as deeply-held beliefs and thus assign atheists’ beliefs in science as “faith” equal to their own.

They would likely argue with the atheists’ definition, as they think they do see evidence all around them.

In general yes, faith needs no evidence. You can more broadle substitute sketics for atheists. Not all atheists are skeptics. One can be atheist and belive in Big Fott and alien abductions, they do.

As always the debate comes down to what evidence means.

To us skeptics a few lines in ancient writings by unknown authors is not evidence of anything.

One of the heist 'evidence' based arguments is..

How do you know god exists?
Because god is in the bble.
How do you known the bible is true?
Because god inspired it.

Bible as evidence.

I was talking about creationism with an Evangelical I knew. He pointed out the window and said 'Just look, it is obvious it was created by god'.


What theists call evidence is more self rationalization to shore up faith.

For me evidence must be testable.

For theists it is all obvious.

I prayed for something good to happen. I fid $29 on the street. It must be sign from god. Ignoring all the times I prayed and nothing happened.

The question of origins and why of the universe propably go back to the beginnings of language. All cultures past and present have creation stories and myths.

In Native American cultures the horse was a gift from a spirit. W know of course where they came from. There is nothing wrong with the myth as part of culture. It can be a good thing. The problem is when authority is assumed by vis rtue of belifs leading to conflict and oppression.

Extreme Christians get very angry when evolution and cosmology conflict with their myths. Conservative media like FOX paint science as evil atheists out to destroy religion. This is why I participate on the religion forum. To protect my rights in the face of a faith that historical suppresses all but their own myths.

Over my time on the forum there was steady stream of theists out to disprove scince and prove creationism. Faith by definition is belif in something for which there is no visible evidence.

When I get on a jet I do not have faith it will fly. My knowledge of science and my experience as an engineer tells me I can trust that plane will liley get off the ground, knowing there is always a possibility of a crash.

Faith versus evidence based trust in outcomes . What theists cite as evidence is totally subjective.

 

[Learner]

Unlike science, theists claim to know how the Universe came about: it was created by God (whatever that's supposed to be).

Theists make the Faith statement that God created the Earth, so I'd say you're right in that case. Atheists have made faith statements because they believed the science of yesterday was sound e.g. the best explanation of the time until something new comes along etc... Will this still be the case today?

Those are not "faith" statements. Humans make probabilistic assessments based on the available information all the time (an AI would do as well). That is no faith, just like, say, it is not on faith that I believe that Biden won the election, or that Tesla's cars are electric, or that you are human. Those are vanilla everyday assessments.

Regarding "those are not faith statements..." My initial intention should be said, that it was not meant to apply to everyone atheist! I didn't mention every aspect of a human's perceptive on reality (vanila-everyday..) are made as faith statements/claims. But even then, when people do make assessments - they DO decide to make conclusions, telling them that this IS the reality so far.

Funny thing , I made similar assessments , and of the scriptures, they seem real enough to me so far. The Faith IS Trust. Trusting the authors (and in turn, God) as the 'testimony and witnessing' narrative quite strongly portrays and how it relates relatively to what we know of the world.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Those are not "faith" statements. Humans make probabilistic assessments based on the available information all the time (an AI would do as well). That is no faith, just like, say, it is not on faith that I believe that Biden won the election, or that Tesla's cars are electric, or that you are human. Those are vanilla everyday assessments.

Regarding "those are not faith statements..." My initial intension should be said, that it was meant to apply to everyone atheist! I didn't mention every aspect of a human's perceptive on reality (vanila-everyday..) are made as faith statements/claims. But even then, when people do make assessments - they DO decide to make conclusions, telling them that this IS the reality so far.

I know you did not mean that every vanilla everyday assessment was a faith statement. My point is that assessments that science gets it right are vanilla everyday assessments. For example, you read in newspapers that scientists found a planet at such-and-such distance from Earth, using Doppler spectroscopy, and you don't need to have faith or know about the specific method to assess that they very probably did find the planet. Science generally works.

That said, if it is meant to apply to every atheist, I would like to ask how it applies to me.

Funny thing , I made similar assessments , and of the scriptures, they seem real enough to me so far. The Faith IS Trust. Trusting the authors (and in turn, God) as the 'testimony and witnessing' narrative quite strongly portrays and how it relates relatively to what we know of the world.

How do you go about that?
For example, you read in the Bible an implication that people who behave in such-and-such way deserve such-and-such punishment (because it has been said in the scriptures). Do you actually assess whether that is a true claim, or just accept it as true?