Jupiter, Metallic Hydrogen, and Intelligent Design

[lesliedellow]

That's just dishonest.

The big bang, or any other phenomena for that matter, isn't by itself evidence for anything.
It only becomes evidence once it fits within the predictive capabilities of a testable model of explanation.

Since no such model exists for any "creator", intelligent or otherwise, the big bang isn't evidence for such a thing.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Atheists are capable of dreaming up hyptheses which are every bit as untestable as God. And for why? Because they don't like the one which has been around for millenia.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists are capable of dreaming up hyptheses which are every bit as untestable as God.

Who are these "atheists"? You wouldn't happen to be talking about astronomers, physicists, theoretical physicists, cosmologists, etc would you?

And for why? Because they don't like the one which has been around for millenia.

Are you talking about Hinduism now?

Joking aside.... there isn't such a testable model. Not today, not the past x millenia.

Religious claims are irrelevant in the sciences.

 

[lesliedellow]

Who are these "atheists"? You wouldn't happen to be talking about astronomers, physicists, theoretical physicists, cosmologists, etc would you?

Metaphysics is metaphysics, no matter who does, and even when it is dressed up in scientific language.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Metaphysics is metaphysics, no matter who does, and even when it is dressed up in scientific language.

What metaphysics? What on earth are you on about?

 

[lesliedellow]

What metaphysics? What on earth are you on about?

Metaphysics is not a synonym for theology, inspite of what atheists sometimes seem to think. It instead concerns itself with questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Mataphysics becomes physics when it is coupled to empirical observation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Metaphysics is not a synonym for theology, inspite of what atheists sometimes seem to think. It instead concerns itself with questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Mataphysics becomes physics when it is coupled to empirical observation.

I didn't claim it was synonymous for anything.

I'm merely asking you to clarify what you are talking about. It's still not clear.

 

[lesliedellow]

I didn't claim it was synonymous for anything.

I'm merely asking you to clarify what you are talking about. It's still not clear.

Speculations about colliding branes is not physics. It is metaphysics, and no more susceptibe to empirical verification than the existence of God.

 

[Astrophile]

Delete

 

[Astrophile]

By the end of his life Hoyle was definitely having second thoughts. He talked about some "super intellect".

We all know that the truth or false hood of a hypothesis does *not* rely on the beliefs of the originator.

But since you want to list atheists and highlight Gamow....

Gamow's worked to further develop what a Catholic priest had first laid out --

"In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe."
History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia

This is how science works -- people contribute. And their own beliefs aren't the deciding factor at all.

That Newton believed in God fervently does not make his contributions to math and physics more valid, nor less valid.

Same for Gamow about his beliefs.

All this is true, but it only demonstrates that one didn't have to be an atheist to accept the 'steady-state' or continuous creation cosmology, or a Christian to accept the 'big-bang' cosmology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Speculations about colliding branes is not physics. It is metaphysics, and no more susceptibe to empirical verification than the existence of God.

Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with the whole coliding branes thingy, but take the multi-verse for example. We are "stuck" in this universe and we are unable to gauge potential "other" universes. So one could say that such a claim isn't subject to empirical investigation, sure.

But here's the thing...

Suppose you have a theory of particle physics that makes, let's say, 50 predictions.
49 wich are testable and the 50th being a prediction of a multi-verse.
All these predictions are bundled in a single theory.

If you test all 49 and they all are confirmed, then the 50th isn't "just" some wild fantastical claim.

To compare that 50th prediction with claims of the supernatural, NONE of which can be verified, then it's quite clear that they are not at all in the same league.

Theists tend to think that a multi-verse, or similar, is something that is merely invented out of thin air supposedly to avoid some kind of problem. That simply is not true.

A multi-verse is something that science is driven to as it flows from physical theories, much of wich CAN be tested in reality. Particle physics, string theory, quantum theory interpretations, etc.

It's rather something like "if this and this and this and this... then also that". "that" can't be empirically tested because of our limits in reach, but "this and this and this" can.

None of these theories are in a stage where we can assume them to be correct like we can for example with relativity or evolution, sure.

But to say that they are equal to god-claims is simply absurd.

 

[lesliedellow]

But here's the thing...

Suppose you have a theory of particle physics that makes, let's say, 50 predictions.
49 wich are testable and the 50th being a prediction of a multi-verse.
All these predictions are bundled in a single theory.

If you test all 49 and they all are confirmed, then the 50th isn't "just" some wild fantastical claim.

There is no theory which predicts a multiverse, except in the sense of being a contentious interpretation of that theory, and one of the two candidate theories is itself infamous for making no testable predictions.

 

[Halbhh]

Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with the whole coliding branes thingy, but take the multi-verse for example. We are "stuck" in this universe and we are unable to gauge potential "other" universes. So one could say that such a claim isn't subject to empirical investigation, sure.

But here's the thing...

Suppose you have a theory of particle physics that makes, let's say, 50 predictions.
49 wich are testable and the 50th being a prediction of a multi-verse.
All these predictions are bundled in a single theory.

If you test all 49 and they all are confirmed, then the 50th isn't "just" some wild fantastical claim.

To compare that 50th prediction with claims of the supernatural, NONE of which can be verified, then it's quite clear that they are not at all in the same league.

Theists tend to think that a multi-verse, or similar, is something that is merely invented out of thin air supposedly to avoid some kind of problem. That simply is not true.

A multi-verse is something that science is driven to as it flows from physical theories, much of wich CAN be tested in reality. Particle physics, string theory, quantum theory interpretations, etc.

It's rather something like "if this and this and this and this... then also that". "that" can't be empirically tested because of our limits in reach, but "this and this and this" can.

None of these theories are in a stage where we can assume them to be correct like we can for example with relativity or evolution, sure.

But to say that they are equal to god-claims is simply absurd.

Curious to know which multiverse theory you have in mind, and why you believe it more than it's competitors?

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no theory which predicts a multiverse

False. String theory and inflation both predict a multi-verse to one extent or another.
Again, a multi-verse isn't just invented out of thin air.

, except in the sense of being a contentious interpretation of that theory, and one of the two candidate theories is itself infamous for making no testable predictions.

That would be string theory, indeed. Or at least, it isn't quite clear how the predictions that it makes could be tested at this point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Curious to know which multiverse theory you have in mind, and why you believe it more than it's competitors?

I don't think I said that I believed it.
I have no particular beliefs one way or the other concerning multi-verse(s) or encompassing theories in general, for that matter.

The only thing I'm saying is that such scientific ideas, are far better motivated then any religious idea you can come up with. For the simple reason that they take real world data as a starting point and try to find answers from that point forward. Whereas religion is the other way round... Religion pretends to have answers before asking the questions. Religious ideas try to impose things on reality instead of deriving them from it.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't think I said that I believed it.
I have no particular beliefs one way or the other concerning multi-verse(s) or encompassing theories in general, for that matter.

The only thing I'm saying is that such scientific ideas, are far better motivated then any religious idea you can come up with. For the simple reason that they take real world data as a starting point and try to find answers from that point forward. Whereas religion is the other way round... Religion pretends to have answers before asking the questions. Religious ideas try to impose things on reality instead of deriving them from it.

I wonder if you'd agree that religion and science aren't about the same thing to begin with? Of course we could find some small fringe religion or individuals that try to blend them together. To me that's like trying to combine a bird and a telescope. They just are of entirely different natures and purposes. I don't feel bad or discuss my soul if my car won't even turn over to start, but simply get a jump start, etc. Two unconnected domains.

But if you find a way to test any of the various multiverse theories that even 30 or 40 percent of physicists would consider meaningful at this time....you could win a Nobel for that!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wonder if you'd agree that religion and science aren't about the same thing to begin with?

I would not. They are both attempts at explaining the world, life, etc.

I don't feel bad or discuss my soul if my car won't even turn over to start, but simply get a jump start, etc. Two unconnected domains.

What do you say to people with stories like "...and we needed to rush to the hospital but the car broke down, so we prayed hard and lo and behold, the engine worked again"?

There are certainly enough such stories.

But if you find a way to test any of the various multiverse theories that even 30 or 40 percent of physicists would consider meaningful at this time....you could win a Nobel for that!

Sure, but that wasn't the point. I even flat out stated that none of these things are currently in a stage where we can take them seriously like well-established theories like atomic theory or evolution. There are simply far to many unknowns at this point and every single one of these theories (hypothesis, actually) make all kinds of assumptions. Especially concerning how gravity acts at the quantum level - for which there currently is no proper explanation at all. There is no quantum gravity theory. There is no "grand theory". There is no "unified field theory".

It is even so "bad" at this point that most physicist will bet on all these ideas will prove to be wrong, ones we start plugging those unknowns.

The point was about how an untestable prediction of a scientific theory (that IS testable), would be a well-motivated proposition as opposed to claims about the supernatural.

 

[Halbhh]

I would not. They are both attempts at explaining the world, life, etc.



What do you say to people with stories like "...and we needed to rush to the hospital but the car broke down, so we prayed hard and lo and behold, the engine worked again"?

There are certainly enough such stories.



Sure, but that wasn't the point. I even flat out stated that none of these things are currently in a stage where we can take them seriously like well-established theories like atomic theory or evolution. There are simply far to many unknowns at this point and every single one of these theories (hypothesis, actually) make all kinds of assumptions. Especially concerning how gravity acts at the quantum level - for which there currently is no proper explanation at all. There is no quantum gravity theory. There is no "grand theory". There is no "unified field theory".

It is even so "bad" at this point that most physicist will bet on all these ideas will prove to be wrong, ones we start plugging those unknowns.

The point was about how an untestable prediction of a scientific theory (that IS testable), would be a well-motivated proposition as opposed to claims about the supernatural.

The very ordinary mainstream church I attend has had not even one sentence in any of years of sermons (I've heard at least 300 here) about any science topic that I can recall. (I have a degree in physics btw, and don't consider the reality that God made this Universe to be 'physics'. I actually know what physics is, see -- it's about specific details for one thing, always, that is, it has specific predictions or explanations about phenomena. Perhaps 95% of our church knows at least vaguely that the Earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old, etc., etc.)

Just not the subject matter.

What is that actual subject matter as shown by endless example in actual sermons? Saving our souls, following Christ, learning and working to do what He instructed us....

About the very interesting thing called 'miracles', you most likely would need one to happen to you or right in front of you to be able to believe it.

Meanwhile, this is a fantastically interesting time in physics and cosmology, and wonderfully interesting questions are wide open. We don't even know what 4/5ths of the matter in the Universe is, and other huge questions. It's all wide open, and a lot of fun.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The very ordinary mainstream church I attend has had not even one sentence in any of years of sermons (I've heard at least 300 here) about any science topic that I can recall.

Great.

About the very interesting thing called 'miracles', you most likely would need one to happen to you or right in front of you to be able to believe it.

How would I know it was a "miracle"?

 

[Halbhh]

Great.



How would I know it was a "miracle"?

you know it when you see it (and I mean you yourself, not someone else's necessarily). Now, the thing is, my background in physics and math doesn't allow me to think lucky coincidences (uncommon ones) are miracles, even when the result is spectacularly good, etc.. No, instead for me I needed pretty much impossible seeming results, and that's what happened, more than just once. Further, after these shocking things, then the additional shock happened that each and every prayer I dared to make (keeping in mind I have real faith, that is actual, not just tradition, etc.) -- each prayer I could find out the results of, including several that were for me, we all answered, often dramatically, several times in ways that also seemed near impossible. [It's helpful to be aware that most people in churches and even many churches don't know what Christ said about how to pray prayers that get answered!] By itself, one or even 3 wouldn't have been so convincing, but when it's 20 of 20, then I began to get the implication. But....even just one really miraculous thing could be enough to change a person's attitude, and make them really seek God more, and here is the way --

13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord..."

You will note the words say "all" of your "heart", not just a part, but an all-in real seeking, with that openness in the heart. That itself is an act of faith for most people. Some people would need real work even just to get in touch with their heart, others perhaps to do any real act of trust, others to be able to take an emotional risk with their own fate (so to speak). It's not just easy for all to begin with. But it's a place a person can try and eventually get to. I had some stepping stones along the way that for the particular person I am helped me be more ready for that attempt. I had read Emerson and really liked him, I had read things Christ said like, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another", and "love your enemies", and "forgive [over and over and over], and I was struck by these gradually through my 20s as more than merely a nice dream, but more like the basis of any lasting peace and good will among peoples (sooner or later there is offense of some kind, and then only forgiveness allows peace that is more than temporary). So on a level I had some feeling that the profound already existed in Christ's words, and the only question was about that more supernatural side of it -- whether God is real.....and I was willing to take the risk to find Him, with the danger to my status quo that implied.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you know it when you see it

That doesn't sound like an acceptable answer.

How would I know it?