Science and Philosephy.- God (page 2)

Coded Logic

I personally think its a 50/50 possibility considering the fact that it all boils down to either matter/energy thats always existed and exploded to give us galaxies or its a creator thats always existed . . .

I don't think a 50/50 possibility is a good assesment of the situation. Matter and energy are known to exist. Gods are not. It would be like me saying there is a 50/50 possibility that either the mail man delivered my mail this morning or a flying unicorn delivered it. This is completely irrational. In order to say something is "possible" you either have to have a precident or something of parallel comparison. Without that, you can't know if something is possible or not. And you certainly can't assign a 50/50 variable to it. This is a classic arguement from ignorance fallacy.

A second point is that the universe started out simple and and has become more complex over time (2nd law of thermodynamics). God(s) would have started out complicated (if we're talking about something that is unchanging).

Coded , did those studies accomodate for dark matter and energy which can't be quantified by any scientific instruments?

It was their meassurments that discoverd dark energy (dark matter had been discovered much earlier). As far as your statement that they can't be "quantified" I'm not sure what you mean by that. Both are measurable. We know their quantities. We just don't know what they are. Much like gravity, we don't yet understand what it is. But to say it can't be "quantified" would be to use some pretty sloppy language.

Now on to Seraphim23

God cannot be proven or unproven in objective terms.

It depends upon the God that is claimed to exist. If it's a god that made Adam and Eve out of dust-ribs 6,000 years ago we can objectively say "that specific God does not exist." This is why in most debates Thiest refuse to define God. It prevents them to be pinned down on anything.

If I said, "You're a thief - because you stole a red Ferrari from the dealership down the street yesterday at 12:00."

This is a specific claim that can be investigated and is falsifiable.

However, if I just said, "You're a thief because you stole something."

This is not falsifiable. And I would disregard such a statement as utter nonsense until such a time as I could be provided with more specifics (what was stolen, when it was stolen, how it was stolen, etc). I feel the same with the God hypothesis because, the vast majority of the time, it's NOT EVEN a hypothesis. I think your quote of Wolfgang Pauli was spot on, " It is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

Terry

How credible is:

1. An ivisible person

2. An invisible person who has always existed.

3. An invisible person who has always existed who is all-powerful.

4. An ivisible person who has always existed who is all-powerful and created the heavens and the Earth.

And so forth . . .

Each time we add to a highly unlikely even yet another and another and another unlikely further characteristic the possibility diminishes.

By the time a few thousand years have gone by you are in a Twilight Zone of implausibility impossible to escape from.

Or else, words mean nothing because we willfully damage them through false attribution.

Viviane

Enough to know that there are two possibilities of the existence of matter/energy, both are infinite.

There are far more possibilites. You should explore the issue further.

It's an interesting perspective that I heard from him on a 2hr religous debate with sam harris, christopher hitchen, daniel dennet, etc. Just regurgitating something I heard from that clip yesterday, you would have to watch it to really get what i was trying to say. Must he be an astrophysicist to make a valid claim about the universe?

Why is his opinion relevant? You've not answered that. Was his claim valid, testable, something already known or was he trying to merge his own poor understanding of science with theology?

I was reffering to the inability to see or measure the physical properties of dark matter since its existence is an inferred hypothesis.

It was predicted in the 1930's and it's a verified, objective and measurable fact that something is out there.

sunny23

A second point is that the universe started out simple and and has become more complex over time (2nd law of thermodynamics). God(s) would have started out complicated (if we're talking about something that is unchanging).

How exactly has the universe become more complex over time? Do you mean to say it has become more chaotic?

I don't think a 50/50 possibility is a good assesment of the situation. Matter and energy are known to exist. Gods are not. It would be like me saying there is a 50/50 possibility that either the mail man delivered my mail this morning or a flying unicorn delivered it. This is completely irrational. In order to say something is "possible" you either have to have a precident or something of parallel comparison. Without that, you can't know if something is possible or not. And you certainly can't assign a 50/50 variable to it. This is a classic arguement from ignorance fallacy.

I see what you mean and I haven't thought of it that way before. Perhaps a variable shouldn't be assigned to unknowns especially when one of the two unknowns concerns a thing (God) that is unseen by science. However to offer some counter-argument to your claim of the comparison being entirely unparallel: what if God is made up of only matter/energy?

Viviane

How exactly has the universe become more complex over time? Do you mean to say it has become more chaotic?

The formation of atoms, molecules, stars, planets, heavier elements, life.

However to offer some counter-argument to your claim of the comparison being entirely unparallel: what if God is made up of only matter/energy?

What would that mean? That God is physical? No special powers? Can be destroyed?

sunny23

The formation of atoms, molecules, stars, planets, heavier elements, life.

I thought the current consensus was that all the matter in the universe we see and feel was made right at the Big Bang. Matter is not still being created, its just transforming just like they teach us in school: energy doesn’t get created or destroyed, it only transforms or conserves (conservation of energy).

What would that mean? That God is physical? No special powers? Can be destroyed?

Sure, light is technically physical and many used to believe light from the sun was a phenomenon (a god or super power/miracle of sorts). Humans can manipulate matter and convert neutrons to protons. Perhaps an entity like a God could manipulate matter and energy(obeying laws) to a much greater scale than humans have the time to discover. It is speculated that outside of our universe "our" laws perhaps are different or don't exist. Maybe a God could create these laws in the first place. I'm just playing devils advocate here btw :)

Viviane

I thought the current consensus was that all the matter in the universe we see and feel was made right at the Big Bang. Matter is not still being created, its just transforming just like they teach us in school: energy doesn’t get created or destroyed, it only transforms or conserves (conservation of energy).

What does that have to do with the formation atoms, stars, planets and life?

Sure, light is technically physical and many used to believe light from the sun was a phenomenon (a god or super power/miracle of sorts).

Light is 100% physical, not technically.

Humans can manipulate matter and convert neutrons to protons.

That happens all the time naturally, it's called beta decay.

Perhaps an entity like a God could manipulate matter and energy(obeying laws) to a much greater scale than humans have the time to discover.

How is that God? What do you mean by God? Define this entity.

It is speculated that outside of our universe "our" laws perhaps are different or don't exist. Maybe a God could create these laws in the first place. I'm just playing devils advocate here btw :)

Not really. There is no other "side" of the discussion, it's just baseless speculation.

galaxie

Are we still trying to invent god ?!!

I thought that had been dine already..ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

galaxie

Oops!!

sunny23

What does that have to do with the formation atoms, stars, planets and life?

Was trying to say that with formation there is equal destruction. There have been literally entire galaxies that have disintegrated. Stars form and others burn out. Some stars are devoured by black holes and spit out as gamma rays that hit the earth. Therefore the universe isn't becoming more complex, its doing the same thing it has always done since the beginning. You tried to use formation of stars to dismiss this.

Light is 100% physical, not technically.

You are right, i was wrong, it is visible, has energy, momentum, and gravitational field but no mass.

I really don't believe a God exists, was trying to see what opinions and various speculations I could draw from assuming YES to your three questions, "That God is physical? No special powers? Can be destroyed?"

I was trying to use dark matter the same way that theists have used the unknown details of Gravity to imply a God, however on further thought its no different. We see the effects of gravity everyday and just because we don't know exactly how it works doesn''t imply divine intervention and the same holds true of dark matter even though for some reason at first I thought it to be different somehow. Using the current unknowns and implying them to another even more unknown thing like a god is bad form and what Dinesh D'Souza was using. Ok so I jabbered here without thinking first, sorry, musta been hungry or something.

Science and Philosephy.- God

Share this