Religious implications of not being able to test whether or not there was a creation event

[ideologyhunter]

And their illusory creator couldn't even create a good book.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Religious implications of not being able to test whether or not there was a creation event.

Of course, the scientific implications of not being able to test whether or not there was a creation event is that we say:
1) We don't know
2) This is our best guess. But it's an educated guess...
3) More funding is required for more research to make our guess more educated
4) All of the above

I notice that the Christains who actually work in the scientific fields that investigate "the creation event" don't have any different implications.

 

[Genghis]

Here is my line of thinking. Step 1.

How was the universe created?

It doesn't really require faith for an individual to say they do not know. The starting point of human observation is actually more or less the present, not 'creation'. It requires no faith to say we exist and that the universe exists. Defining the exact nature of that existence or proving it could lead to some philosophical problems, but in practical terms if those two observations are false, this exchange of ideas is not happening anyway.

It's happening, I assure you. And I'm not talking about people who say they don't know. I'm talking about people who say that they know that there is nothing there.

As we expand our observations outward from the basic starting point of our own existence, it eventually does take us backward in time (not literal time travel, of course). I know the beginning of the universe -- assuming for a moment the universe has one -- may seem like a more logical starting point given how we like to arrange things in chronological order, but if observation is the first step in our process, the beginning of the universe is so distant from us that our current powers of observation and reason start to fail before making the trip all the way back. Past a certain point, we don't quite know what lies beyond, though we have some rather clever ideas about it.

Hence why I said faith and super faith.

Point being, we don't need to know definitively how the universe began to know we exist now, neither do we need faith to know in our scientific observations thus far, no gods have been revealed or revealed themselves.

And for anyone who is serious about observing (or contemplating) the universe, I would again say you can break them down into different faith categories. The person who looks at the universe and attempts to reconcile it with established scientific laws (not theories), however, incomplete, requires less faith than someone who choses to ignore those laws.

 

[Genghis]

The words you use are just words; just because you refer to something as having been "created" does not mean there is a "creator" responsible for it; it just means the particular language you're using is either insufficiently diverse enough to have a proper word for what actually happened, or the proper word is one you're not using for some reason.

-- A creator is only implied slightly more than the absence of one, but like I said, both conclusions are faith based. One just has more scientific examples to back it up than the other.

As for how the big bang happened, the most common hypothesis is that the big bang resulted from random quantum fluctuation; no creator is necessary for this method and we know that it makes mathematical/physical sense for it to have happened this way. Do we know for certain? No. It is however, the only plausible explanation we have.

-- Who said anything about the big bang? The only thing I know is that to say all this came from a random quantum fluctuation is like saying it came from magic. I'm really curious to see how it is more plausible for a random quantum fluctuation to create a universe where we're not testing it, assisting it, recording it, or even being aware of its existence vs. a group of scientistis, in a lab, with equipment, and the scientific method INITIATING AND ASSISTING a quantum fluctuation. Which do you think is more easy for us to observe? For you to argue as much is for you to argue that your own opinion matters less than no opinion at all.

Correct, for some people at least. If we were pursue the science further, however, and attempt to use our method to explain how the universe got here, we quickly realize that neither God creating or "nothingness creating" can be scientifically tested.

Presently, this is true. However, this is irrelevant. The two are NOT on the same footing here. "God did it" is a non-scientific "explanation" that doesn't actually explain *anything*. You could replace 'god' with anything and the explanation wouldn't change. You could just as easily say the primordial carrot had a bad hairday and as a result cosmic bunnies started eating different foodstuffs instead, allowing the carrot to grow to such vast proportions that it started breaking down under its own weight, resulting in the big bang. It works out exactly the same as saying 'God did it'.

You're almost correct. You could replace "God" with anything, however we achieve the least likely possible outcome when we replace "God" with "nothing." We are in effect arguing that 0=1. And with at least one Asian religion, I believe they use a primordial turtle, not a carrot.

Science, on the other hand, comes up with explanations that while currently untestable, *do* in fact explain the how and why of the big bang. Furthermore, there is a non-zero chance that our technology might one day become advanced enough to test the hypothesis.

Correct. Hence faith and super faith. I can't really impune either more than the other, but I can be accurate and academically honest.

Neither atheism or theism is 100% scientifically testable, but one is more testable than the other.

The one that's testable is theism/creator-creation events. Scientists create this parallel lane of thinking every time they use the scientific method which implies (but does not confirm) intervention. An example would be creating a single celled organism, or any type of nuclear test.

Without anything, however, there is no test. Hence there is no testability. Hence one who somehow believes that all the results IMPLIED are somehow representative of the exact opposite of all the other implied test's conclusions relies on what I refer to as "super faith."

So a religious person, regardless of doctrine, relies on faith. A true atheist who honestly applies the scientific method to the universe's creation or even existence (and therefore cannot even have an entity present to conduct or even observe an allegorical test) relies on super faith.

You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between theism and atheism then, or for that matter, the nature of 'faith'. Or you know, science. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. Whether or not it's 'testable' has no more relevance for atheists than for people (such as yourself, presumably) who do not believe in unicorns.

Hence why you embrace a hybrid form of faith that I refer to as super faith. There's nothing wrong with super faith, but every time humans in a lab create something, the shadow of the creator gets darker and more distinct while the "super faithful" argue that the shadow's existence is proof that nothing created the shadow.

Faith is defined as the belief/trust in the absence of solid evidence or proof. By contrast, rejecting a belief in the absence of evidence either way, can by definition *not* be an example of faith (or 'super' faith).

There is not a 100% absence of evidence. There is only an absence of absolute evidence as defined by humans.

Secondly, the scientific method does in fact have evidence as to the origin of the universe (there is overwhelming evidence that the big bang happened), and as for what caused it, there are at least plausible scientific hypotheses. Yes, these hypotheses are currently untestable. However, that is irrelevant since atheism itself doesn't concern itself with the topic to begin with, and irrelevant since atheists themselves who *do* concern themselves with it are generally not likely to *believe* (ie; have faith) these hypotheses to be true, but merely ascribe various degrees of probability to them. In other words, they can not be claimed to have 'faith' in any of it.

If you believe there is overwhelming evidence that the big bang happened (implying somehow that it's a law?), you might want to research it further because it's in the process of becoming obsolete. No scientist can reconcile the start point because it currently defies all known laws of human physics and math. You can either google it or let me know if I need to provide links. For that matter, I'm not concerned with big bang, small bang, etc. It's not relevant to this discussion.

-- Also** I'm still getting used to this response format. Sorry if some of my responses blend in with your responses, etc. Please let me know if something isn't clear.

 

[Genghis]

The word "created" is loaded. It implys a creator. How about the universe came into existence at the moment of the big bang. There is no "before" the big bang. Time did not exist yet. Still no faith needed.

-- I didn't realize that you had successfully used the scientific method to prove that there was nothing before the big bang. Oh wait, you can't.

The word, "created" is ambiguous, so as such, the word has multiple lexical meanings. Although I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the creator implication, there do seem to be usages that don't share that implication.

... the forces created an opening in the ocean floor ...

The question now becomes, "in what way is he using the word(?)."

I'm using a word that provides context for the fact that we are here. You can say we haven't been created, but then I'd say you're getting caught up in a level of semantics that are counterproductive to this discussion.

 

[Genghis]

Lucky for us, your non creating nothing didn't create anything, which, if we're to gauge the value of something using a human medium of exchange, is the only thing more worthless than a sucky book. At least a sucky book can be used as a paperweight, or a tool to inspire others to write better books because they're so saddened by the book's level of suckation.

 

[Genghis]

Except that each time scientists develop an idea, go to a lab and create something, we give ourselves another small piece of evidence against that product magically appearing out of thin air. And so each human scientific accomplishment strengthens the argument. Will it ever prove the idea? Of course not. But it will slowly and consistently force the super faithful to go against a harder current of reason and evidence to the contrary.

To reference Occam's razor- "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

So every single day we witness creators creating creations. And every single day we fail to witness the spontaneous generation of matter from nothing. I understand not liking the term super faith, but I honestly don't know what to call such a counterintuitive action.

 

[Genghis]

The real key here is the word 'universe'. If it means everything that exists, then the answer to 'what created the universe' is, by definition, 'Nothing'.

-- Perhaps a better term would be "known universe?" As we haven't had a chance to explore or define it all yet?

If you posit a God that existed and created the universe, then that God is part of the universe, and an explanation is needed as to what created God. Whatever created God - Metagod - also needs a creator.

-- Yes.

Ultimately either something has always and eternally existed - in which case the question of what created everything is moot; or something came from nothing - with no creator needed.

-- Not necessarily. If a scientist creates a dish of microbes, is it moot to the microbes if the scientist decides to introduce a new strain of microbes into the dish? I.E. one can say that it's moot, but they can only act on faith as they say it. They cannot PROVE that it's moot.

If something has always existed, why not the stuff we can see? Why posit an invisible God? Let's just go with 'the universe always existed in some form'.

There is a very simple reason to posit an invisible God, and that is exactly what I just mentioned the prior statement. Humans play a form of "god" to living creatures all the time, be it the cells in our body or when we introduce the first nano-ant into an ant colony who can communicate via their complex chemical language that the queen of the colony is a fraud and that the creators of the nano-ant are more powerful. We as humans provide examples of why it isn't moot every day.

'God' is no answer to any questions. Literally. In this context, 'God' means the exact same thing as 'I don't know'.

Correct. But we can't use science to prove the answer to the question. We can only use science to prove that the only worse answer than a creator/creation event is the refusal to acknowledge a creator/creation event. AAANNNDDD we're back to faith vs. super faith.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If we analyze the "process requirements" in the scientific method, it is my contention that atheists have more faith than theists.

But the Big Bang isn´t a total mystery. There´s plenty we do know. And there´s plenty that is very reasonable conjecture, yet still conjecture. The result is that we actually have a pretty fair idea of what happened when our universe got going. So no faith required.

I recommend this book. It sums up the latest research in the field and presents it an an easy to read form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)

 

[DBT]

AAANNNDDD we're back to faith vs. super faith.

No, we are not.

You use the word faith as a blanket term to conflate separate and distinct meanings (context/common usage) in order to justify your flawed proposition that science rests on faith...which, given the nature of evidence and testing, is not a matter of faith.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, if you start a premise with nothing can come from nothing, then that too would include God. It´s refuting the conclusion in the premise alone. No, just making God eternal soles nothing. It would be a more elegant solution to just say that the universe is eternal and remove God all together. The God hypothesis adds nothing.

 

[fast]

I'm using a word that provides context for the fact that we are here. You can say we haven't been created, but then I'd say you're getting caught up in a level of semantics that are counterproductive to this discussion.

1) you incorrectly quoted me. Please don't do that.

2) you spoke of what I CAN say. Specifically, you said that I CAN say we haven't been created, and you're right, I CAN say that (as I have the ability to), but although you haven't said anything that IMPLIES that I have actually said it, there is the SUGGESTION that I might have, so I'm taking this opportunity (in light of that suggestion) to make it clear that although I can say it, I haven't said it.

3) not every point of discussion that involves semantics should be dismissed as being merely a semantic issue. What's important is whether semantic issues are of a substantive matter, and I noticed that you may have been using the word, "created" in a neutral manner--in a way that neither asserts or denies the creator implication.

4) if you think THIS POST is also counterproductive to this discussion, let me know. I'll solve that problem fast.

 

[dystopian]

I fixed your post so that there's quote marks in the proper places. Please take better care in the future since now it looks like most of what you said was in fact said by me.

-- A creator is only implied slightly more than the absence of one, but like I said, both conclusions are faith based. One just has more scientific examples to back it up than the other.

And like I explained, you are wrong. Saying that both are faith based doesn't make it so. The absence of a belief in something can, by definition, not be a matter of faith. It is the absence of faith.

-- Who said anything about the big bang?

You did.

The only thing I know is that to say all this came from a random quantum fluctuation is like saying it came from magic. I'm really curious to see how it is more plausible for a random quantum fluctuation to create a universe where we're not testing it, assisting it, recording it, or even being aware of its existence vs. a group of scientistis, in a lab, with equipment, and the scientific method INITIATING AND ASSISTING a quantum fluctuation. Which do you think is more easy for us to observe? For you to argue as much is for you to argue that your own opinion matters less than no opinion at all.

It is obviously not the case that it is akin to saying it came from magic. Far from it in fact. By saying something happened through magic, you're essentially giving up on even trying to understand or explain something. However, the quantum fluctuation hypothesis is an attempt at establishing an actual *mechanism*; and it does so quite well. Try and understand it like this:

Say we have a locked room with no cameras or windows letting you see inside. Until we open the door, we have no idea what's inside of the room. When we do open the door, we find that there's two bodies inside. One has a knife stuck in its chest and a gun in its hand. The other has a bullethole in its head. Neither of us know what happened. We can not go back and view the events. We can not recreate the events through testing.

I try to use logical reasoning to argue that the two of them had a fight and they killed each other.

You, on the other hand, argue that my hypothesis is the same as saying the corpses just popped into existence through magic, and then try to claim that it takes 'faith' either way. That's exactly what you're doing with the universe and the quantum fluctation hypothesis. Of course, it doesn't take faith to think that the most likely explanation is that the two people in the room killed each other. You might try to argue that the analogy is flawed because we can use forensic science to determine what happened to the corpses and we can't directly peer past the Planck Epoch; but if we take forensic science off the table and just allow logical arguments to tell us what happened, nothing really changes: it still wouldn't take faith to assign probability. Just like it doesn't take faith to assign logical probability to hypotheses that take us beyond the Planck Epoch.

The fact is that we have mathematical proof showing that quantum fluctuation can account for a big bang event. We can understand how it happened, why it happened. We can describe the physics behind it. It is a mechanism that actually *explains* things. No other 'explanation' does this. Everything else is just a random stab in the dark without supporting logic or evidence.

You're almost correct. You could replace "God" with anything, however we achieve the least likely possible outcome when we replace "God" with "nothing." We are in effect arguing that 0=1. And with at least one Asian religion, I believe they use a primordial turtle, not a carrot.

This argument makes no sense; and only appears to do so to you because you've already assumed a creator must be involved. We already know that the universe can come into existence without a creator; we have math and physics that tells us this so. The kind of math and physics that actually *works* and isn't just people saying things. On the contrary, creators have *zero* evidence for their existence, and no logical argument exists that shows them to be required for the universe to exist. Therefore, you can not claim that we achieve the least likely outcome when we replace God with Nothing. You brought up Occam in a later part of your post... which was a mistake on your part, because if we apply Occam's Razor here than, in fact, we can claim the exact opposite: knowing what we know, removing God from the equation results in the equation that is most likely true. After all, Occam's Razor dictates that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one. The big bang explanation for the universe requires far fewer assumption than the 'God did it' explanation.

Correct. Hence faith and super faith. I can't really impune either more than the other, but I can be accurate and academically honest.

There is no such thing as "super faith". Secondly, as I've already explained, you are misusing the word faith. Faith is a belief/trust in something without evidence; we have already established ample evidence for the scientific version of events. Therefore, neither faith nor "super" faith is required.

Hence why you embrace a hybrid form of faith that I refer to as super faith. There's nothing wrong with super faith, but every time humans in a lab create something, the shadow of the creator gets darker and more distinct while the "super faithful" argue that the shadow's existence is proof that nothing created the shadow.

Again, there's no such thing as "super" faith. Nor is there such a thing as a "hybrid form of faith".

There is not a 100% absence of evidence. There is only an absence of absolute evidence as defined by humans.

There *is* a 100% absence of empirical evidence for the existence of a creator. You may think that the funny feeling you get when praying constitutes 'evidence', but it does not qualify as the sort of evidence that is actually useful: the empirical kind.

If you believe there is overwhelming evidence that the big bang happened (implying somehow that it's a law?), you might want to research it further because it's in the process of becoming obsolete.

You are exceptionally, hilariously, mistaken.

There is absolutely no accredited scientist in a relevant field who would deny that the big bang occurred. The reason for this is because they'd be laughed out of their profession. We *know* the big bang happened for a number of reasons.

First there is the Universal Background Radiation. The entire visible universe is blanketed by the remnants of a high energy event that produced vast quantities of radiation and dispersed it throughout existence. There is literally no other way for this to have happened except through a big bang event.

Secondly there is the observable fact that the universe is *expanding* (Hubble's Law).

Thirdly, there is the overabundance of light elements in the universe, prime evidence of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

Fourth, there is the distribution of matter in the universe in the form of quasars, galaxies, galactic superclusters and filaments; which are exactly in line with a universe formed by a big bang event.

In conclusion; there is absolutely no scientific debate about whether or not the big bang happened; and it is most certainly NOT in the process of becoming "obsolete". Whoever told you otherwise has done you a great disservice.

No scientist can reconcile the start point because it currently defies all known laws of human physics and math.

You are confused. We *know* for a *fact* that the big bang happened. This is not in question. We know for a fact that the observable universe began with the big bang. What *is* in question is the mechanics of the very earliest beginnings of the big bang, and what if anything came before it.

You are wrong when you claim that this start point defies all known laws of human physics and math. It does not. You are likely confused because of the often stated fact that the establish laws of physics break down and no longer functions once we get to the initial singularity. This however does not imply that all of our physics (or math) breaks down, just that we can not put it in the context of the physics that governs the universe in its current form. You can liken this to the way that the physics of quantum mechanics work just fine at the quantum level, but can not be applied on a macro-scale. What you're trying to do is argue that because a chess piece can not move in a certain way, we therefore can't understand a game in which the pieces do move that way, and therefore chess is about to become obsolete.

I surmise you're not particularly well informed as to experimental and observational data involving the very earliest periods of the universe's formation. We have now begun peering into the Planck Epoch. Data from the WMAP probe has verified hypotheses about the very first trillionth of a second following the big bang. Data from the Planck Surveyor Probe also support the WMAP results in support of the Standard Model of Big Bang Cosmology. Not too long ago that was thought impossible. Let that sink in: we can now experiment and test our understanding of the big bang to the point that we can look at the first *trillionth* of the *first* second since the universe began.

And here you are, seriously trying to claim the big bang model is about to become obsolete. In the past decade we've seen heaps of observational and experimental evidence coming forward in support of it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you believe there is overwhelming evidence that the big bang happened (implying somehow that it's a law?),

No, that's not how science works. Laws are not scientific theories that have evidence.

A 'law' just refers to something we can predict with some certainty. "In situation A, then B will happen." A 'theory' is still necessary to explain why that happens.

As I mentioned, most 'atheists take more faith' proponents don't seem to really know what they're talking about.

 

[bigfield]

Except that each time scientists develop an idea, go to a lab and create something, we give ourselves another small piece of evidence against that product magically appearing out of thin air. And so each human scientific accomplishment strengthens the argument. Will it ever prove the idea? Of course not. But it will slowly and consistently force the super faithful to go against a harder current of reason and evidence to the contrary.

To reference Occam's razor- "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

So every single day we witness creators creating creations. And every single day we fail to witness the spontaneous generation of matter from nothing. I understand not liking the term super faith, but I honestly don't know what to call such a counterintuitive action.

We have evidence of things appearing 'out of thin air':  Quantum_fluctuation

Therefore we have at least two hypotheses:

1. The universe was caused by a god.
2. The universe was caused by quantum fluctuations.

Since we have observed quantum fluctuations but have not observed a god, Occam's razor requires us to choose the second hypothesis as the one more likely to be true.

To paraphrase Simon-Pierre Laplace, we do not require a god to explain the working of nature, and this includes the earliest time of the universe.

Your characterisation of this position as 'super-faith' is totally groundless.

 

[dystopian]

A 'law' just refers to something we can predict with some certainty. "In situation A, then B will happen." A 'theory' is still necessary to explain why that happens.

You realize that you're just inviting the usual "aha, so it's just a theory!" type rhetoric, necessitating a lengthy explanation of what a scientific theory actually is, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

A 'law' just refers to something we can predict with some certainty. "In situation A, then B will happen." A 'theory' is still necessary to explain why that happens.

You realize that you're just inviting the usual "aha, so it's just a theory!" type rhetoric, necessitating a lengthy explanation of what a scientific theory actually is, right?

'necessitate' may be too strong a word.
It'll just be even MORE clear that Genghis' grounding in science is pretty shallow.
And 'rhetoric' is pretty much all he's got.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except that each time scientists develop an idea, go to a lab and create something, we give ourselves another small piece of evidence against that product magically appearing out of thin air.

That's EXACTLY true! What an amazing breakthrough!

I mean, if i take a deck of cards and purposefully deal myself a specific poker hand, that is evidence that it could never happen naturally.
So if my friend wins with a full house, and i then deal myself a full house, by that experiment i've proven that he must have created that hand by intent.
Because anything done with intent is evidence it could never happen without intent!

Now i have to go break Mark's legs for cheating at cards.

 

[Kharakov]

Except that each time scientists develop an idea, go to a lab and create something, we give ourselves another small piece of evidence against that product magically appearing out of thin air.

Now i have to go break Mark's legs for cheating at cards.

Yet more violence caused by creationism. sigh..

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The person who looks at the universe and attempts to reconcile it with established scientific laws (not theories), however, incomplete, requires less faith than someone who choses to ignore those laws.

A strictly naturalistic paradigm doesn't ignore laws, but laws are descriptions, not dictates. If there is an incongruity between a law and an observation, it could mean at least a few different things. The law is not fully correct. The observation is inaccurate. Both the law and the observation are inadequate. The observed phenomenon is outside the scope of the law in question. There are steps to reconcile science and observation when they don't match, but generally resolving the problem with a mystery agent which presents an even greater exception to all of our observations thus far is not a fruitful approach.