Hawking his theory

[Big RR]

Inquiries into philosphical truths I can relate to.

But what philosophical truths stand up to the scienific rigor you are demanding of religious inquiry?

The situation has been referred to as "god of the gaps", and those gaps are getting smaller. Life is one of the big things that science cannot adequately explain (at the moment). My feeling is that because science cannot currently explain something, that doesn't mean god gets the credit

Indeed, I agree with you 100%; if the only reason one presumes god exists is to fill the gapsin understanding, one may eventually wind up not needing a god. But my point is different, relgious faith says god exists, not because god is needed to explain something, but simply because god does exist. Even if the universe were found to operate as a clockworks which do not need a god to operate them, this is not evidence that god does not exist--god may well exist apart from that universe, and only briefly part of it when god chooses to. God is not there to preempt science or be validated by it--god is quite separate--the why, not the how.

[thestoat]

Not at all, lo, though I can see your point Just that in areas where science has not explained a phenomena I remain open minded. I am pretty certain that it is not a case of "well, science can't explain it, therefore it must be god", since throughout history it never has been god, so I don't see why he should suddenly crop up now. But I do remain open minded until I receive evidence. As a good example, if we take the origin of life, suppose someone with a crystal ball told me that in 30 years it would be explained, gave me the following scenarios, and asked me what my prediction of its explanation would be. I would say ...

Pixies created life = pretty much zero chance
God created life = pretty much zero chance
Life just came into existence and the mechanism is explained by science = pretty much definite

I suspect others may have different probabilities ...

[loCAtek]

"Products" are salable commodities Lo, not technological advances. You're mixing yourself up again.

No, that was the point Gob. New technologies aren't being invented as fast as before, the advances aren't accelerating; there has just been newer marketing. The last century did have many advances but according to Wiki, in the nineties the rate of invention went down.

[loCAtek]

Not at all, lo, though I can see your point Just that in areas where science has not explained a phenomena I remain open minded. I am pretty certain that it is not a case of "well, science can't explain it, therefore it must be god", since throughout history it never has been god, so I don't see why he should suddenly crop up now. But I do remain open minded until I receive evidence. As a good example, if we take the origin of life, suppose someone with a crystal ball told me that in 30 years it would be explained, gave me the following scenarios, and asked me what my prediction of its explanation would be. I would say ...

Pixies created life = pretty much zero chance
God created life = pretty much zero chance
Life just came into existence and the mechanism is explained by science = pretty much definite

I suspect others may have different probabilities ...

...because that's what you believe now LOL. Rather a circular argument.

As I've stated, I believe in science, but it's a strawman to say anyone's said "well, science can't explain it, therefore it must be god". There was a very fascinating documentary a few years back that I'm sure you would have enjoyed, about the possible origins of the universe. It explained the quantum theories of there being other dimensions. If I recall correctly it was Einstein who speculating there could be up to 11 (This one goes up to 11!)
Now scientists in taking his speculations further, deduced a 'neighbor' dimension, could be one made up of entirely of energy. While our universe is mostly empty space, this side dimension is full of energy forces. The reason they entertain that this is possible is because of it's effect on our universe; it may be the colliding forces in the that dimension, were so powerful that they tore a hole through the dimensions and were the source of energy for the Big Bang. Yes, that Big Bang. When I have more time, I'll try to search for it.



Now, I mention this not just because it's amazing stuff, but say this does explain the origin of this universe...

Where did that energy come from?

Do you look for another universe in another dimension? Then where did that one come from? I don't think it's even possible that science will be able to explain everything, that's like saying you can count to infinity. I haven't said "well, science can't explain it, therefore it must be god". because I believe in both, since both are infinite.

[thestoat]

...because that's what you believe now LOL. Rather a circular argument.

I don't think so. It is what I believe now - the point is that my beliefs will happily change with new evidence. Unfortunately you can't prove that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove pixies don't exist. But I find that as the evidence mounts, not so much that he doesn't exist but more that he isn't necessary, those of a faith persuasion are not prepared to change their beliefs so readily.

but it's a strawman to say anyone's said "well, science can't explain it, therefore it must be god"

Not true - I have known creationists who say not only that but they go further.

Them: The earth is about 5000 years old.
Me: Rubbish. Science shows us it is billions of years old.
Them: Nope. Science is wrong.
Me: What about dinosaurs.
Them: God put them there to confuse you.

Definitely not a straw man, though I don't attribute those beliefs to you, Lo The program you mention sounds interesting. I sat in on a lecture by Prof Paul Davies about multi dimension universes and came out addled. More than 4 dimensions does my head in ...

[Big RR]

But I find that as the evidence mounts, not so much that he doesn't exist but more that he isn't necessary, those of a faith persuasion are not prepared to change their beliefs so readily.

Necessary? By what mandate? I fully acknowledge that a god is not "necessary", but I maintain god exists nonetheless. Few of us are "necessary" either, yet we exist. Existence is not defined by necessity.

[thestoat]

Few of us are "necessary" either, yet we exist. Existence is not defined by necessity.

Huge difference. Pick someone on the planet. They may not be "necessary" but we can see them, talk to them, feel their actions. Not so god.

[Big RR]

Well you choose only to believe in the existence of those who you can see and hear or entitities which are toherwise necessary? There are a great many indidivduals on the earth who you have neither seen nor heard, nor who are necessary as you previously defined it, who exist nonetheless. Yes, i would imagine you could communicate with them and see/hear them, but unless you do, do they not exist? I would certainly hope not.

We're kind of back to Schroedinger's cat; when it is sealed in the capsule, does it cease to exist because you canot see or hear it? IOf course not. Is it alive or dead? Both. But something both alive and dead is not within the realm of my experience (or yours either i would surmise) yet it exists (and whebn you pen the capusle your very act of observing chnages the system/cat.

And that's the point; we do take many things on faith. I've never been to South Africa, but i believe there is a such a place and that people exist there. Why, because people have told me so, and shown me photos and videos they say are from there. I away, the same is true of an invisible god.

[Gob]

"Products" are salable commodities Lo, not technological advances. You're mixing yourself up again.

No, that was the point Gob. New technologies aren't being invented as fast as before, the advances aren't accelerating; there has just been newer marketing. The last century did have many advances but according to Wiki, in the nineties the rate of invention went down.

Again you mistake "products" for technological advances, as is shown by your link.

[thestoat]

Why, because people have told me so, and shown me photos and videos they say are from there. I away, the same is true of an invisible god.

What photos or videos have you seen of god then? Show me one of those and I'll happily believe he exists.

Well you choose only to believe in the existence of those who you can see and hear or entitities which are toherwise necessary? There are a great many indidivduals on the earth who you have neither seen nor heard, nor who are necessary as you previously defined it, who exist nonetheless. Yes, i would imagine you could communicate with them and see/hear them, but unless you do, do they not exist?

Of course they do, because they are contactable in some form. Schrodinger doesn't come in to this. People exist (in our definition of existence). Any one of them can be contacted and interacted with. Not so god.

[Big RR]

Of course they do, because they are contactable in some form

and if they are not; if they exist in an area where they cannot be reached electronically and flee from outside contact, but have been glimpsed by others who speak of them, would you say they do not exist.

[thestoat]

if they exist in an area where they cannot be reached electronically and flee from outside contact, but have been glimpsed by others who speak of them

Well then it does depend on who and how they have been glimpsed. Eg.

If they are people that have been seen by others, then since there are so many people in the world I am likely to accept this is the case
If they are gods (or a god) that have been felt by others, then since there are not so many gods about I am not likely to accept this is the case

Mathematically, aliens probably exist. But since they have no influence over me in any way, it doesn't really matter to me.
Evidence suggests that god doesn't exist. But regardless, since his existence, if he does exist, has no influence over me in any way, it doesn't really matter to me.
Evidence suggests that fairies (in the traditional sense) don't exist. But regardless, since their existence, if they do exist, has no influence over me in any way, it doesn't really matter to me.

[Big RR]

Well I can't argue with much of that except for your statement " Evidence suggests that god doesn't exist". I think the evidence is pretty inconclusive; it suggests that a god need not exist, but this is a far cry from saying one does not exist. Unless you have some evidence other than what's been discussed in this thread.

As for aliens, a god, or a fairy having any influence over you, that is hard to confirm as well. indeed, many things you can neither see nor hear can have profound influences on you. We are all surrounded by the myriad of circumstances that form the environment, even if we are unaware of it. I am not saying any do affect you, only that it is impossible to say they do not.

[thestoat]

I think the evidence is pretty inconclusive; it suggests that a god need not exist, but this is a far cry from saying one does not exist.

Well the evidence suggests that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, yet god is supposed to be omnipotent, which I see as meaning that he could. Similar arguments go for omnipresence. I'd be interested in your views on this though.

I am not saying any do affect you, only that it is impossible to say they do not.

That is true. It is impossible to prove a negative.

[Big RR]

Well the evidence suggests that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, yet god is supposed to be omnipotent, which I see as meaning that he could. Similar arguments go for omnipresence. I'd be interested in your views on this though.

Well I have a big problem wih omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience;; indeed, i don't think these are proper descriptions of god, but are theological concepts which have evolved over the years and make less sense now than they did (I think omnipotence was previosuly the strongest being in the world/universe, which is possible, but not an unlimited power). Take Omnipresence and omniscience, e.g., there are many biblical stories that imply things happened that god did not know--Who slew Abel? Who told Adam and Eve they were naked? Why how an omnipresent god abandoned and left jesus alone on th cross? If god were everywhere and all knowing, then why would he have to ask. Likewise, any idea of sin/redemption makes little sense absence free will, but if god knows everything, then everything must be predestined. Omnipotence raises similar questions like the ones you raised, or the old create a rock heavier than he can lift? And couldn't an omipotent god change what is predestined, or would the oniscience of god prevent that? I think there are limits to the power of god, if only imposed by the universe we reside in (and one in which god may not reside necessarily).

Now how this translates to the nature of god in the supernatural realms that god may inhabit is something I think none of us can describe. But I would say while god is part of this universe (or interacts with it), its laws and pardoxes have to limit god's powers.

[Timster]

Interesting discussion.

Without a lot of time to post these days; I thought that I would quickly post this as it seems to be germane to the direction of this debate. I think that it points out nicely how science for all of its rationality; begs the question.

Can an Intellectual be a Christian?

[loCAtek]

"Products" are salable commodities Lo, not technological advances. You're mixing yourself up again.

No, that was the point Gob. New technologies aren't being invented as fast as before, the advances aren't accelerating; there has just been newer marketing. The last century did have many advances but according to Wiki, in the nineties the rate of invention went down.

Again you mistake "products" for technological advances, as is shown by your link.

From the top of the page, “The timeline of historic inventions is a chronological list of particularly important or significant technological inventions.”

Very well, however, by using your definition of new technological advances, that makes the 20th century even less productive, since what was created in this century is mostly based on advances of the past. Electricity was discovered in the 1800’s, anything using it therefore is not an advance, but an extension. The automobile or any internal combustion engine is based on the older principle of the gun; chamber a controlled explosion and use it to propel a projectile or piston. Jet propulsion is just an extension of that.
There was a great educational series, called ‘Connections’ that showed all the ties and developments between past and current inventions, it was by the BBC so, I hope you’re seen it.

Therefore, I believe the only completely ‘new’ advance has been nuclear power.

[loCAtek]

stoat, you hold the same faith that other dimensions exist, and yet there is no evidence of them either. Likely, there never will be, except in theory because to breach any dimensional barrier (it's speculated) would take the all the power in the known universe. Unfortunately, some very cool things in Science Fiction just aren't physically feasible like 'Faster-Than-Light' travel; teleportation and Time Travel. They are and are always going to be as it's been put: fairy tales.

[thestoat]

stoat, you hold the same faith that other dimensions exist, and yet there is no evidence of them either. Likely, there never will be, except in theory because to breach any dimensional barrier (it's speculated) would take the all the power in the known universe. Unfortunately, some very cool things in Science Fiction just aren't physically feasible like 'Faster-Than-Light' travel; teleportation and Time Travel. They are and are always going to be as it's been put: fairy tales.

That is true, I do hold that faith. But again, the difference is that I only hold faith in that theory because it seems to correlate with the universe as we know it. If a better theory came along I'd follow that - honing the theories down until we find truth. The two important points : 1. My faith is based on evidence. 2. I'll change it with new evidence. IMHO religious faith is not based on evidence and the religious people I know do not drop their faith when new information comes to light - they simply try to fit the new information around their dogma. I don't say that of you of course But I have had a lot of experience of Christians and I have found them thus.

Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?

[Big RR]

Science operates that way as well Stoat; read the classical (pre relativistic) physics explanations of Newton's Rings or the perturbations in Mercuy's orbit (including the postulation of a small (invisible?) planet, Vulcan, between Mercury and the Sun). Indeed, science often tries to craft expnations within its accepted dogma unless and until a revolution arises(9such as did in physics in the early 20th century). I'm not sure it should try to do anything differently, as theories are often adjusted, not discarded, when additional evidence comes in.