Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Sounds good to me. Shut it down!
-
Features
The Causation Argument
- Thread starter steve_bank
- Start date
Sounds good to me. Shut it down!
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,006
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Yes, that is in dispute and its also irrelevant.
The bible says the universe was deliberately caused to come into existence (by God.)
The only alternative is that the universe was not caused to come into existence because either;
a) it came into existence spontaneously
or
b) it has always existed
Science from cosmology does not preclude that the finely tuned universe and the laws which govern the physics of the universe may be caused and controlled by a Higher Power First Cause. [God]
In fact science does a great job showing that the apparent universe DID come into existence, (13.9 billion years ago) that it DOES exhibit coherent fine tuning AND that uncaused, spontaneous things popping into existence unpredictably is NOT science - it's WOO.
The classical argument from first cause can be presented in non-theistic terms.
You use "god" as a placeholder word in lieu of Higher Being but if some advanced life form created a quantum computer simulation called 'the universe/multiverse' with self-aware AI creatures called 'primates', that wouldn't violate your atheism would it?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Wrong on all counts! Congrats. A triune-fecta.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Do you not understand what the phrase "scientific theory" entails?
Now read up on virtual particles.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,006
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Do you not understand what the scientific term falsifiability entails?
Now read up on contingency.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#ArguForNonContCaus
Now read up on contingency.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#ArguForNonContCaus
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
I do. You, clearly do not, just as you clearly do not understand what a scientific theory entails, nor "contingency" for that matter.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Science: There is a structure we call the universe.
Religion: The universe is caused by a powerful ghost that we should worship.
Observation: That’s pretty stupid.
Religion: I turn food into the space ghost and then eat the space ghost all the time. Science is much less predictable.
Observation: That’s pretty stupid.
Science: But if you show us the data and we can replicate the process we’ll believe you.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
fine tuned unerse?
Let us see.
earththquakes
asteroid strikes
hurricanes
droughts
plagues
But of course it is all god's plan, rught?
Let us see.
earththquakes
asteroid strikes
hurricanes
droughts
plagues
But of course it is all god's plan, rught?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
But, the hole in the ground fills up exactly with the amount of water necessary to fill it! Therefore, the hole was "fine-tuned" to the water by an omnicapable, ineffable being. Q.E.D.
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The existence of god based om a few ancient lines is not falsifiable, it is not provable either.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The technical term is Stochastic Systems. It is probabilistic versus deterministic.
I sit in a restaurant and record each time someone enters and leaves and the times. Over time I can devise a stochastic model the predicts the probability of someone entering or leaving at a given time. The sub category is Queuing Theory. Queuing Theory is used for one thing to model how long lines will be at a register in a store.
Computer control systems can be stochastic s is chrmical reactions.
In a complex industrial chemical chain of reactions given one state there is a probability of entering one of several possible next states.
Your use of the word spontaneous is misleading. Electrical noise in a system is statistical. I can not predict exactly when noise at given voltage will be present, but I can know the probability of level when I go measure it. Similar in quantum theories regarding quantum states.
If something is truly spontaneous than that infers completely unpredictability.
There are potentially a vast number of reasons which resulted in the visible universe being the way it is today, all of which are pretty much unknown to us today. We know don't enough about the early universe to meaningfully say anything of significance about it, other than it appeared to exist in a very hot dense state, much less narrow the options down two or three. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Biblegod exists, much less that it created the universe. All you are doing is heaping speculation on top of speculation, and always in a way that is self-serving.
Science doesn't preclude the handiwork of universe creating pixies, or the Supreme Cosmic Toad Bantu either, but I am willing to bet good money that you don't take these two options seriously.
Science tells us that the part of the local universe that is visible to us began expanding from a hot, dense state some 14 BYA. The state of the universe at and beyond this boundary is unknown. Science does not show that the visible universe was created ex nihilo.
If you want to argue teleological fine tuning, you first have to explain what the universe is fine tuned for (its purpose), and then provide evidence to support this premise. You are placing the cart before the horse here, which is something theists frequently do. You begin with the premise "Goddidit", then work backwards to try and fit the data to this model. That is not how science and reason work.
It doesn't matter what you call it - God or universe creating pixies. What is important is that you support your assertions with evidence and reason. And you don't have sufficient evidence to support your god hypothesis.
Because at the level of subatomic particles the universe behaves that way. You can predict the probability that an electron will be observed at a certain location, or that an atom will decay radioactively at a certain time, but this prediction does not guarantee 100 percent success.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Like many others who've already opined in this thread I just don't get how someone can fail to grasp the difference between saying "the universe began about 13 billion years ago" and "nothing existed before the universe just popped into existence about 13 billion years ago."
My body began to exist about 61 years ago. If I had never seen another person and did not know how I came into existence I could study myself (once I had developed the cognitive ability to do so) and discover the effects of aging. Perhaps I'd realize that during my younger days I was much smaller and grew into a full adult size over time. This might lead me to infer that the further back in time I go the smaller I would have been. Having gotten that far I'd have to realize that perhaps there was a point at which I was just a single, tiny speck. I would then be stuck with theorizing as to how it came to be that this speck existed.
This is a hypothetical scenario that may illustrate the problem for some. Without data to extrapolate beyond that time I'd be stuck in a stalemate situation like real cosmology is. We can't watch universes begin to form so we just don't have the means to analyze how it happens. We can only theorize. But in order for a theory to gain acceptance in the scientific community it really has to be consistent with what we can observe about the universe. All of the universe, not just this tiny mote floating in the backwashes of the Milky Way Galaxy.
A god who gets all butthurt if you put your penis in the wrong hole doesn't make for a sound origin theory. It might make sense if there was nothing in the universe other than a few thousand people running around in a terrarium fighting over property rights. It makes zero sense in light of what we know today about the actual universe.
My body began to exist about 61 years ago. If I had never seen another person and did not know how I came into existence I could study myself (once I had developed the cognitive ability to do so) and discover the effects of aging. Perhaps I'd realize that during my younger days I was much smaller and grew into a full adult size over time. This might lead me to infer that the further back in time I go the smaller I would have been. Having gotten that far I'd have to realize that perhaps there was a point at which I was just a single, tiny speck. I would then be stuck with theorizing as to how it came to be that this speck existed.
This is a hypothetical scenario that may illustrate the problem for some. Without data to extrapolate beyond that time I'd be stuck in a stalemate situation like real cosmology is. We can't watch universes begin to form so we just don't have the means to analyze how it happens. We can only theorize. But in order for a theory to gain acceptance in the scientific community it really has to be consistent with what we can observe about the universe. All of the universe, not just this tiny mote floating in the backwashes of the Milky Way Galaxy.
A god who gets all butthurt if you put your penis in the wrong hole doesn't make for a sound origin theory. It might make sense if there was nothing in the universe other than a few thousand people running around in a terrarium fighting over property rights. It makes zero sense in light of what we know today about the actual universe.
Last edited:
ideologyhunter
Contributor
I am in general agreement, although I question the use of 'butthurt' in a discussion of this god's preference of 'holes'.
Isn't it interesting that his mandates were so granular that he had a major obsession with the foreskin? "He" creates the Horsehead Nebula and all the stuff in the Hubble Deep Field (and whatever is beyond that), but he wants an ethnic group on a patch of sand to edit his creation of the body. I mean, keep a straight face. Essential viewing: the scene in Year One in which Hank Azaria, as Abraham, announces the great new covenant:
No, no, no, trust me, it's gonna be a very, very sleek look. This is gonna catch on. I'm gonna go get my good knife. Just wait right there. I'll be right back to cut your penises.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Maybe there is a scientific analog to the Peter Principle. Perhaps human brains, all being different, rise to a level of scientific understanding beyond which they will appear incompetent. Religion is pseudo knowledge, it fills in the gaps in actual knowledge with fantastic stories, conjectures and biases in an attempt to understand. Some of those observations are spot on and lead to fantastic stories but the observations are not complete. Geocentricity is a good example.
Persons like Aquinas, had they been born today would have had a better chance of becoming a scientist, and not a liturgical mystic who banged his head over numerology and whipped himself because of his affection for ghosts. He could have been a normal human being who thought burning people alive was horrible. But he rose to his level of scientific incompetence. Whether fault is involved is a separate issue.
It's difficult for some of us to accept that in this age of science there are still folks who think a superghost is living in the sky and is interested in our sex organs. But one still has to explain the observation for what it is. It has to have a physical basis. There certainly isn't an invisible, spooky creature living in the clouds keeping a book on our sexual exploits, perhaps we're just witnessing a level of scientific understanding.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,252
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
A finely tuned universe? A universe that is almost entirely empty and uninhabitable... is a 'finely tuned' universe?
come into? Science doesn't say that. The Big Bang isn't saying there was nothing then there was something.
The woo is notable in the argument stating the universe has to have a cause... but that cause doesn't need a cause. Wait, that isn't "woo", that is a logical fallacy.
The universe can not be uncaused... but my god can!
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I think that if they acknowledge anything remotely counter to their interpretation it brings crashing down their whole belief system.
I also find it so interesting when someone will claim, “we don’t know what happend “so the only explanation can be god”. And not jus any god. Nope. A specific one. Whose nostrils love the smell of burnt flesh.
Really? That seems to make sense to you?
It’s wierd.
Really? That seems to make sense to you?
It’s wierd.