Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[stevevw]

quatona

So Steve, one thing you must keep in mind:
Just because a scientists does or says something doesn't make it science.
Scientists have their private opinions and their private lives. Scientists can beat their wives, scientists can believe in fairies. Scientists can climb a stage and claim whatever they like. Nothing of that is (necessarily) science, and hopefully it isn´t even meant to be presented as science.

I realize this and science cannot prove the existence of God or the supernatural in the way they say that science proves things with testing it. But that was not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that even science including mainstream science is coming to a point where they are now coming up with theories that are moving beyond the normal physics and realities of our world. So they themselves are now proposing things that are unverifiable to answer what they have seen now at the point that they have arrived at. The quantum world has caused them to think this way. Finding answers to things like our finely tuned universe has caused them to think this way. What they have found with astrophysics and dark energy and matter has caused them to think this way. Not being able to reconcile quantum physics and relativity has caused them to think this way. One of the reasons they promote a multi universe is to address the finely tuned universe.

So by having billions of other universes each with a slightly different set of physics makes it easier for them to deal with our perfectly tuned one for life. So rather than even contemplate a hypothesis that there maybe an orchestrator of ours which is sort of a logical conclusion they would rather come up with there being many other universes. But this cannot be verified just like God and takes things out of our reality and tries to add other dimensions so that they can expand our reality and have an escape route to turn to where they can then defer dealing with the fact that maybe our universe is the only one and its been made just right for life. They would rather consider other possibilities that are even more ridiculous than they say God is which is hypocritical. Why cant they include the possibility of God as an alternative hypothesis. It seems there is more than a fair inclusion of all possibilities going on here and that there is some personal agendas being invoked.

And - did he arrive at this opinion by scientific research? Can we see the researches, the data, the method, the peer reviewed articles? Did he even intend to say present that as a scientific result?
Or did he just give his private interpretation?
Did he win a scientific prize for this scientific "findings"? Apparently not - he won a spirituality-prize.

Well he won a science award the Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge. I think these scientists are in a better position to be able to make observations about what they see. Like he said many astronomers tend to come away with a acknowledgement of there being something that has orchestrated things up there in the dark space they study. The science is leading them to God in some ways. Science cannot test if there is a God but it can open up doors that may indicate that there is something going on beyond all the self creating naturalistic maths they like to use. All I am saying is the way that even mainstream science has been talking and the type of hypothesis they have been coming up with lately seems to be speaking and pointing to something thats beyond the physics and testable that they always use. You can tell by the way they talk and the things they say. If anyone is honest with an open mind they will see this as well.

So?

Well the fact they have to use unprovable multi universes to explain what they are seeing and to address the finely tuned one we live in shows they to have to evoke far fetched theories to deal with it. They cant prove their own theories just like we cant prove God. They are in other dimensions outside our reality just like God is. What is the difference. The difference is that theirs doesn't include God but thats the only difference as far as I can see.

The explanation doesn´t become any easier with a God - except you accept the assertion "Goddidit" for an explanation while refusing to hold alternative assertions to the same low standard. Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize - Los Angeles Times

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.
Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution and "intelligent design"

No I am not really getting to that point that God did it. I am merely trying to point out that even the scientists are turning to theories that are based in almost the supernatural. Thats because thats where we have arrived now that we are at the point in science where we are looking into how something came from nothing. Science is running out of logical answers. How do you explain something coming from nothing. This is all to do with the quantum world, dark energy and things like the higgs boson. Its all bring up things that go beyond the logical maths they have used and into a realm beyond thats making them come up with all these far out ideas. So even though some may go into the quantum woo as its been called what they are coming up with themselves aint to far from woo themselves. Thats because what they see is causing them to look at these types of things.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Well the fact they have to use unprovable multi universes to explain what they are seeing and to address the finely tuned one we live in shows they to have to evoke far fetched theories to deal with it. ...

They don't "have to" use the multiverse hypothesis.

They could just point out that the fine tuning argument is an Argument from Ignorance and be done with it. Using the multiverse hypothesis helps demonstrate why it is an argument from ignorance.

 

[quatona]

quatona

I realize this and science cannot prove the existence of God or the supernatural in the way they say that science proves things with testing it. But that was not the point I was trying to make.

...and it wasn´t the point that I was addressing. I addressed the fact that you quoted a couple on scientist who didn´t make scientific but more or less private statements. Which is irrelevant when considering what science has to say or doesn´t have to say.
You are selling something as "scientific" that which neither is nor is intended to be a scientific statement.

I was saying that even science including mainstream science is coming to a point where they are now coming up with theories that are moving beyond the normal physics and realities of our world.

Well, if that is what you intended to say...it wasn´t supported by the quotes you listed.

So they themselves are now proposing things that are unverifiable to answer what they have seen now at the point that they have arrived at. The quantum world has caused them to think this way. Finding answers to things like our finely tuned universe has caused them to think this way. What they have found with astrophysics and dark energy and matter has caused them to think this way. Not being able to reconcile quantum physics and relativity has caused them to think this way.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that (mainstream)science has crossed the border to metaphysics and started to utilize unfalsifiable hypotheses.

I am not a scientist and not well versed in the recent developments of science. I don´t know to which part "multiverses" are playing in science, and whether or not they are falsifiable. In any case, your quotes didn´t help to support this assertion.

But if giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming for a moment that science has indeed gone beyond its boundaries and keeps violating the scientific method:
1. Rather than pointing to the alleged lowering of scientific standards and violations of the scientific method in support of postulating that all non-scientific assertions should suddenly pass as "scientific", I think it would be reasonable to object to this process.
2. If e.g. the "multiverse"-hypothesis is as unfalsifiable and non-explanatory as the age old "a creator entity did it" hypothesis has proven to be, it will prove scientifically useless and end up in the scientific dust bin just like the other.

One of the reasons they promote a multi universe is to address the finely tuned universe.

I beg your pardon...the fine tuning argument is a philosophical argument (and a particularly poor one at that in its circularity, I might add), so I don´t even understand why scientists (in their job as scientists and in the name of science) would even feel the need to address it.

Now, of course, scientists have always held their private metaphysical beliefs, and that´s their prerogative just like everyone else´s. Let´s not confuse them with scientific findings, though.

 

[Euler]

What double standard. That I can consider the science and the possibility of God and that you can only consider the science and anything but God.

No, the double standard you use when, one the one hand you say that science is incapable of being able to measure these 'other worlds' you believe in, but then you also try to argue that science is uncovering evidence to suggest that they DO EXIST!

So, you are saying that they CAN and CAN'T do something, in the same breath!

 

[stevevw]

They don't "have to" use the multiverse hypothesis.

They could just point out that the fine tuning argument is an Argument from Ignorance and be done with it. Using the multiverse hypothesis helps demonstrate why it is an argument from ignorance.

The fine tuning of universe for life is just what is. So what scientists come up with that is how they are addressing the fact that our universe is so finely tuned. They do have to use something like the multi universe theory or something along those lines to explain how this can be. Other wise it points to the obvious that something must have orchestrated things to be so precise. It just doesn't happen that way from a naturalistic self creating universe that happens from chaos and chance to all fall so perfectly in place. So by having something like a multi verse it takes the significance out of the coincidence of our universe being so accurately tuned for life and existence.

It means that ours is one of billions of other universes where there are many sets of tunings with all sorts of other possible scenarios happening. There could be another you and me leading a slightly different life. There maybe some universes that are wildly out of control or dark and suffocating. Others may have not come into existence and still others may have strange creatures because of the way they have been tuned. But all this seems extreme to even contemplate and prove let alone considering that maybe ours is the only one and that maybe there is some organization to it. But thats a scary thought for many so they would rather come up with ideas that seem even crazier than what they are saying the idea of God is.

Cosmic coincidences
The main drivers here are some truly perplexing developments in physics and cosmology. In recent years physicists and cosmologists have uncovered numerous eye-popping "cosmic coincidences," remarkable instances of apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe.

This was established in 1998 with the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive. This meant it left physicists to explain the fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120 digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel at the 121st digit.

Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10/120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have re collapsed upon itself long ago.

Read more at: When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The fine tuning of universe for life is just what is. So what scientists come up with that is how they are addressing the fact that our universe is so finely tuned. They do have to use something like the multi universe theory or something along those lines to explain how this can be. Other wise it points to the obvious that something must have orchestrated things to be so precise.

No it doesn't. You actually need to present evidence for a fine-tuner. You can't assert that it wins by default.

It just doesn't happen that way from a naturalistic self creating universe that happens from chaos and chance to all fall so perfectly in place.

How do you know this? You are effectively saying that there is no natural mechanism that could possibly explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe. You have therefore already dismissed every naturalistic hypothesis out of hand.

So by having something like a multi verse it takes the significance out of the coincidence of our universe being so accurately tuned for life and existence.

It means that ours is one of billions of other universes where there are many sets of tunings with all sorts of other possible scenarios happening. There could be another you and me leading a slightly different life. There maybe some universes that are wildly out of control or dark and suffocating. Others may have not come into existence and still others may have strange creatures because of the way they have been tuned. But all this seems extreme to even contemplate and prove let alone considering that maybe ours is the only one and that maybe there is some organization to it. But thats a scary thought for many so they would rather come up with ideas that seem even crazier than what they are saying the idea of God is.

What do you mean "maybe there is some organisation" to our universe? There very clearly is organisation to our universe! Organisation does not imply divine intervention. Natural processes are capable of producing complex organised systems.

 

[stevevw]

No it doesn't. You actually need to present evidence for a fine-tuner. You can't assert that it wins by default.
So wait a minute, scientists can present their theories that there must be multi universes to address the fine tuning and not have the evidence. But anyone who suggests a creator of some other supernatural force as a possible theory cant be cause they havnt got any evidence. The multi universe is based on some flimsy indirect evidence that doesn't that could be interpreted a number of ways. In no way does it prove that there are billions of universes out there. So it seems its OK for them to present theirs but no when it involves a God. As far as I can see there is also indirect evidence for a creator who finely tuned things. Some scientists have put that forward as an alternative hypothesis. So what is the problem.

How do you know this? You are effectively saying that there is no natural mechanism that could possibly explain the apparent fine tuning of the universe. You have therefore already dismissed every naturalistic hypothesis out of hand.

Well if you want to look at it from a fair unbiased position think about it for a minute. The chances of it happening as a naturalistic event that happen to get it so spot on has been calculated as near impossible even from what scientists have said. What was the odds for just one of the constants being that precise and that being the least fined tuned. Well Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example. So its a pretty strong case to win by default. Maybe not to prove God but to show that it couldn't have happened by chance. With those sorts of odds you would have to be crazy to say it was impossible for it to happen that way.


One part in 10/37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10/37.

What do you mean "maybe there is some organization" to our universe? There very clearly is organization to our universe! Organization does not imply divine intervention. Natural processes are capable of producing complex organized systems.

Well to the point where the odds are so stacked against it happening by chance then the organization is more than just a fluke. The organization with those odds would indicate that someone or something was doing the organizing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

[So wait a minute, scientists can present their theories that there must be multi universes to address the fine tuning and not have the evidence. But anyone who suggests a creator of some other supernatural force as a possible theory cant be cause they havnt got any evidence.

No, scientists have to play by the rules of the game, supporting their theories with arguments and evidence. Most proponents of the Goddidit hypothesis, by contrast, insist that they don't have to play by those rules; that the epistemic standards that apply to all other hypotheses do not apply to their preferred hypothesis. In other words, they demand exemption, and then claim victory by default via flawed God-of-the-gaps reasoning.

The multi universe is based on some flimsy indirect evidence that doesn't that could be interpreted a number of ways. In no way does it prove that there are billions of universes out there. So it seems its OK for them to present theirs but no when it involves a God. As far as I can see there is also indirect evidence for a creator who finely tuned things. Some scientists have put that forward as an alternative hypothesis. So what is the problem.

In principle, there is no problem with positing Goddidit as a hypothesis. The problem arises in practice when it comes to supporting that hypothesis. I have reiterated this point to you on several occasions. You are free to propose Goddidit, but don't assume that theoretical triumph will come solely by way of emphasising the theoretical and empirical inadequacies of other hypotheses. Do you hold your hypothesis to same rigorous epistemic standards that you would demand of alternative hypotheses?

Well if you want to look at it from a fair unbiased position think about it for a minute. The chances of it happening as a naturalistic event that happen to get it so spot on has been calculated as near impossible even from what scientists have said. What was the odds for just one of the constants being that precise and that being the least fined tuned.

The odds are very small, but not impossibly so. The fact of the matter is that there are several unknowns regarding those figures, such as whether it is even possible for them to vary.

Well Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example. So its a pretty strong case to win by default. Maybe not to prove God but to show that it couldn't have happened by chance. With those sorts of odds you would have to be crazy to say it was impossible for it to happen that way.

What do you mean "by chance"? Creationists are often fixated on the design vs chance false dichotomy. 'Not design' does not necessarily imply 'by chance.'

Well to the point where the odds are so stacked against it happening by chance then the organization is more than just a fluke. The organization with those odds would indicate that someone or something was doing the organizing.

No, not necessarily. As I stated above, 'not design' does not necessarily imply 'by chance.' Natural processes may incorporate chance factors, but it is erroneous to assume that natural processes always operate by chance, and not according to fixed or varying patterns that can be identified and described scientifically. Assuming that natural processes are entirely random and haphazard is a common mistake made by Creationists.

 

[quatona]

Well if you want to look at it from a fair unbiased position think about it for a minute. The chances of it happening as a naturalistic event that happen to get it so spot on has been calculated as near impossible even from what scientists have said. What was the odds for just one of the constants being that precise and that being the least fined tuned.

The chances of this very raindrop hitting my nose at this very second are "near impossible", as well. Even if there are trillions of other thinkeable outcomes, one of the outcomes (each of which has the same low probability) must come to pass. Unless you assume that this very outcome was intended, in the first place, there is nothing significant about it that allows for concluding that it was intended.

One part in 10/37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10/37.

Which assumes that you were supposed to pick the red dime. Which is begging the question in case of the universe as it is.

 

[stevevw]

No, scientists have to play by the rules of the game, supporting their theories with arguments and evidence. Most proponents of the Goddidit hypothesis, by contrast, insist that they don't have to play by those rules; that the epistemic standards that apply to all other hypotheses do not apply to their preferred hypothesis. In other words, they demand exemption, and then claim victory by default via flawed God-of-the-gaps reasoning.

So tell what is the provable evidence for multi universes, string theory, black holes and hologram theory. To me there is no difference to God. They only have very scetchy indirect evidence which they use and which can be argued doesn't really support the theory anyway. Of parts of the theory are made because they cant answer things with tangible mathematics equations so they expand things into other dimensions so they can expand the possibilities for answers. As I keep saying there is also indirect evidence for God or a supernatural force at work in having some influence over what we see. Many top scientists can accept this view and dont have any problems with including this as a possibility. But you seem to keep thinking that as soon as God is mentioned its a magical answer. No one is saying that. I am saying that we can also use some indirect evidence such as the finely tuned constants as indirect evidence. After all science seems to do the same with some of their theories.

In principle, there is no problem with positing Goddidit as a hypothesis. The problem arises in practice when it comes to supporting that hypothesis. I have reiterated this point to you on several occasions. You are free to propose Goddidit, but don't assume that theoretical triumph will come solely by way of emphasising the theoretical and empirical inadequacies of other hypotheses. Do you hold your hypothesis to same rigorous epistemic standards that you would demand of alternative hypotheses?

Yes at last and I agree. But just getting some to even admit this is like trying to push and elephant into a mini. As I have said I am also not automatically saying it means there is a God. But am saying why cant it be considered as some of scientists hypothesis are lacking just as much direct evidence. In fact they will never be able to prove a multi universe really in the way it needs to be done with the criteria for what science states is verifiable evidence. So scientists can go on and say all sorts of things about it and never have to show support. It seems that this is being used at the moment in their talks on this subject. Some go around like Dawkins and preach it like its true.

The odds are very small, but not impossibly so. The fact of the matter is that there are several unknowns regarding those figures, such as whether it is even possible for them to vary.

I have heard this but to me this is a cop out. They will always say there another possible answer out there even if it looks like they are wrong because they will never admit that there maybe a God or power behind things. Especially the atheists ones its almost a religion in itself thats anti God and will consider every possible alternative even if its more ridiculous than they say God is. But at this point I cant see any way they could get out of not addressing the finely tuned problem. They are at the point of existence coming into reality from nothing. I dont think there's to much else to discover apart from how matter can materialize into something from nothing. They are going to have to find something pretty amazing for that. If they had something then they would be presenting these far fetched theories of their own.

What do you mean "by chance"? Creationists are often fixated on the design vs chance false dichotomy. 'Not design' does not necessarily imply 'by chance.'

Well thats why scientists propose multi universes so that it takes the chance factor out of having a perfectly tuned universe that we live in. If there is only one universe then the chances of it all coming from noting with an explosion which makes everything chaotic and random and falling into perfect place is very against the odds. So having unlimited universes where there are variables of the physics makeups will make our one just one of many which would happen according to the calculation methods they use with the anthropic principle.

No, not necessarily. As I stated above, 'not design' does not necessarily imply 'by chance.' Natural processes may incorporate chance factors, but it is erroneous to assume that natural processes always operate by chance, and not according to fixed or varying patterns that can be identified and described scientifically. Assuming that natural processes are entirely random and haphazard is a common mistake made by Creationists.

The chance I am talking about where we can get a perfectly tuned universe for life in one go from a big bang which exudes chaos is very high.

A major problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption arguments can be made in its favor.

Arguments for this assumption are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M4pl. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10&#8722;120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!"<8>.

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. So the chance is against a naturalistic process making this fall into place and thats the problem scientists face with a finely tuned universe. If they find that there is only one universe and its so perfectly tuned and setup for life then this would to me point strongly in one direction. This has been one of the greatest challenges for modern science.
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is only one of the constants.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So tell what is the provable evidence for multi universes, string theory, black holes and hologram theory. To me there is no difference to God. They only have very scetchy indirect evidence which they use and which can be argued doesn't really support the theory anyway. Of parts of the theory are made because they cant answer things with tangible mathematics equations so they expand things into other dimensions so they can expand the possibilities for answers.

If you want to examine the available evidence or the reasoning behind those theories then I suggest consulting with the work of the proponents of those theories. I'm only in a position to provide the faintest of an overview, which I doubt will be sufficient.

As I keep saying there is also indirect evidence for God or a supernatural force at work in having some influence over what we see. Many top scientists can accept this view and dont have any problems with including this as a possibility. But you seem to keep thinking that as soon as God is mentioned its a magical answer. No one is saying that. I am saying that we can also use some indirect evidence such as the finely tuned constants as indirect evidence. After all science seems to do the same with some of their theories.

I keep telling you that, in principle, you can posit Goddidit as a hypothesis. Why aren't you listening?

Yes at last and I agree. But just getting some to even admit this is like trying to push and elephant into a mini. As I have said I am also not automatically saying it means there is a God. But am saying why cant it be considered as some of scientists hypothesis are lacking just as much direct evidence. In fact they will never be able to prove a multi universe really in the way it needs to be done with the criteria for what science states is verifiable evidence. So scientists can go on and say all sorts of things about it and never have to show support. It seems that this is being used at the moment in their talks on this subject. Some go around like Dawkins and preach it like its true.

No, they don't, steve. Proponents of the aforementioned theories discuss their hypotheses and invite critical commentary, particularly if that commentary is insightful and constructive. Proponents of the Goddidit hypothesis typically declare victory prematurely via flawed God-of-the-gaps reasoning and then preach it as though it were incontrovertibly true.

I have heard this but to me this is a cop out. They will always say there another possible answer out there even if it looks like they are wrong because they will never admit that there maybe a God or power behind things. Especially the atheists ones its almost a religion in itself thats anti God and will consider every possible alternative even if its more ridiculous than they say God is. But at this point I cant see any way they could get out of not addressing the finely tuned problem. They are at the point of existence coming into reality from nothing. I dont think there's to much else to discover apart from how matter can materialize into something from nothing. They are going to have to find something pretty amazing for that. If they had something then they would be presenting these far fetched theories of their own.

We don't know why the universe appears "fine-tuned." That's why many hard-working scientists have dedicated their professional lives to figuring this out. Apparently they should give up, however, because religionists are just going to barge in and insist that they already have the answer, without even so much as touching a cosmology textbook.

Well thats why scientists propose multi universes so that it takes the chance factor out of having a perfectly tuned universe that we live in. If there is only one universe then the chances of it all coming from noting with an explosion which makes everything chaotic and random and falling into perfect place is very against the odds.

The Big Bang was not an explosion and the results of it were not random, at least not in the sense in which you are using the word.

The chance I am talking about where we can get a perfectly tuned universe for life in one go from a big bang which exudes chaos is very high.

First of all, what makes you think that the universe is perfectly tuned for life? So far we have only found life dwelling on the thin surface layer of one small, rocky planet, in a vast cosmos. The ingredients necessary for life are potentially abundant across the universe, but the conditions necessary to sustain the kind of life we are familiar with are not. That hardly indicates a universe "perfectly tuned" for life. Indeed, given the abundance of black holes in the universe, one could similarly argue that the universe is "perfectly tuned" for black holes.

Second, what do you mean by the Big Bang "exuding chaos"? How are you defining "chaos"? As I understand it, the early universe was remarkably uniform, apart from some small regions of non-uniformity that would prove crucial to the later development of stars and galaxies. If that's what you mean by "chaos" then that "chaos" was actually crucial to the development of later complexity.

Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is only one of the constants.

And? I fail to see how Goddidit advances our understanding on this point any further than simply acknowledging our ignorance on the matter. As I noted above, there are many physicists currently working on this. What makes you think you can barge in on the game, throw the board up in the air, and declare that you've made a theoretical triumph for your preferred hypothesis, all without even picking up a physics textbook?

 

[stevevw]

If you want to examine the available evidence or the reasoning behind those theories then I suggest consulting with the work of the proponents of those theories. I'm only in a position to provide the faintest of an overview, which I doubt will be sufficient.

Ok the best way I found is to research this and get a variety of sites to compare and get an overview. The good thing about this is some will explain it in everyday language as I am also only a layman and wouldn't know the detail of how they calculate these things. But these are just hypothesis that are put forward to try to answer what they see and then it can be verified when solid support comes in. But a lot of this is built on assumptions and even some of the fundamental things they believe havnt been completely verified.

In fact they are questioning some long held things like what role gravity plays and they thing they may have to rethink some of the long held assumptions they have had with what they are finding now with quantum physics. They can't reconcile quantum physics with relativity and this is a big problem as well. What role gravity plays in the scheme of what they are discovering with dark energy and a faster expanding universe.
Flawed Gravity - Dark Energy - HETDEX

I keep telling you that, in principle, you can posit Goddidit as a hypothesis. Why aren't you listening?

Yes you are now but you are the first one who has even mentioned it. I have acknowledged that it is hard to prove God and that any evidence doesn't necessarily point to God. The way that science is done it would be near impossible to prove God the way that the science method does things. As I have suggested you have to have an open mind to allow other possibilities to come into the debate. Even though some say they have an open mind they come across as being fixed on one view and wont even consider or mention that there is even a possibility that God or a supernatural power may be a possibility.

No, they don't, steve. Proponents of the aforementioned theories discuss their hypotheses and invite critical commentary, particularly if that commentary is insightful and constructive. Proponents of the Goddidit hypothesis typically declare victory prematurely via flawed God-of-the-gaps reasoning and then preach it as though it were incontrovertibly true.

That is the party line that many state. But in reality there is an almost growing religious movement about excluding God completely out of the equations and even ridiculing it. Many talk about their ideas in their theories as though it is a fact. They will have a few different naturalistic ideas of how things happen and they believe one of those is the answer even if there is not much evidence. Thats because if they dont at least have some sort of naturalistic idea then they have nothing and they dont want to have nothing as this will then allow the prospect of a God or supernatural power to come into the picture. So they will fill the void with something, anything so long as its not God. So I believe there is more than just a case of finding something and trying to prove it. There is also a fundamental battle going on about naturalistic methods and one that comes from a God of some sort at work. Behind all the debate there each party have their beliefs about life and how it came to be.

We don't know why the universe appears "fine-tuned." That's why many hard-working scientists have dedicated their professional lives to figuring this out. Apparently they should give up, however, because religionists are just going to barge in and insist that they already have the answer, without even so much as touching a cosmology textbook.

If there was a God then this would be how it is. But some religious people dont respect science and see its place. This is also wrong. But if there were a God then the hard work has already been done in some ways. What science would be doing is really pulling Gods handy work apart and trying to understand it. Some scientists say that the more science digs into things the more it brings up questions that are hard to answer. In some ways there are a lot more questions that are hard if not near impossible to answer. What they are seeing isn't necessarily something they may get an answer on with more digging. These are difficult questions that seem to not be able to have an answer. The direction in which they have to move with these things is into an unverifiable world like with multi universes which can never be proven.

The Big Bang was not an explosion and the results of it were not random, at least not in the sense in which you are using the word.

I thought it was some sort of singularity event. Many people understand it as a sort of explosion hence bang. But being a small dense point that was very hot it expanded into what we know today and cooled. But the point is it expanded out somehow and cooled. So it should be cooling still and contracting after the initial expansion. But scientists have found it is expanding faster and faster which is something that is contradictory. They think this has something to do with dark energy. So everything was random and nothing was planned so according to cause and effect a billion billion results could have resulted as an end result. But in among all the possible end results we get one that has many constants that seem just perfectly tuned to produce life.

That life can also ask the very questions and ponder why we ended up where we did as well. That to me is something that doesn't happen by chance. Its to much of a coincidence and adding up to something more than a chance naturalistic self creating process that could have had an unlimited end result. In fact there are way more chances for us not being here than being here. If one of these constants was out by the smallest of margins and some being so unlikely that the odds are impossible that we should have ended up with something else beside what we have. Its not just any life but its a life that can pose the very questions about life itself and think abstractly.

First of all, what makes you think that the universe is perfectly tuned for life? So far we have only found life dwelling on the thin surface layer of one small, rocky planet, in a vast cosmos. The ingredients necessary for life are potentially abundant across the universe, but the conditions necessary to sustain the kind of life we are familiar with are not. That hardly indicates a universe "perfectly tuned" for life. Indeed, given the abundance of black holes in the universe, one could similarly argue that the universe is "perfectly tuned" for black holes.

Well thats the million dollar question. But we have been doing different experiments and sending signals out and havnt had any replies. There maybe life somewhere else in our universe but first how will we ever know and secondly it may just be some strange life that is like a microbe. But I dont believe there is any other life. Even so it still makes or universe distinct for having these forms of life and one being us. The idea is that our universe is just right for life. If there are other people like us then they will also be in the right universe with us. There are many constants for our universes to be right but there are constants that make our earth just right. If it comes down to a chance and random event to land our planet in the sweet spot as they say for life then what are the chances of it happening again somewhere else in our universe. It will be rare to get them all right again. Its like winning a super lotto twice.

Second, what do you mean by the Big Bang "exuding chaos"? How are you defining "chaos"? As I understand it, the early universe was remarkably uniform, apart from some small regions of non-uniformity that would prove crucial to the later development of stars and galaxies. If that's what you mean by "chaos" then that "chaos" was actually crucial to the development of later complexity.

Who said that all the right ingredients to make stars and planets and the right laws that make it all run and work together were in the makeup of the big bang to begin with. They weren't and we dont know. But the way we measure things within a naturalistic world is that nothing is planned and predestined. When it expands out anything could happen. The end results could be anything. But what happened is we ended up with perfectly balanced laws and amounts of energies that made it possible for the universe to work like a clock in general. But how it started didn't have all the elements for making it that way. It would have been chaos and all sorts of crazy thing exploding and smashing into each other. Then it eventually started to slow down and cool and change. But it did so with precise ingredients to eventually form the life as we know it. That life has to have many constants perfectly lined up at the same time all at once.

Now chances of having some of them are one things but having them all is very unlikely. That is why scientists promote multi universes as this will mean that our universe just happened to end up with the right ingredients for life because it is one of billions of unlimited universes which had many different physical laws and ingredients that didn't sustain life or maybe did bu not our kind of life. There maybe another you and me out there in another universe living a slightly different existence that was not quite like us because of it particular ingredients in their universe makeup. This then makes our universe not so special in being fine tuned like it is but just one of many tunings that could be out there.

And? I fail to see how Goddidit advances our understanding on this point any further than simply acknowledging our ignorance on the matter. As I noted above, there are many physicists currently working on this. What makes you think you can barge in on the game, throw the board up in the air, and declare that you've made a theoretical triumph for your preferred hypothesis, all without even picking up a physics textbook?

No I am not. Its the opposite. We need the science to pull things apart to see the complexity and if it is finely tuned. If we didn't have this then we would be ignorant. The science actually makes it easier to see if there maybe a God involved. It seems as science has gone on and now we are at the point of how something comes into existence form nothing like with the higgs boson, quantum mechanics and stuff like dark energy and matter we are seeing some crazy and hard to explain things. Hense science itself is coming up with crazy theories to answer this. The fact that they themselves are coming up with far fetched ideas like other dimensions where there could be another you or me or 20 foot thin air breathing creatures ect means they can't explain things themselves in the normal way we see things in our reality.

Because of this it seems we have gone off the standard track and into a bit of science fiction. Of course science wont say its that and that comes back to when they use these crazy theories how much support do they really have and what alternatives do they have. But for most of what they are trying to answer with all these frontiers all their solutions are verging on far fetched. Not one of their proposed ideas seems to fall into the logical way in which we explain things. All I was saying is that God can fit into those ideas as well because this also moves beyond our reality and there is some indirect evidence we can base this one just as much as the indirect evidence as some of the ideas scientists have promoted.

Anyway its probably come to a point where we have had a bit of an agreement with having an open mind to allow a few possible ideas for answering what we are seeing at the moment. But we will disagree to what extent each of our beliefs plays its part which is fair enough.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes you are now but you are the first one who has even mentioned it. I have acknowledged that it is hard to prove God and that any evidence doesn't necessarily point to God. The way that science is done it would be near impossible to prove God the way that the science method does things. As I have suggested you have to have an open mind to allow other possibilities to come into the debate. Even though some say they have an open mind they come across as being fixed on one view and wont even consider or mention that there is even a possibility that God or a supernatural power may be a possibility.

Of course one should hold an open mind. You never answered my question, however: do you hold your own preferred hypothesis to the same rigorous epistemic standards that you hold alternative hypotheses to?

That is the party line that many state. But in reality there is an almost growing religious movement about excluding God completely out of the equations and even ridiculing it.

Given religion's failure to present a coherent and compelling case for Goddidit, while simultaneously insisting that it is incontrovertibly true, I suspect most scholars are tired of being sidetracked by futile apologetics. They have better ways to use their time.

They may use language that what they say are just ideas put forward. Many talk about their ideas in their theories as though it is a fact. They will have a few different naturalistic ideas of how things happen and they believe one of those is the answer even if there is not much evidence. Thats becaus if they dont at least have some sort of naturalistic idea then thy have nothing and they dont want to have nothing as this will then allow the prospect of a God to come into the picture.

Once again, you are wrong. If they had no naturalistic hypothesis whatsoever then they would be at square one, which is simply ignorance, not Goddidit.

I thought it was some sort of singularity event. Many people understand it as a sort of explosion hence bang. But being a small dense point that was very hot it expanded into what we know today and cooled. But the point is it expanded out somehow and cooled. So it should be cooling still and contracting after the initial expansion. But scientists have found it is expanding faster and faster which is something that is contradictory. They think this has something to do with dark energy. So everything was random and nothing was planned so according to cause and effect a billion billion results could have resulted as an end result. But in among all the possible end results we get one that has many constants that seem just perfectly tuned to produce life.

And black holes. Perfectly tuned for black holes too. Don't forget that.

That life can also ask the very questions and ponder why we ended up where we did as well. That to me is something that doesn't happen by chance.

Once again, you are conflating 'not design' with 'by chance.' I've already corrected your erroneous assumption here more than once.

Its to much of a coincidence and adding up to something more than a chance naturalistic self creating process that could have had an unlimited end result. In fact there are way more chances for us not being here than being here.

And yet here we are.

If one of these constants was out by the smallest of margins and some being so unlikely that the odds are impossible that we should have ended up with something else beside what we have. Its not just any life but its a life that can pose the very questions about life itself and think abstractly.

The kind of life that can pose questions about life and think abstractly (that is, our kind of life) only occupies a minuscule fraction of the surface of this small world. The vast majority of the cosmos is inhospitable to our form of life. The vast majority of the Earth even is inhospitable to our form of life. And yet you want to claim that the entire universe is "perfectly tuned" for the sake of a single species that is only able to inhabit a tiny, minuscule portion of it?

Well thats the million dollar question. But we have been doing different experiments and sending signals out and havnt had any replies. There maybe life somewhere else in our universe but first how will we ever know and secondly it may just be some strange life that is like a microbe. But I dont believe there is any other life. Even so it still makes or universe distinct for having these forms of life and one being us. The idea is that our universe is just right for life.

It's also just right for black holes. Therefore, the universe has been perfectly tuned for black holes. Indeed, that's more plausible an argument, given that, as far as we know, black holes are more abundant in the universe than our kind of life.

If there are other people like us then they will also be in the right universe with us. There are many constants for our universes to be right but there are constants that make our earth just right. If it comes down to a chance and random event to land our planet in the sweet spot as they say for life then what are the chances of it happening again somewhere else in our universe. It will be rare to get them all right again. Its like winning a super lotto twice.

I suppose because winning the lotto is rare, no one ever wins, right?

Who said that all the right ingredients to make stars and planets and the right laws that make it all run and work together were in the makeup of the big bang to begin with. They weren't and we dont know. But the way we measure things within a naturalistic world is that nothing is planned and predestined. When it expands out anything could happen. The end results could be anything.

Ummm... no, that isn't accurate. If that were the case, then every natural process we know of would vary unpredictably. We wouldn't be able to predict the orbit of the moon with any regularity, a year would vary from anywhere between 1-infinity days, the mass of objects would change haphazardly, stars would switch from fusing hydrogen to helium and back randomly, etc. You seem to be under the impression that, absent some guiding intelligent force, natural processes would simply be a mess.

Now chances of having some of them are one things but having them all is very unlikely. That is why scientists promote multi universes as this will mean that our universe just happened to end up with the right ingredients for life because it is one of billions of unlimited universes which had many different physical laws and ingredients that didn't sustain life or maybe did bu not our kind of life. There maybe another you and me out there in another universe living a slightly different existence that was not quite like us because of it particular ingredients in their universe makeup. This then makes our universe not so special in being fine tuned like it is but just one of many tunings that could be out there.

Yes, that's a possibility, in which case it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe suitable for our kind of life.

No I am not. Its the opposite. We need the science to pull things apart to see the complexity and if it is finely tuned. If we didn't have this then we would be ignorant. The science actually makes it easier to see if there maybe a God involved. It seems as science has gone on and now we are at the point of how something comes into existence form nothing like with the higgs boson, quantum mechanics and stuff like dark energy and matter we are seeing some crazy and hard to explain things.

Science has always had "crazy and hard to explain things."

Hense science itself is coming up with crazy theories to answer this. The fact that they themselves are coming up with far fetched ideas like other dimensions where there could be another you or me or 20 foot thin air breathing creatures ect means they can't explain things themselves in the normal way we see things in our reality.

You are presuming that there is some sort of "normal way," by which I presume you mean "common sense." I reject this simply because the "normal way" is often wrong, and we shouldn't necessarily expect the actual answer to conform to the current "normal way" of seeing things.

Because of this it seems we have gone off the standard track and intoa bit of science fiction. Of course science wont say its that and that comes back to when they use these crazy theories how muchsupport do trhey really have and what alternatives do they have. But for most of what they are trying to answer with all these frontiers all their solutions are verging on far fetched. Not one of their proposed ideas seems to fall into the logical way in which we explain things.

Neither does Goddidit.

All I was saying is that God can fit into those ideas as well because this also moves beyond our reality and there is some indirect evidence we can base this one just as much as the indirect evidence as some of the ideas scientists have promoted.

How does Goddidit advance our knowledge on this matter any further than "I don't know"?

 

[stevevw]

Of course one should hold an open mind. You never answered my question, however: do you hold your own preferred hypothesis to the same rigorous epistemic standards that you hold alternative hypotheses to?

Yes I do. But like you would rather believe in a naturalistic method and reason for how our universe and life was created I believe that God has played a part in it. I am open to other methods if they can be presented but as far as I can see there is good evidence for God creating things.

Given religion's failure to present a coherent and compelling case for Goddidit, while simultaneously insisting that it is incontrovertibly true, I suspect most scholars are tired of being sidetracked by futile apologetics. They have better ways to use their time.

I dont know about that as some scientists are saying that there is a good case for there being a creator or some organization to things out there in the universe. Afterall we are talking about trying to explain something coming from nothing. All the evidence in the world will not be able to prove that for science. At least God states that He did create something from nothing and makes more sense than science trying to come up with some rational for it which would be impossible. Already people have shown some of the impossibilities for the big questions like how did the big bang get its elements to make a big bang. What was before the big bang if there was nothing. How does that nothing produce a bi bang. How do you get life from no life ect.

Once again, you are wrong. If they had no naturalistic hypothesis whatsoever then they would be at square one, which is simply ignorance, not Goddidit.

Well here are some scientists that are saying that the theories that they have put forward like multi universes are not realistic anyway. So in some ways they may lose most of their explanations anyway. The point is they are finding it hard to address what they see and come up with anything because the normal maths doesn't work. We will just have to wait and see.

And black holes. Perfectly tuned for black holes too. Don't forget that.

Thats right thats the big question they have to answer, if there are really black holes, what happens when someone goes through one. These are the big questions they have to sort on their agenda, not that they can go and visit one and then fly through it. But it seems that this is vital and part of their equations to answer some of the questions they need answered. It is all related with multi universes and dark energy and their other theories like the big bang. But after a long time they still cant find any solid evidence for any of these and in fact there is some doubt coming along with new discoveries. So they may have to go back to the drawing board. But if they ever want to consider the God theory they are welcome.

Once again, you are conflating 'not design' with 'by chance.' I've already corrected your erroneous assumption here more than once.

Well to me it seems that we are not some random accident where a whole bunch of things happened and fell into place to create an intelligent race that is able to design and make things and think about why we are here and even ponder that question about how we were made. Everything around us has the appearance of design but according to scientists it wasn't. It just happens to look and feel that way. To me if we can look at man made things and know that it took some pretty amazing creativity to do that then how does something that is so much more amazing come out of a chance accident and all fall into place. How can there once have been absolutely nothing and then there being this amazing world. That takes more faith than anything.

And yet here we are.

Yes here we are asking ourselves how can this be possible. How can it all just fall into place like that. The odds are impossible.

The kind of life that can pose questions about life and think abstractly (that is, our kind of life) only occupies a minuscule fraction of the surface of this small world. The vast majority of the cosmos is inhospitable to our form of life. The vast majority of the Earth even is inhospitable to our form of life. And yet you want to claim that the entire universe is "perfectly tuned" for the sake of a single species that is only able to inhabit a tiny, minuscule portion of it?

This earth is perfect for the animals kingdom that is here. The ocean has life forms which are needed for other life forms and all needs to be here together for it to work. Just like there needs to be many things working together in harmony to make our planet breathable and perfectly right for all the ecosystems to support each other. Just like the many other systems that need to operate and rely on each other and all be just right to create this unique planet that has unique life that is nowhere else in the universe. It glows blue with life and breaths itself as a planet and it amazing. But somehow according to the naturalistic view this all just happened by chance, by a fluke and it thousands of things just fell into place.

It's also just right for black holes. Therefore, the universe has been perfectly tuned for black holes. Indeed, that's more plausible an argument, given that, as far as we know, black holes are more abundant in the universe than our kind of life.

Either that or what once began and was perfect will one day die away. But if we believe that the same force that made it goes on beyond that same power that caused it to come into existence then thats ok. Black holes will swallow up things and our planet will die. It was once made perfect but man kind fell and brought decay and death into existence so now it will one day fade away.

I suppose because winning the lotto is rare, no one ever wins, right?

The example I gave was pretty generous. I think it would be harder than that with the odds. Lets just say like trying to find that red coin among the billions of others stacked to the moon. Thats about the odds that have been calculated.

Ummm... no, that isn't accurate. If that were the case, then every natural process we know of would vary unpredictably. We wouldn't be able to predict the orbit of the moon with any regularity, a year would vary from anywhere between 1-infinity days, the mass of objects would change haphazardly, stars would switch from fusing hydrogen to helium and back randomly, etc. You seem to be under the impression that, absent some guiding intelligent force, natural processes would simply be a mess.

No I am saying that the big bang didn't have the things like gravity and all the laws in it when it happened. There are a millions things that could have resulted out of the big bang. But over time we happen to end upon with everything falling into a perfect position and balance just like some big clock work. Its like as others have said setting a bomb off in a junk yard and ending up with a perfectly working jet liner which has all the precision to operate. Thats why multi universes have been proposed so that it takes the importance out of our universe having been able to end up so finely made.

Yes, that's a possibility, in which case it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe suitable for our kind of life.

Thats the main reason they propose multi universe to deal with the fact that ours is so finely made. But dont you see a double standard here. While they say that believers are invoking God by saying look at the amazing design and then you say that is an argument from ignorance. You then say well lets expand our options by including a bunch of other dimensions outside our reality so that we make our special one not so special. Its the same things, They are moving the goal posts into a much bigger playing filed or in this case fields so that they can have more to choose from. I would tend to stick with maybe we only have one universe that in big, in fact massively big and that it is finely made because it had some greater power behind it. This answers a lot more also when we have to deal with something from nothing. It just keeps it simpler instead of adding a whole bunch of dimensions that we then have to explain how they all came into existence. They are just shifting the problem.

Science has always had "crazy and hard to explain things."

I am not sure they will ever be able to explain what they have come to now. How do yo explain something from nothing. They cant go back to much further. If they can explain that then we would be God. It defis every know law of physics to man.

You are presuming that there is some sort of "normal way," by which I presume you mean "common sense." I reject this simply because the "normal way" is often wrong, and we shouldn't necessarily expect the actual answer to conform to the current "normal way" of seeing things.

I mean the way they have been explaining everything else sinse they have been explaining things. This is what they base everything on. They have to use these measurements because this is how they make sense of it. That is why they are so frustrated with quantum physics and relativity not lining up. The only way they can reconcile things is to find their so called theory of everything. But many say that would be Gods mind anyway.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I do. But like you would rather believe in a naturalistic method and reason for how our universe and life was created I believe that God has played a part in it. I am open to other methods if they can be presented but as far as I can see there is good evidence for God creating things.

I'm not convinced that you do hold it to the same standard. Your criticism of every naturalistic hypothesis to date has been that they do not rise to the highest epistemic standards. Yet your own preferred hypothesis does not even rise to the lowest epistemic standards, and you still assert that it is true.

I dont know about that as some scientists are saying that there is a good case for there being a creator or some organization to things out there in the universe.

Some scientists have religious opinions. That does not mean that their religious opinions are scientific. Do you understand the difference?

Afterall we are talking about trying to explain something coming from nothing. All the evidence in the world will not be able to prove that for science. At least God states that He did create something from nothing and makes more sense than science trying to come up with some rational for it which would be impossible.

God doesn't state that. Human beings state that about him.

These are the big questions they have to sort on their agenda, not that they can go and visit one and then fly through it. But it seems that this is vital and part of their equations to answer some of the questions they need answered. It is all related with multi universes and dark energy and their other theories like the big bang. But after a long time they still cant find any solid evidence for any of these and in fact there is some doubt coming along with new discoveries. So they may have to go back to the drawing board. But if they ever want to consider the God theory they are welcome.

What would be gained by considering the Goddidit hypothesis?

Well to me it seems that we are not some random accident where a whole bunch of things happened and fell into place to create an intelligent race that is able to design and make things and think about why we are here and even ponder that question about how we were made. Everything around us has the appearance of design but according to scientists it wasn't. It just happens to look and feel that way. To me if we can look at man made things and know that it took some pretty amazing creativity to do that then how does something that is so much more amazing come out of a chance accident and all fall into place. How can there once have been absolutely nothing and then there being this amazing world. That takes more faith than anything.

steve, I keep having to repeat this point because you simply aren't listening: 'not design' does not imply 'by chance.' Natural processes are capable of producing complex structures. Here is an example:

We can explain this phenomenon without invoking the magical intervention of Snow Fairies.

Yes here we are asking ourselves how can this be possible. How can it all just fall into place like that. The odds are impossible.

No they're not. They are small, but not impossible.

This earth is perfect for the animals kingdom that is here. The ocean has life forms which are needed for other life forms and all needs to be here together for it to work. Just like there needs to be many things working together in harmony to make our planet breathable and perfectly right for all the ecosystems to support each other. Just like the many other systems that need to operate and rely on each other and all be just right to create this unique planet that has unique life that is nowhere else in the universe. It glows blue with life and breaths itself as a planet and it amazing. But somehow according to the naturalistic view this all just happened by chance, by a fluke and it thousands of things just fell into place.

That's not the naturalistic view. Once again, 'not design' does not imply 'by chance.'

Either that or what once began and was perfect will one day die away. But if we believe that the same force that made it goes on beyond that same power that caused it to come into existence then thats ok. Black holes will swallow up things and our planet will die. It was once made perfect but man kind fell and brought decay and death into existence so now it will one day fade away.

Where is the evidence that it was once made perfect and that mankind was the catalyst for this fall from perfection? Now you have moved beyond the Goddidit claim to introduce further claims about the state of the world in the past and present. Do you hold those claims to the same rigorous epistemic standards as you hold alternative hypotheses about cosmogony, geology, biology, etc?

No I am saying that the big bang didn't have the things like gravity and all the laws in it when it happened. There are a millions things that could have resulted out of the big bang. But over time we happen to end upon with everything falling into a perfect position and balance just like some big clock work. Its like as others have said setting a bomb off in a junk yard and ending up with a perfectly working jet liner which has all the precision to operate. Thats why multi universes have been proposed so that it takes the importance out of our universe having been able to end up so finely made.

There it is: the erroneous assumption about how natural processes are supposed to operate. You think that natural processes go from chaos to complexity in a single leap. That is wrong.

Thats the main reason they propose multi universe to deal with the fact that ours is so finely made. But dont you see a double standard here. While they say that believers are invoking God by saying look at the amazing design and then you say that is an argument from ignorance. You then say well lets expand our options by including a bunch of other dimensions outside our reality so that we make our special one not so special. Its the same things, They are moving the goal posts into a much bigger playing filed or in this case fields so that they can have more to choose from. I would tend to stick with maybe we only have one universe that in big, in fact massively big and that it is finely made because it had some greater power behind it. This answers a lot more also when we have to deal with something from nothing. It just keeps it simpler instead of adding a whole bunch of dimensions that we then have to explain how they all came into existence. They are just shifting the problem.

You're shifting the problem too, by masking our ignorance with Goddidit, which is itself a mysterious proposition.

I am not sure they will ever be able to explain what they have come to now. How do yo explain something from nothing. They cant go back to much further. If they can explain that then we would be God. It defis every know law of physics to man.

So if they can't explain how the universe came to be, you will conclude that it was God. On the other hand, if they can explain how the universe came to be, then that too you will conclude is God. Do you see why this is problematic? Regardless of whether science develops an explanation for the origin of the universe or not, your conclusion will be the same. This is why I'm not convinced that you hold your own hypothesis to the same epistemic standards as alternative hypotheses, because even if one of the alternatives gained unequivocal empirical support, you would still conclude that Goddidit. In which case your demand for evidence for the alternatives rings hollow. The evidence is simply immaterial because your conclusion will remain the same.

 

[stevevw]

double post. I had to edit my post and it went on as another post instead of editing the same post. I have noticed this is happening with a few people.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not convinced that you do hold it to the same standard. Your criticism of every naturalistic hypothesis to date has been that they do not rise to the highest epistemic standards. Yet your own preferred hypothesis does not even rise to the lowest epistemic standards, and you still assert that it is true.

No that is what you are saying. I think theories like the theory of gravity are fine though as I said scientists are now questioning it role in the scheme of quantum physics. But as far as using and testing this theory in our reality it works. We adjust our calculations for sending satellites into space because of this so it can be seen to work. I am talking about now how they are addressing the point of where we are at with quantum physics and things like dark energy.

These are what they are the strange behaviors of what they are seeing at this point of how things act in the tiny world where something comes into existence. But this is also the point where if you were to invoke Gods qualities at any stage it would be here where something comes from nothing. Its a coincidence that at this point the normal physic laws that scientists have used for a 100 years is breaking down. Maybe we have to rethink things in the light of this. But something is working beyond the usual physics and causing scientists to scratch their heads.

Some scientists have religious opinions. That does not mean that their religious opinions are scientific. Do you understand the difference?

Yes I do but do scientists understand the point where maybe science can break down and they cant use it to explain what is happening. Sometimes I think they try to put an explanation on what might have no scientific explanation. But because they come from a different platform where they believe that everything has a logical calculated explanation they will try to explain everything which is understandable. But this moves into a persons beliefs and I believe that scientists also have this atheists view along with the science which causes them to not allow all possibilities.
I like a little video of what Professor John Lennox says. That sometimes science make the profound mistake of saying that just because they can describe something with maths they think that it can also create that something they describe. Maths doesn't do anything. It cannot make anything happen it just describes how it happens.
Math Professor DESTROYS Atheist - YouTube

God doesn't state that. Human beings state that about him.

"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word. - See more at: 64 Bible verses about God, The Creator

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Romans 4:17
17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
Psalms 90.2
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Psalms 33.6
by the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
Hebrews 11.3
3 By faith we understand that bthe 3worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. - See more at: 64 Bible verses about God, The Creator

What would be gained by considering the Goddidit hypothesis?

Well for me and many others it give purpose to why we and our world are created. This gives up a reason and meaning which is very important. It means we are not just a number or a biological piece of meat with chemicals that just exists. This I believe is why many dont want to live as they dont feel any purpose. But I believe it can also give us more insight into things in general. But there is a paradox with science understanding that God did it and thats why science will never acknowledge God and cannot ever prove Him. That is the fundamental requirement for belief in God is faith.

So if we could prove God by the evidence then there would be no need for faith. I believe faith is needed as it calls on a power and quality beyond this world which can actually be of use and work in peoples lives. So in some ways its more about belief than evidence. A person should use science for what it is and for when it should apply. But they should also acknowledge that there is something that can exist beyond this that can also have its place and work in our lives.

I'll leave it there as I am a bit busy today and will come back to the rest later.
Thanks
Steve.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No that is what you are saying. I think theories like the theory of gravity are fine though as I said scientists are now questioning it role in the scheme of quantum physics. But as far as using and testing this theory in our reality it works. We adjust our calculations for sending satellites into space because of this so it can be seen to work. I am talking about now how they are addressing the point of where we are at with quantum physics and things like dark energy.

These are what they are the strange behaviors of what they are seeing at this point of how things act in the tiny world where something comes into existence. But this is also the point where if you were to invoke Gods qualities at any stage it would be here where something comes from nothing. Its a coincidence that at this point the normal physic laws that scientists have used for a 100 years is breaking down. Maybe we have to rethink things in the light of this. But something is working beyond the usual physics and causing scientists to scratch their heads.

I have to be honest at this point in saying that I find it extremely annoying when you respond to something I've written by rambling on about something only tenuously related to what I've actually written. For instance, this text responds to my comment regarding the differential epistemic standards you apply to your preferred hypothesis as compared to alternative hypotheses. None of what you've written actually addresses any of that. I'm not going to address your every misdirect.

Yes I do but do scientists understand the point where maybe science can break down and they cant use it to explain what is happening.

Maybe we will never develop a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe. What knowledge is to be gained on this matter by trading the language of cosmological physics for the language of theology? A breakdown in our understanding is not masked by invoking Goddidit as an explanation. We are better off just admitting that we don't understand, rather than pretending to understand by invoking divine intervention.

Well for me and many others it give purpose to why we and our world are created. This gives up a reason and meaning which is very important. It means we are not just a number or a biological piece of meat with chemicals that just exists.

I asked what would be gained in terms of knowledge, not how such a hypothesis makes you feel.

So if we could prove God by the evidence then there would be no need for faith.

You are darting all over the place, steve. At first, you claimed that Goddidit should be considered as a hypothesis, with potentially supporting evidence. Now, you claim we require faith. Science doesn't operate on faith, steve. No scientist recites a creed articulating faith in gravity.

I believe faith is needed as it calls on a power and quality beyond this world which can actually be of use and work in peoples lives. So in some ways its more about belief than evidence.

That much is clear. As I noted in my previous post, the evidence is immaterial because you will conclude Goddidit regardless. And you wonder why scientists don't entertain your hypothesis seriously? It might have something to do with the fact that you don't even care about the evidence (or there lack of). It's the same double-standards at play all over again.

 

[Euler]

I have to be honest at this point in saying that I find it extremely annoying when you respond to something I've written by rambling on about something only tenuously related to what I've actually written. For instance, this text responds to my comment regarding the differential epistemic standards you apply to your preferred hypothesis as compared to alternative hypotheses. None of what you've written actually addresses any of that. I'm not going to address your every misdirect.

Ah, you've met Stevevw then!

 

[stevevw]

I have to be honest at this point in saying that I find it extremely annoying when you respond to something I've written by rambling on about something only tenuously related to what I've actually written. For instance, this text responds to my comment regarding the differential epistemic standards you apply to your preferred hypothesis as compared to alternative hypotheses. None of what you've written actually addresses any of that. I'm not going to address your every misdirect.

Well as far as I can see it is related. I know where you are coming from so I am addressing your implications as well as what you have directly said. Your implications are that I dont have an open mind. I said that I dont believe science or atheists in particular have an open mind. I used the example that they were willing to consider far fetched theories to explain what they see but not even mention God or that any supernatural influence could be involved. I was saying that their far fetched theories have some supernatural aspects to them. I said based on this why cant they include God in their possibilities. I was trying to show you the logic that they use and that I believed that there was more to it than just evidence. It was also a case of a persons personal beliefs that can creep into it. Despite you saying that science only looks for the testable answers this is not what pans out in this area especially on this forum. I have been plain and clear about this and though you have admitted that you would consider God as an alternative and possibility I dont believe that is very common.

I havnt said that the science isnt holding up to as you worded it the "highest epistemic standards". I said they dont even keep to a fairly low standard when it comes to some of their theories. They can more or less say anything. But what has happened because there is not other alternative that falls in the very good or high standards evidence they start to believe these far fetched ones. Because there is nothing else coming along because there isn't anything else logical to explain where they are confronted with they are putting their faith in these far fetched ones. I merely said then why not also God as it fits some of the similar criteria as far as I can see.

Maybe we will never develop a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe. What knowledge is to be gained on this matter by trading the language of cosmological physics for the language of theology? A breakdown in our understanding is not masked by invoking Goddidit as an explanation. We are better off just admitting that we don't understand, rather than pretending to understand by invoking divine intervention.

As some scientist are saying there is room for both. They can work hand in hand. I think many believers think this way but I dont believe many scientists do especially atheists ones. So it seems that believers can at least have an open mind towards this. As believers we are always told that we cant prove God and I think we realize that it is hard to do so on the terms that science dictates. But if we step back and consider all ways to look at life and not just scientifically we can then have a more holistic view. Its just when science may fail to be able to even answer some questions then this is where other views maybe able to. But some reject that possibility so they are restricting all the possibilities.

I asked what would be gained in terms of knowledge, not how such a hypothesis makes you feel.

But thats the point I am trying to say is that you are only looking at it in a one dimensional view. There maybe other ways to look at it and gain insights about life and ourselves. This may also lead us to find answers that we couldn't see with the science.

You are darting all over the place, steve. At first, you claimed that Goddidit should be considered as a hypothesis, with potentially supporting evidence. Now, you claim we require faith. Science doesn't operate on faith, steve. No scientist recites a creed articulating faith in gravity.

No your not following. I have said all the time that what is proposed by a God theory is indirect evidence. Just like the indirect evidence that scientists use for their theories about multi universes, string theory and holograms ect. There will never be any direct evidence that we can see like viewing God or a another universe somewhere as they are not in our dimensional reality. That stands to reason. So there will never by any direct evidence and that is why we have to have faith in the end. But as a believer I have faith and I also have some indirect evidence of God. I see this in nature and the universe as Gods creation. In the complexity of life in our DNA and with other little things that work in my life when I pray ect.

But I still use logic and science in my life but see the things of God go beyond this. You will do the same except you will also base everything in the science method. So even when you may see something that may indicate that there maybe something going on that involves God or a power behind things you will snuff that out pretty quick with your worldly thinking. The worldly thinking wants evidence for everything and believes that nothing comes from God and all have a naturalistic explanation somewhere. So the foundation you start fro wont lead you to God but away from Him..

That much is clear. As I noted in my previous post, the evidence is immaterial because you will conclude Goddidit regardless. And you wonder why scientists don't entertain your hypothesis seriously? It might have something to do with the fact that you don't even care about the evidence (or there lack of). It's the same double-standards at play all over again.

No see thats the problem with anti God beliefs they go to an extreme. Just because we may entertain the idea that God maybe involved doesn't mean we throw science out the window. Some people do and thats their naivety. But that naivety can be seen in any area of a persons life. We can be unreal in love. But there are many scientists who use the logic of science to explain things and take things as far as they can. Without it we cannot arrive at a place where we can see where God comes in. So you have to include science if you really want to see God. Even atheists scientists like Hawking say this.

They are searching for the theory of everything and some say this is when we will find the mind of God. They are sort of joking but not really because if and when we get to that point we will be knowing a lot of stuff like how something comes into existence from nothing for example. We may not ever find it. But I can make a prediction now that what we will find will baffle scientists even more and bring up some hard to explain things that they will not be able to explain and cause them to ponder that there maybe some power behind things.