I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[bilby]

But that's unimportant, because nothing in my argument implies that it applies only to physical entities.

Your response changes nothing. There cannot be an initial cause.

Its currently understood that the universe is 13.5 billion years old.

No it isn't. That's an over simplification. It is currently understood that our current theories cannot describe events prior to 13.5 billion years ago. That's not the same thing - but it's close enough for casual conversation. When you use casual terms as though they were specific and detailed statements of fact, you are going to get things badly wrong.

By this definition (and there are quite a few) the scientists then must have mean't "physical-thingys" coming into existence , when it was non-physicalness before?

Not necessarily. What they mean is 'We currently cannot know'.

You may not agree with Krauss.

Nothing non-physical has any effect or influence on the physical universe - by definition

IF you're including energy/invisible forces as "physical" by your definition - then thats a valid concept.

Everything - including you - is energy and physical forces. And nothing else. That's not MY definition of 'physical'; It's THE definition of physical.

Our best tested scientific theory of all time says that matter IS energy (in a very specific configuration) and that energy (and forces) are expressed as variations in the magnitude of various fields.

The gap you are trying to wedge your half-baked creator into has been closed by science and logic. There cannot be an initial cause.

 

[steve_bank]

Based on current observations the BB Theory extrapolates back in time to a theoretical set of initial conditions that led to what we see today. Trajectories today run back in time indicate some kind of explosion.

The BB does not start at a time zero. It does not address how the initial conditions came to be. There is no creation or coming into existence from nothing in the theory.

A beginning of an explosion would be a time zero in this regard. (If different from your time zero concept)

Anything that exists is by definition natural.There can be no supernatural. A tenet of Freethinking. Anything that impacts our reality has a causal link, regardless if we can discover the link or not.

We could vote on the definition of supernatural,to be updated under the catergory of "undiscovered-causal-link"? Maybe not.

As always you folks have no understanding of any aspect of science let alone cosmology. There is no scientific cosmology that addresses ultimate organs, did the universe have a beginning?

Again, the theory starts when the reaction that led to what we see today starts. What happened before that is not covered by the theory. There is no something from nothing. Moving t0 around changes nothing.


For many years on the forum theists first fail in attempts to prove god by logic, failing that they try and turn the table by attempting to use science to prove god.

Supernatural covers most anything one wants. God, faith healing, channeling past people, reincarnation, levitation, telekinesis and so on.

Something beyond the observable detectable 'natural world'. Somebody talking via radio in the presence of aboriginal cultures might be called supernatural. Magic. It wascoverd in the Star Trek sagas. Advanced technology taken as magic by less developed cultures.

For us rationalists there can be no supernatural. Only what exists. If a ghost is real and you see it then there is a causal link between the ghost and your brain.

You can not disprove the supernatural, good news for ghost believers. If I utter a phrase to summon a demon in the prescience of others and it does not show, maybe it was busy. Maybe I got the words wrong.

You can define it any way you like, it does not affect sciences.

 

[Rhea]

Why. Why do you desperately need it to be a conscious being? What makes you so rattled by the idea of unguided physical actions that you cannot entertain a scenario without a conscious (and presumably beneficent and likewise presumably intricately detail oriented) being that you can personally identify and claim to understand?

More like "desperately" hoping it wasn't true because of personal conflictions. I did entertain the scenario "without" that conscious entity but eventually, I just changed my mind due to "lack of evidence"

?? Seriously... and so then you went with what evidence?

What evidence for a lack of conscious guidance were you looking for that you didn't see?
What would that evidence have looked like?


Please answer seriously.

 

[angelo]

Why. Why do you desperately need it to be a conscious being? What makes you so rattled by the idea of unguided physical actions that you cannot entertain a scenario without a conscious (and presumably beneficent and likewise presumably intricately detail oriented) being that you can personally identify and claim to understand?

More like "desperately" hoping it wasn't true because of personal conflictions. I did entertain the scenario "without" that conscious entity but eventually, I just changed my mind due to "lack of evidence"

?? Seriously... and so then you went with what evidence?

What evidence for a lack of conscious guidance were you looking for that you didn't see?
What would that evidence have looked like?


Please answer seriously.

You mean sub-conscious mind as an entity?

 

[atrib]

Good peer reviewed science is impossible to ignore even though theist do ignore it.

I don't doubt some may ignore peered reviewed science but not all. (theists are modernised too)

If God created everything that's within the cosmos, that would include science. Now this god created science would by now have discovered a mountain of evidence for the existence of it's creator god. But the opposite has/is happening. On the contrary, With each passing day science is proving that god is not necessary to explain the universe, or the origins of life.

A little more time needed for the underlined i would guess. Its easy to say God is not neccessary when everything is on auto-run so to speak. Whats probably needed in the explanation is sureness of the initial cause.

Either our universe came from energy that existed before the Big Bang singularity event, or it came from nothing. Those are the two possible explanations that we can think of.

If our universe originated from the interaction of scalar fields (something), as cosmic inflation theory seems to suggest, then an intelligent cause is not needed as an explanation. There was existing energy, and perturbations in the energy caused inflationary expansion of spacetime, which drove the formation of reality as we see it today. Adding god to this explanation does not add any value, but it does add a layer of complexity to the explanation since you now have to explain where this god came from.

On the other hand, if our universe came from nothing, then energy can appear out of nothing and coalesce into matter given the right initial conditions. Again, no gods needed.

Science does not deal with certainty, that is for religious beliefs. Science deals with probabilities. General relativity tells us that if you step off the top of a very tall building you will likely fall to you death. While it is hypothetically possible that a wormhole might appear at that exact same instant and alter the Earth's spacetime curvature enough to save your life, I would not bet on those odds. There is no "sureness of the initial cause", there is scientific hypothesis backed up with observations and experiments.

 

[abaddon]

Why. Why do you desperately need it to be a conscious being? What makes you so rattled by the idea of unguided physical actions that you cannot entertain a scenario without a conscious (and presumably beneficent and likewise presumably intricately detail oriented) being that you can personally identify and claim to understand?

More like "desperately" hoping it wasn't true because of personal conflictions. I did entertain the scenario "without" that conscious entity but eventually, I just changed my mind due to "lack of evidence"

?? Seriously... and so then you went with what evidence?

What evidence for a lack of conscious guidance were you looking for that you didn't see?
What would that evidence have looked like?


Please answer seriously.

If Learner entertained the scenario without the conscious entity, he changed his mind due to his lack of entertaining the scenario without this assumption: "stupid matter can't self-organize". Maybe God got questioned a bit, but what nature can't do didn't.

So the evidence for a lack of conscious guidance he may have looked for, but didn't see, was dis-organization. No complex systems in nature is what the evidence would have looked like.

It's a bit interesting: If a theist might really consider "maybe there is no God?", still he cannot escape reacting "but there must be!" because the religion (and language, itself laden with the "things are made" metaphor that informs theistic intuitions) has shaped his view of what nature is like: it's "random", it's dumb stuff, it's "clay" waiting for a potter to shape it.

 

[Learner]

No it isn't. That's an over simplification. It is currently understood that our current theories cannot describe events prior to 13.5 billion years ago. That's not the same thing - but it's close enough for casual conversation. When you use casual terms as though they were specific and detailed statements of fact, you are going to get things badly wrong.

Then the theoretical concept of the Big Bang is not what you're talking about then perhaps.

Everything - including you - is energy and physical forces. And nothing else. That's not MY definition of 'physical'; It's THE definition of physical.

Our best tested scientific theory of all time says that matter IS energy (in a very specific configuration) and that energy (and forces) are expressed as variations in the magnitude of various fields.

You're preaching to the converted. Funny enough, religious people of all sorts, go along with this concept too e.g. God , creator is energy and light etc..

The gap you are trying to wedge your half-baked creator into has been closed by science and logic. There cannot be an initial cause.

There are I suppose , currently large enough holes to wedge all sorts of ideas into e.g. multi-dimensions, more mathematical models,which are undoubtedly interesting nevertheless.

 

[bilby]

Then the theoretical concept of the Big Bang is not what you're talking about then perhaps.

I can assure you that it is.

Your failure to recognise it suggests that you are not as familiar with the theory as you believe.

You're preaching to the converted. Funny enough, religious people of all sorts, go along with this concept too e.g. God , creator is energy and light etc..

Yeah, no. You are equivocating dissimilar concepts, probably because you are totally out of your depth and don't understand them at all.

The gap you are trying to wedge your half-baked creator into has been closed by science and logic. There cannot be an initial cause.

There are I suppose , currently large enough holes to wedge all sorts of ideas into e.g. multi-dimensions, more mathematical models,which are undoubtedly interesting nevertheless.

There are holes; But they cannot accommodate ALL sorts of ideas. None of them is shaped anything like any god concepts.

 

[Kharakov]

There are holes; But they cannot accommodate ALL sorts of ideas. None of them is shaped anything like any god concepts.

Multiverse theories don't accommodate any god concepts?

 

[Underseer]

No it isn't. That's an over simplification. It is currently understood that our current theories cannot describe events prior to 13.5 billion years ago. That's not the same thing - but it's close enough for casual conversation. When you use casual terms as though they were specific and detailed statements of fact, you are going to get things badly wrong.

By this definition (and there are quite a few) the scientists then must have mean't "physical-thingys" coming into existence , when it was non-physicalness before?

Not necessarily. What they mean is 'We currently cannot know'.

You may not agree with Krauss.

Nothing non-physical has any effect or influence on the physical universe - by definition

IF you're including energy/invisible forces as "physical" by your definition - then thats a valid concept.

Everything - including you - is energy and physical forces. And nothing else. That's not MY definition of 'physical'; It's THE definition of physical.

Our best tested scientific theory of all time says that matter IS energy (in a very specific configuration) and that energy (and forces) are expressed as variations in the magnitude of various fields.

The gap you are trying to wedge your half-baked creator into has been closed by science and logic. There cannot be an initial cause.

As usual, most Christian and Muslim arguments boil down to an argument from ignorance fallacy: I don't understand X, therefore magic.

 

[angelo]

That doesn't explain how such distinguished scientists like the co head of the Human Genome mapping project, Francis Collins is a creationist. Anyone would thing that he of all people should know better.

I think that even a genius like Charles Darwin were/are able to automatically switch off the reasoning part of their brains when it comes to belief in magic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That doesn't explain how such distinguished scientists like the co head of the Human Genome mapping project, Francis Collins is a creationist. Anyone would thing that he of all people should know better.

I think that even a genius like Charles Darwin were/are able to automatically switch off the reasoning part of their brains when it comes to belief in magic.

Our brains are as wired to pretend. It's an essential part of making the brain what it is. Even language is part of that process because those sounds we make that we associate with objects and experiences are just that, associations.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That doesn't explain how such distinguished scientists like the co head of the Human Genome mapping project, Francis Collins is a creationist. Anyone would thing that he of all people should know better.

I think that even a genius like Charles Darwin were/are able to automatically switch off the reasoning part of their brains when it comes to belief in magic.

If you ever read Collin's book, "The Language Of God", (I have) you'd know Collins is not a creationist. He spends a fair amount of his book debunking creationism. Collins is a Darwinist. He believes in guided evolution.

 

[angelo]

That doesn't explain how such distinguished scientists like the co head of the Human Genome mapping project, Francis Collins is a creationist. Anyone would thing that he of all people should know better.

I think that even a genius like Charles Darwin were/are able to automatically switch off the reasoning part of their brains when it comes to belief in magic.

If you ever read Collin's book, "The Language Of God", (I have) you'd know Collins is not a creationist. He spends a fair amount of his book debunking creationism. Collins is a Darwinist. He believes in guided evolution.

He believes in the " Fine Tuning" hypothesis! What's the difference between the two? I also attempted to read The Language Of God. Unfortunately I found it speculative. Not at all factually based.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That doesn't explain how such distinguished scientists like the co head of the Human Genome mapping project, Francis Collins is a creationist. Anyone would thing that he of all people should know better.

I think that even a genius like Charles Darwin were/are able to automatically switch off the reasoning part of their brains when it comes to belief in magic.

If you ever read Collin's book, "The Language Of God", (I have) you'd know Collins is not a creationist. He spends a fair amount of his book debunking creationism. Collins is a Darwinist. He believes in guided evolution.

He believes in the " Fine Tuning" hypothesis! What's the difference between the two? I also attempted to read The Language Of God. Unfortunately I found it speculative. Not at all factually based.

In his book, Collins knocks down creationism, Intelligent design and finally settles on theistic evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",^[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

It is an old idea, by no means new with Collins. It predates Darwin. Darwin pretty much killed that off with natural selection, as far as it being science. It is what is left after creationism and ID is debunked, for sophisticated religious believers who need an hypothesis to save their religion.

 

[angelo]

Exactly my point! Collins and others like him just cannot let go the idea of God.