anthropic principle vs. m theory

relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
anthropic principle vs. m theory

I am always amazed at how many incredibly smart scientist can be so bold in their non-belief in a creator. From what I can understand in the last decade or so it seems that we are confirming more and more that (it appears)we are the product of a system that is fine tuned for life to come to being, essentially the anthropic principle.
Definitions of Anthropic principle on the Web:

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Any of several similar explanations for the nature of the universe, and for the values of its fundamental constants, that states either that the universe is as it is because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it, or that the very presence of intelligent life constrains the universe to be ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anthropic_principle

The idea that the universe exhibits elements of design specifically for the purpose of containing intelligent beings; namely, humans. Much debate surrounds this issue. ...
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Theolo ... _Again.htm


Now as a layman on these things it just seems obvious to me that many a smart person is getting nervous with this idea and the work around is M-theory aka string theory. 
Definitions of m theory on the Web:

(particle physics) a theory that involves an eleven-dimensional universe in which the weak and strong forces and gravity are unified and to which all the string theories belong
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In non-technical terms, M-theory presents an idea about the basic substance of the universe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory_(simplified
)

Now if I'm correct in my understanding, all of the anthropic principles are verifiable through experimentation. M-theory has no experimental test,..yet. It is essentially a theory with lots of complicated math that seems concerned with creating a work around to avoid the leading thought that belief in a creator is a very reasonable position to hold. 

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:What am I

relrick wrote:

 

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

You're missing here one thing, that science doesn't care WHO is a creator. Science researches HOW are things created, so we can re-create them for our technical purposes. Saying Goddidit does not tell us how he did it, quite opposite, religious people think that God just somehow instantly created everything, without any method. Or they think that it is wrong to look under pot lids in God's kitchen. So who is the heir of God's kingdom? Who shall perform greater miracles than Jesus did, as Jesus promised?

Religious people typically don't know anything about God. They don't investigate God, they just read their bible with millenia old, outdated information on God, written by relatively primitive people. They worship God for no reason at all, and they give inordinate importance to uncritical belief. You know what sorts of bullshit can people believe. And this is supposed to be mankind's redeeming quality? It seems more like lottery to me. Believe the right piece of bullshit out of many and you're saved. Use your brain and you don't even enroll to the lottery.

I've heard out dozens of spiritual testimonies involving God or mystical higher force, and none of them involved Hell. There was no idea of lake of fire, eternal punishment, or anything like that. As far as my research is concerned, I found no evidence for Hell and therefore Hell should be erased from biblical texts. The texts should be tested and improved upon experiences and statistical data from believers, in science-like fashion. Then after several decades religion would have something to do with science.

Religious traditions just play on people's feelings to control them. I know, many people should be controlled because they're primitives and they need solid rules like children, to fit into the society. But religions are possessive and don't want to release these people once they outgrow the dogma and start thinking for themselves.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:relrick

Luminon wrote:

relrick wrote:

 

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

You're missing here one thing, that science doesn't care WHO is a creator. Science researches HOW are things created, so we can re-create them for our technical purpose. Saying Goddidit does not tell us how he did it, quite opposite, religious people think that God just somehow instantly created everything, without any method. Or they think that it is wrong to look under pot lids in God's kitchen. So who is the heir of God's kingdom? Who shall perform greater miracles than Jesus did, as Jesus promised?

It's all nonsense. Religious people typically don't know anything about God. They don't investigate God, they just read their bible with millenia old, outdated information on God, written by relatively primitive people. I've heard out dozens of spiritual testimonies involving God or mystical higher force, and none of them involved Hell. There was no idea of lake of fire, eternal punishment, or anything like that. As far as my research is concerned, I found no evidence for Hell and therefore Hell should be erased from biblical texts. The texts should be tested and improved upon experiences and statistical data from believers, in science-like fashion. Then after several decades religion would have something to do with science.

Religious traditions just play on people's feelings to control them. I know, many people should be controlled because they're primitives, but religions are possessive and don't want to release these people once they outgrow the dogma and start thinking for themselves.

 

So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
More recent study has

More recent study has weakened the strength of the Anthropic Principle, by showing that if you consider the whole range of values, ie not just the effects of varying one 'constant' at a time, there are likely to be many combinations of values where some form of stable complex structures and processes can exist, which is all that is required for something like 'life' to evolve and emerge.

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

The proliferation of such possibilities strengthens the case that the Anthropic Principle is only valid in the weak form, ie that life will emerge in those regions of whatever universes are suitable. IOW life emerges to match the Universe it finds itself in, so of course there is a 'remarkable' match between the needs of 'life' and the state of the Universe.

To repeat, the more states of reality which can be shown to be at least as plausible and consistent as what we observe 'locally', the greater the likelihood of alternative stable states becomes, quite independent of our ability to detect or verify them.

In fact, there are recent studies which extend the possibilities further, by suggesting, based on some observations that, even within our own Universe, the 'constants' may vary to some extent in different parts, so allowing for a range of fundamental physical states, so increasing the possibility that, by pure random or chaotic variation, at least one region could be suitable for complexity to emerge.

Whereas the 'designer' idea ultimately explains nothing, since it provides no 'explanation' whatever for how such an entity, utterly beyond any theoretical support from current established principles, could come to be. It fails at multiple levels.

Of course, current ideas based on actual study of reality and application of mathematical logic are incomplete, and may always be so, but there has been progress.

The empirical study of reality now is a far more fertile source of genuinely new and previously unimagined ideas than any purely metaphysical approach based on the very finite range of ideas that the unprompted human mind can come up with by intuition and introspection and 'pure Reason'. We only have to consider Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to demonstrate that.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:What am I

relrick wrote:

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

 

 

1)  I don't understand the connection you try to make between scientists, scientific theories, and religion.  So perhaps you are missing some logic. 

2)  If there is a creator, no one can "corrupt" him by hating his religion.  Also, religious people are more common to hate all other religions than non-religious people (proved by history)

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:What am I

relrick wrote:

What am I missing here???

Confusing cause and effect.

The type of environment that exists dictates what type of life is capable of surviving in it. Not the other way around. Fish have gills and humans have lungs because that is what is need to survive in that environment. They can't survive in the others' environment.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"The very idea of a creator"

"The very idea of a creator" is unnecessary and inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation of existence.

It is not worth "hating", it arises from an ancient predisposition of the human mind to imagine a conscious agent behind any event that we can't imagine occurring from 'mere' non-sentient objects and their interactions. It is a failure of imagination.

I could possibly be said to 'hate' the willingness of believers to deeply distort and violate well established principles and fruitful and honest means of seeking the Truth about existence, purely to defend their presuppositions.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

This helps me try to express my point. If this is the case, and I agree with it, what is the justification for strong atheism? Isn't a reasoned agnosticism more justified? My assumption is that it is the hate of religion which corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"The very

BobSpence1 wrote:

"The very idea of a creator" is unnecessary and inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation of existence.

 

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

What some people might not get about where I'm coming from, is that I can agree that religion has done plenty of damage. But I can't see how the possibility of a creator isn't just as valid as the possibility of none. 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:So are you

relrick wrote:

So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 

No. Incompetence of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. People also hate religion, because it's incompetent.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:relrick

Luminon wrote:

relrick wrote:

So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 

No. Incompetence of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. People also hate religion, because it's incompetent.

 

Forgive, your tag says "theist". Do you believe in a creator?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

This helps me try to express my point. If this is the case, and I agree with it, what is the justification for strong atheism? Isn't a reasoned agnosticism more justified? My assumption is that it is the hate of religion which corrupts the idea of a creator.  

My point is that the creator idea does not explain anything in any ultimate sense, and it does go way beyond any vaguely plausible extrapolation of established knowledge, which multiple universe ideas do not.

It is the creator idea which lacks justification or ultimate explanatory power of any kind.

It is really that simple.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

relrick wrote:

What am I missing here???

My best guess is that hate of religion corrupts the very idea of a creator. When IMO they are mutually exclusive.

 

 

1)  I don't understand the connection you try to make between scientists, scientific theories, and religion.  So perhaps you are missing some logic. 

2)  If there is a creator, no one can "corrupt" him by hating his religion.  Also, religious people are more common to hate all other religions than non-religious people (proved by history)

 

 

 

re: 1. I'm simply saying that there are many very smart people who deny the possibility of a creator. I have seen no evidence that fully supports that position or contradicts it. How then can they be so confident? My best guess is that religion has corrupted the idea of a creator.

re 2. Who has said that if there is a creator, said creator has a religion?? Not I. 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

This helps me try to express my point. If this is the case, and I agree with it, what is the justification for strong atheism? Isn't a reasoned agnosticism more justified? My assumption is that it is the hate of religion which corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

If there is a creator, s/he/it/they are lousy creators.  As evidenced by the many biological less than perfect structures.  No creature - none - is "perfectly" adapted to their environment.  It is more of a mismash of features and structures that mostly allow the organism in question to reproduce.  No perfection noted or required.

Early scientists searched high and low for evidence of the perfect creation as created by the perfect creator.  Especially in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries as christian scientists tried to justify the existence of this creator.  What happened is what happens now - some scientist can't find the creator in their own field of study, so they claim s/he/it/they exist in some other field they are less familiar with.

It isn't hate of religion - though I wear that t-shirt for other reasons - it is the complete and total lack of evidence.  Hard, physical evidence - no measurements of god/s/dess are possible and no measurements of his/her/its/their interactions with this reality have ever been recorded in a scientific fashion.  So s/he/it/they do not exist for all practical purposes.  Which is what science is all about - practicality.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:relrick

BobSpence1 wrote:

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

This helps me try to express my point. If this is the case, and I agree with it, what is the justification for strong atheism? Isn't a reasoned agnosticism more justified? My assumption is that it is the hate of religion which corrupts the idea of a creator.  

My point is that the creator idea does not explain anything in any ultimate sense, and it does go way beyond any vaguely plausible extrapolation of established knowledge, which multiple universe ideas do not.

It is the creator idea which lacks justification or ultimate explanatory power of any kind.

It is really that simple.

Supposing for a moment that there is a creator WOULD explain our existence just as much as multiple universes COULD explain it. If it all boils down to a creator is non provable and thus meaningless in scientific terms, I can understand that position. However, if it appears that it is inferred, ie anthropic, is it not at least philosophically debatable? 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:relrick

cj wrote:

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The plausibility of multiple universes, either sequentially or in parallel, with different combinations of relationships between the fundamental forces has certainly not been shown to be impossible. Rather, more possibilities have been thought of, all broadly consistent with established theory, although we so far have only the slightest hints of how we might test for which ones may actually apply.

This helps me try to express my point. If this is the case, and I agree with it, what is the justification for strong atheism? Isn't a reasoned agnosticism more justified? My assumption is that it is the hate of religion which corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

If there is a creator, s/he/it/they are lousy creators.  As evidenced by the many biological less than perfect structures.  No creature - none - is "perfectly" adapted to their environment.  It is more of a mismash of features and structures that mostly allow the organism in question to reproduce.  No perfection noted or required.

Early scientists searched high and low for evidence of the perfect creation as created by the perfect creator.  Especially in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries as christian scientists tried to justify the existence of this creator.  What happened is what happens now - some scientist can't find the creator in their own field of study, so they claim s/he/it/they exist in some other field they are less familiar with.

It isn't hate of religion - though I wear that t-shirt for other reasons - it is the complete and total lack of evidence.  Hard, physical evidence - no measurements of god/s/dess are possible and no measurements of his/her/its/their interactions with this reality have ever been recorded in a scientific fashion.  So s/he/it/they do not exist for all practical purposes.  Which is what science is all about - practicality.

I am no expert on all religions. Therefore I don't know which ones express that creation is perfect. I am familiar enough with the bible to understand that the verbage used to express creation was,... "good" not perfect. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"The very idea of a creator" is unnecessary and inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation of existence.

 

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

What some people might not get about where I'm coming from, is that I can agree that religion has done plenty of damage. But I can't see how the possibility of a creator isn't just as valid as the possibility of none. 

But we have no indication that a creator is possible, it is literally infinitely beyond any current evidence based understanding of reality. It certainly is not necessary. If there was such an entity, we could not possibly know anything with any confidence about its motivations, either in general, or with respect to us. It would logically destroy the possibility of certainty of knowledge, since we would have to allow the possibility that it could change the nature of reality at large or small scale at a whim.

It is not remotely on an equivalent status to current cosmological theories, which are NOT based purely on naked assumptions in the way that religious ideas have to be.

The investigations of science has revealed no indication that such an arbitrary influence is present, merely an underlying apparent statistically pure randomness underlying the workings of simple physical relationships, the opposite of what could be seen as indications of the actions of a sentient agent. The complexity we see arising as increasingly complex webs of such interactions are considered, as we work our way up from elementary particles to the complex assemblies of massive numbers of such elementary components is a far more productive framework for explaining things like conscious life. Such complexity is intimately dependent on the existence of stable, indefinitely complex structures, which is totally dependent on matter.

So the idea of an immaterial super-intelligence conflicts with everything we currently have established as a set of frameworks for explaining ever more aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

A creator IS inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation for existence, since it doesn't explain its own existence. The existence of such an entity would only complicate any ultimate explanation by introducing an inherently incomprehensible entity into the scenario, and, as Stephen Hawking recently stated, it is not necessary.

Of course these theories are incorporate a range of assumptions, but the assumptions have to be broadly consistent with current established ideas. The more we have to stretch or suspend current frameworks, the more justification we require from the hypotheses in terms of their potential power to provide a workable framework for observations that we can't fit easily into current theories.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:But we have

BobSpence1 wrote:
But we have no indication that a creator is possible, it is literally infinitely beyond any current evidence based understanding of reality. It certainly is not necessary. If there was such an entity, we could not possibly know anything with any confidence about its motivations, either in general, or with respect to us. It would logically destroy the possibility of certainty of knowledge, since we would have to allow the possibility that it could change the nature of reality at large or small scale at a whim.

 

I agree with we have no indication that a creator is possible. But there is nothing that demonstrates a creator is not possible. Regarding the "necessary" component, isn't this the base argument of: Did a creator create the laws of the universe or are they simply a result of natural processes? Putting the cart before the horse? I realize none of this is provable and that's why I try to understand the strong atheist pov. 

Re: logically destroy the possibility of certain knowledge.

I mean,....I guess,.... but isn't this also just an assumption of motivation that can't be shown?? Also, in the typical assumption that a "creator" is outside of our space time, I think it reasonable that the universal laws will remain the same. Yes, conjecture, but hey isn't it all.

BobSpence1 wrote:

 The complexity we see arising as increasingly complex webs of such interactions are considered, as we work our way up from elementary particles to the complex assemblies of massive numbers of such elementary components is a far more productive framework for explaining things like conscious life. Such complexity is intimately dependent on the existence of stable, indefinitely complex structures, which is totally dependent on matter.

Could this not be 2 sides of the same coin. Either assumption of creator or not is filled with assumptions.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So the idea of an immaterial super-intelligence conflicts with everything we currently have established as a set of frameworks for explaining ever more aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

How?? Could it not be the classical line of questioning of How did a creator make it all work??

BobSpence1 wrote:
A creator IS inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation for existence, since it doesn't explain its own existence. The existence of such an entity would only complicate any ultimate explanation by introducing an inherently incomprehensible entity into the scenario, and, as Stephen Hawking recently stated, it is not necessary.

Not necessary does not equal, not what actually happened.  It might all be non provable but the buffalo in the room that we the observer are here. And perhaps it all does end up in the philosophy class. But it seems to just beg for discussion. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
But we have no indication that a creator is possible, it is literally infinitely beyond any current evidence based understanding of reality. It certainly is not necessary. If there was such an entity, we could not possibly know anything with any confidence about its motivations, either in general, or with respect to us. It would logically destroy the possibility of certainty of knowledge, since we would have to allow the possibility that it could change the nature of reality at large or small scale at a whim.

I agree with we have no indication that a creator is possible. But there is nothing that demonstrates a creator is not possible. Regarding the "necessary" component, isn't this the base argument of: Did a creator create the laws of the universe or are they simply a result of natural processes? Putting the cart before the horse? I realize none of this is provable and that's why I try to understand the strong atheist pov. 

If you restrict your argument to 'possible' or  'not possible' you will not be able to grasp the point.

There are many indicators (such as pretty much all of science) which suggest strongly that a 'creator' is extremely unlikely. The infinite and omni qualities are extremely problematic, and not even logically necessary for a creator.

You still don't get it that a creator cannot explain all of what exists, which must include itself. I am not restricting my request for an explanation of existence or 'reality' to our physical space-time, so proposing something outside our experienced physical reality is not answering the question. 

Proposing something that could could create the laws of the universe is most definitely 'putting the cart before the horse' - there has to be a coherent reality underlying any higher-level entity. Since science shows that the necessary precursor to our universe need be nothing more than something as close as possible to absolute nothingness as is possible, that seems an far more parsimonious assumption than a magic god who can somehow 'will' laws into existence without being governed himself by necessary conditions, ie laws. IOW, for a God to exist, there already has to be coherence and logic in existence, and that is all we need for 'creation' events. Inserting a sentient being in there only confuses the issue.

Quote:

Re: logically destroy the possibility of certain knowledge.

I mean,....I guess,.... but isn't this also just an assumption of motivation that can't be shown?? Also, in the typical assumption that a "creator" is outside of our space time, I think it reasonable that the universal laws will remain the same. Yes, conjecture, but hey isn't it all.

Any assumption of specific motivations is totally unverifiable, hence the only logically justifiable position is that we can't know, hence religious dogma can only be pure speculation, whereas we can empirically establish levels of increasing probability for explanatory frameworks that are ever more helpful in making sense of our reality.

All conjectures are not equally plausible.

As I keep trying to point out, the 'outside of our space time' concept is irrelevant, since I am addressing the question of existence, not just the part of existence we are aware of as our space-time.

Moving the creator back a step does not address the problem of 'what created the creator'.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 The complexity we see arising as increasingly complex webs of such interactions are considered, as we work our way up from elementary particles to the complex assemblies of massive numbers of such elementary components is a far more productive framework for explaining things like conscious life. Such complexity is intimately dependent on the existence of stable, indefinitely complex structures, which is totally dependent on matter.

Could this not be 2 sides of the same coin. Either assumption of creator or not is filled with assumptions.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So the idea of an immaterial super-intelligence conflicts with everything we currently have established as a set of frameworks for explaining ever more aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

How?? Could it not be the classical line of questioning of How did a creator make it all work??

Again, proposing a creator solves nothing in any ultimate sense - you are just putting a label on those aspects of reality and origins that we currently do not understand.

Yes, it is reasonable to propose that 'something' started everything, but that tells us nothing about that thing, certainly has no logical implications about it being a sentient being or not.

A coherent existence, ie something consistent with the primary laws of logic, ie that there are differentiated aspects of existence (law of identity - there are 'things'), and that any identifiable entity is distinct from that which it is not (law of non-contradiction). That is the primary requirement for anything more complex to exist, including hypothetical creator beings.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
A creator IS inherently irrelevant to an ultimate explanation for existence, since it doesn't explain its own existence. The existence of such an entity would only complicate any ultimate explanation by introducing an inherently incomprehensible entity into the scenario, and, as Stephen Hawking recently stated, it is not necessary.

Not necessary does not equal, not what actually happened.  It might all be non provable but the buffalo in the room that we the observer are here. And perhaps it all does end up in the philosophy class. But it seems to just beg for discussion. 

Of course, you can propose any number of weird convoluted narratives of the origin and nature of the universe, and design them to be consistent with what we observe. But if we can explain it all equally as well with far fewer and more manageable assumptions, and which still allow us to make useful predictions about what will follow from certain initial states of existence, and what will be the consequences of our actions, then why complicate things unnecessarily? Some guy from Occam had something to say about that a long time ago.

Sure, keep discussing origins, and that is certainly happening, but the fact that we are here observing proves nothing beyond the fact that the universe is such that our emergence is possible.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Is it

 

possible in this universe that any complex object could spring into life in the manner creation contends? Or do the laws of the universe demand a process played out over vast periods of time, driven by the appearance of matter caused by cooling, the gathering of matter by gravity, the ignition of hydrogen gas into stars, the production of liquid water on planets in their ideal vicinity, and the resulting possibility of organic abiogenesis using nearby solar power as driver?

I realise I'm being simplistic but can we say universal laws and the demonstrably long process of our universe's history in and of themselves argue implicitly against biblical creation as a possible concept?

 

Edit: Scratch solar power as initial fuel source, insert hydrothermal.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Is

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Is it possible in this universe that any complex object could spring into life in the manner creation contends? Or do the laws of the universe demand a process played out over vast periods of time, driven by the appearance of matter caused by cooling, the gathering of matter by gravity, the ignition of hydrogen gas into stars, the production of liquid water on planets in their ideal vicinity, and the resulting possibility of organic abiogenesis using nearby solar power as driver?

I realise I'm being simplistic but can we say universal laws and the demonstrably long process of our universe's history in and of themselves argue implicitly against biblical creation as a possible concept?

 

Edit: Scratch solar power as initial fuel source, insert hydrothermal.

 

 

 

Well, I am not arguing in favor of any religious type of creation per se. I'm not suggesting any YEC concepts. I find it reasonable to assume the 14 +/- billion years is our best estimate. Which  it then follows, thats simply how long it takes for us to get here, intentionally created or not. It's just that it seems that a hate of religion corrupts the possibility (in many minds) that we are intentionally created. When I think they are mutually distinct questions. A creator hypothesis, doesn't require any religion. Although religion does require a creator. 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course, you can propose any number of weird convoluted narratives of the origin and nature of the universe, and design them to be consistent with what we observe. But if we can explain it all equally as well with far fewer and more manageable assumptions, and which still allow us to make useful predictions about what will follow from certain initial states of existence, and what will be the consequences of our actions, then why complicate things unnecessarily? Some guy from Occam had something to say about that a long time ago.

Sure, keep discussing origins, and that is certainly happening, but the fact that we are here observing proves nothing beyond the fact that the universe is such that our emergence is possible.

It is interesting. That's exactly what I see trying to be done with m-theory vs. a creator who set it all in motion.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Of course, you can propose any number of weird convoluted narratives of the origin and nature of the universe, and design them to be consistent with what we observe. But if we can explain it all equally as well with far fewer and more manageable assumptions, and which still allow us to make useful predictions about what will follow from certain initial states of existence, and what will be the consequences of our actions, then why complicate things unnecessarily? Some guy from Occam had something to say about that a long time ago.

Sure, keep discussing origins, and that is certainly happening, but the fact that we are here observing proves nothing beyond the fact that the universe is such that our emergence is possible.

It is interesting. That's exactly what I see trying to be done with m-theory vs. a creator who set it all in motion.

Except that those proposed theories are are all based on extrapolations from current established theories, and are targeted at explaining current problems.

Whereas a creator is simply a label on whatever initiated existence. Nothing needed to be 'set in motion' - that is a medieval misconception. The modern conception is that a chaotic pervasive 'sea' of quantum-scale 'twitchiness' is all that has to pre-exist.

Not much different, it is true - it is only when you attribute to this 'creator' the traditional attributes of a God (sentience, will, omni-crap, etc) that you are off into fairyland speculation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Big bang creation

relrick wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Is it possible in this universe that any complex object could spring into life in the manner creation contends? Or do the laws of the universe demand a process played out over vast periods of time, driven by the appearance of matter caused by cooling, the gathering of matter by gravity, the ignition of hydrogen gas into stars, the production of liquid water on planets in their ideal vicinity, and the resulting possibility of organic abiogenesis using nearby solar power as driver?

I realise I'm being simplistic but can we say universal laws and the demonstrably long process of our universe's history in and of themselves argue implicitly against biblical creation as a possible concept?

 

Edit: Scratch solar power as initial fuel source, insert hydrothermal.

 

 

 

Well, I am not arguing in favor of any religious type of creation per se. I'm not suggesting any YEC concepts. I find it reasonable to assume the 14 +/- billion years is our best estimate. Which  it then follows, thats simply how long it takes for us to get here, intentionally created or not. It's just that it seems that a hate of religion corrupts the possibility (in many minds) that we are intentionally created. When I think they are mutually distinct questions. A creator hypothesis, doesn't require any religion. Although religion does require a creator. 

 

Does this mean a big bang event could constitute creation? I see what you mean about religion and the creation entanglement but so far there's no proof of god and pre-bang, we'd have to agree, the gap constitutes an argument from ignorance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:Luminon

relrick wrote:

Luminon wrote:

relrick wrote:

So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 

No. Incompetence of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. People also hate religion, because it's incompetent.

Forgive, your tag says "theist". Do you believe in a creator?

I think I'm a pantheist, that the whole universe is the creator. Plus I believe in certain principles by which the universe eventually sheds its material form and ascends qualitatively back into it's original state of literally universal potential. Then follows a period of inactivity, contemplation if you want, after which there is a new Big bang and new creative manifestation of that potential. In this way, there is no actual creation of anything, just better and better expression of existence. There is even no such thing as nothing, ever. Positive existence is a basic state, I suppose. 

My opinions also should be compatible with M-theory. M-theory takes things from human point of view, bottom to up, because starting with the "creator" up to the bottom is impossible. As Bob said, "creator" is just a label on what we don't know.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I

Atheistextremist wrote:
 I see what you mean about religion and the creation entanglement but so far there's no proof of god and pre-bang, we'd have to agree, the gap constitutes an argument from ignorance. 

Exactly. You use the term "ignorance". To be clear, that cuts either way. Until said "ignorance" is confirmed experimentally. Some say God did it, others multiverse and m theory. To my knowledge there is no experiment that either proves or disproves God, nor m theory or anything prebang.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:relrick

Luminon wrote:

relrick wrote:

Luminon wrote:

relrick wrote:

So are you agreeing that the hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator?? I didn't touch any particular religion, just the concept of a creator. 

No. Incompetence of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. People also hate religion, because it's incompetent.

Forgive, your tag says "theist". Do you believe in a creator?

I think I'm a pantheist, that the whole universe is the creator. Plus I believe in certain principles by which the universe eventually sheds its material form and ascends qualitatively back into it's original state of literally universal potential. Then follows a period of inactivity, contemplation if you want, after which there is a new Big bang and new creative manifestation of that potential. In this way, there is no actual creation of anything, just better and better expression of existence. There is even no such thing as nothing, ever. Positive existence is a basic state, I suppose. 

My opinions also should be compatible with M-theory. M-theory takes things from human point of view, bottom to up, because starting with the "creator" up to the bottom is impossible. As Bob said, "creator" is just a label on what we don't know.

 

Interesting. My understanding is that before the BB it was nothingness. Not that I can wrap my head around that. Further clarified, what is described as the singularity, was not so much a physical entity, but better stated as a coordinate of 0/0. I'm curious what principles are you describing when you say "sheds its material form"?  I have been wondering if the ramifications of the "measurement problem" indicate that the mind precedes the physical. I haven't exactly gotten clear on what my induction is trying to get at, but am compelled to feel there is something interesting there. Hope that even makes sense. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Agreed

relrick wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
 I see what you mean about religion and the creation entanglement but so far there's no proof of god and pre-bang, we'd have to agree, the gap constitutes an argument from ignorance. 

Exactly. You use the term "ignorance". To be clear, that cuts either way. Until said "ignorance" is confirmed experimentally. Some say God did it, others multiverse and m theory. To my knowledge there is no experiment that either proves or disproves God, nor m theory or anything prebang.

 

With the caveat that everything ever falsifiably proved was shown not to be supernatural. Given the universal nature of the proven physical, inverse probability argues against the existence of the anthropomorphically-contrived supernatural.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The BB was the Universe, not

The BB was the Universe, not a location within it. It encompassed ALL locations, not center. There is no center in our Universe, and no 'edge', as far as we know. As such, a coordinate would be meaningless when the Universe had virtually zero volume.

Also it may be of interest that the nett energy content of the BB Universe is believed to be zero, when you account for the nature of gravitational potential energy, so there is no violation of conservation of matter/energy in the BB.

Also the continuing expansion of the Universe prevents any problem with the law of entropy, as it continually 'creates' space for more entropy increase.

The singularity may well be a mathematical approximation to what existed at the start, but there was a physical entity. 

Physical reality inevitably precedes our conception of it. To imagine otherwise is to fall for the TAG fallacy.

What "measurement problem"?

The ignorance of non-empirical concepts of reality, from creation stories to those of the Greek philosphers, has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Relrick:  Have you ever

Relrick:  Have you ever tried thinking about the issue from a position of neutrality?  Pretend you've never heard of a creator deity, all you have is your brain and the universe.  Pretend you're immortal, and you start with basic reasoning tools and have at your disposal every piece of scientific data possible.  Now, from that starting point, how would you come to the conclusion that the universe was created by an extra-dimensional creator god?

 

I guess what I'm asking is if you remove your cultural bias towards a religious cosmological explanation, how would you ever arrive at that conclusion independently?  To make it worse, what explanatory power would that conclusion have over, say, extra-dimensional aliens, or a multi-verse?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:Possibly, how

relrick wrote:

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

If a grandma had a big dick she would be a grandpa.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
 Let me try to clarify

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:re: 1. I'm

relrick wrote:

re: 1. I'm simply saying that there are many very smart people who deny the possibility of a creator. I have seen no evidence that fully supports that position or contradicts it. How then can they be so confident? My best guess is that religion has corrupted the idea of a creator.

re 2. Who has said that if there is a creator, said creator has a religion?? Not I. 

 

Thank you.  This is much better, no string theory whatsoever.

1)  I think that many people use deduction. In other words, they test various hypotheses that start with "If there were a creator then..." When an overwhelming number of hypotheses is proven to be false, these people conclude that the idea of a creator is false, or at least irrelevant.

2)  If there is a creator and there is no religion, then religion is irrelevant to the creator.  I strongly doubt that if you never tell your kids anything about church/god/etc. then one day your grown up kid will come to you and say "I have just figured out there is a creator".

 

If there were a creator then it should be a close friend of Eloise ruther than Mr. Yahweh.

 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Relrick:

mellestad wrote:

Relrick:  Have you ever tried thinking about the issue from a position of neutrality?  Pretend you've never heard of a creator deity, all you have is your brain and the universe.  Pretend you're immortal, and you start with basic reasoning tools and have at your disposal every piece of scientific data possible.  Now, from that starting point, how would you come to the conclusion that the universe was created by an extra-dimensional creator god?

 

I guess what I'm asking is if you remove your cultural bias towards a religious cosmological explanation, how would you ever arrive at that conclusion independently?  To make it worse, what explanatory power would that conclusion have over, say, extra-dimensional aliens, or a multi-verse?

 

 

Yes, hell I think I'm neutral now. I'd be curious where I demonstrated otherwise. I hate to throw this out, cause it sounds like the, some of my best friends are black, or Jews or whatever, but... I am a former atheist, but always had that agnostic aspect going. 

 

"Pretend you're immortal, and you start with basic reasoning tools and have at your disposal every piece of scientific data possible.  Now, from that starting point, how would you come to the conclusion that the universe was created by an extra-dimensional creator god?"

 

Pretend I'm immortal, doesn't that kinda make me Godlike?? And to be clear I can only conclude that it seems inferred that there is a creator. I cannot positively conclude that. 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

relrick wrote:

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

If a grandma had a big dick she would be a grandpa.

 

She could just have a strap on dude. C'mon think it through. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol

relrick wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

relrick wrote:

Possibly, how can you say this so strongly is what I am trying to understand. Assuming there is no creator is 1 position, but the other is,..there is/could be a creator. Both are assumptions and neither are conclusive. Now if a creator is possible, how is that irrelevent? Perhaps irrelevent in that the "created" might not be able to understand the "creator" because it is outside our potential. But are there not implications with that possibility? How can it be said so strongly?? My guess is that once again, hate of religion corrupts the idea of a creator. 

 

If a grandma had a big dick she would be a grandpa.

 

She could just have a strap on dude. C'mon think it through. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:  Let me try

relrick wrote:

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 

 

It is easy to falsify various old simplistic versions of god/s/dess.  If you want a god/s/dess who is infinite, incorporeal, uncaused first cause, etc, then I suppose you could get into a space where proving said entity does or does not exist is a little more difficult.

No empirical or experimental support implies to me that that something does not exist.  Existence implies empirical or experimental support.  Yes, love has empirical and experimental support - it's called hormones.  We can measure them.  We can also measure someone's actions and determine if it is love or manipulation.  Once you have been with a partner who does not love but manipulates, you can get pretty good at telling the difference.  If you have never been in that kind of relationship, you are very fortunate and can take my word for it or corroborate my opinions online.

I do not need an incorporeal infinite being around to complicate my life.  I don't need to be loved by someone I can't physically touch and who has never physically touched me.  I don't need a purpose in life other than the one I came up with for myself.  I feel joy and see the beauty around me.  A foggy morning crossing the bridge in winter with the trees all back lit by the rising sun into shades of rose and red - why do I need some busy body god to appreciate the view?

So do I know there is no god/s/dess?  Close enough.  Do I know there are no pink (or white) unicorns, no invisible (or visible) dragons?  Maybe on some distant planet maybe there are said creatures.  Do I worry about it?  What for?  The unicorns, dragons, god/s/dess do not exist on my planet and they can not be measured nor can anyone create experiments to determine their existence.  For all intents and purposes, they don't exist and I don't need to worry about any of them.  Very Epicurean, very pragmatic, very sensible from my point of view.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:relrick wrote:

cj wrote:

relrick wrote:

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 

 

It is easy to falsify various old simplistic versions of god/s/dess.  If you want a god/s/dess who is infinite, incorporeal, uncaused first cause, etc, then I suppose you could get into a space where proving said entity does or does not exist is a little more difficult.

No empirical or experimental support implies to me that that something does not exist.  Existence implies empirical or experimental support.  Yes, love has empirical and experimental support - it's called hormones.  We can measure them.  We can also measure someone's actions and determine if it is love or manipulation.  Once you have been with a partner who does not love but manipulates, you can get pretty good at telling the difference.  If you have never been in that kind of relationship, you are very fortunate and can take my word for it or corroborate my opinions online.

I do not need an incorporeal infinite being around to complicate my life.  I don't need to be loved by someone I can't physically touch and who has never physically touched me.  I don't need a purpose in life other than the one I came up with for myself.  I feel joy and see the beauty around me.  A foggy morning crossing the bridge in winter with the trees all back lit by the rising sun into shades of rose and red - why do I need some busy body god to appreciate the view?

So do I know there is no god/s/dess?  Close enough.  Do I know there are no pink (or white) unicorns, no invisible (or visible) dragons?  Maybe on some distant planet maybe there are said creatures.  Do I worry about it?  What for?  The unicorns, dragons, god/s/dess do not exist on my planet and they can not be measured nor can anyone create experiments to determine their existence.  For all intents and purposes, they don't exist and I don't need to worry about any of them.  Very Epicurean, very pragmatic, very sensible from my point of view.

 

Therefore you are not a supporter of m theory.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Creator or no creator

relrick wrote:

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 

 

The position that there must be either an explanation that conforms with physicalism or an exo-universal deity is a false dichotomy. We have no proof of supernatural creators anywhere in this universe and plugging them into the pre-universe gap may be entertaining from a philosophical perspective but it's logically flawed. Personally, I'm enjoying relrick's elevated position on this thread but I think giving the god hypotheses equal credibility with that of the falsifiably demonstrable on the basis of mystery is a fundamental error.

Do you really think M theory compares to the concept of unknowable creator? Do you believe creation is reflected in our knowledge of this universe? If so, at what point do you discard falsifiable evidence? M theory really is recognised as being right out there but there is some core data based on duality that seems to support its basis. 

 

P.S. Does any brain box on here (cue Bob) actually comprehend M theory - I just wiki-ed it and my head did the splits.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:Therefore you

relrick wrote:

Therefore you are not a supporter of m theory.

 

I am not a physicist.  I know next to nothing about m theory, so I respectfully refuse to discuss it.

Since I have been a christian - years ago - and I attended not only services but also adult bible study, I do feel I can comment on that topic.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
M-theory is a plausible,

M-theory is a plausible, while not (yet) provable or falsifiable, proposal, based on extrapolations from established theories, providing a possible framework to make sense of a set of current puzzles in physics and cosmology.

Creator god 'theories' have no empirical plausibility, have attributes inconsistent with the observed universe, and don't provide any even potential explanatory power.

They are simply primitive, half-baked ideas, that have no place in serious investigation of the origins and nature of reality. They are not remotely worth taking seriously.

I understand why someone with a limited grasp of science, and a lot of exposure to religious arguments, would adopt your position, but you need to persevere with re-examining many of your assumptions.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

relrick wrote:

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 

 

The position that there must be either an explanation that conforms with physicalism or an exo-universal deity is a false dichotomy. We have no proof of supernatural creators anywhere in this universe and plugging them into the pre-universe gap may be entertaining from a philosophical perspective but it's logically flawed. Personally, I'm enjoying relrick's elevated position on this thread but I think giving the god hypotheses equal credibility with that of the falsifiably demonstrable on the basis of mystery is a fundamental error.

Do you really think M theory compares to the concept of unknowable creator? Do you believe creation is reflected in our knowledge of this universe? If so, at what point do you discard falsifiable evidence? M theory really is recognised as being right out there but there is some core data based on duality that seems to support its basis. 

 

P.S. Does any brain box on here (cue Bob) actually comprehend M theory - I just wiki-ed it and my head did the splits.

 

You are correct that it is a false dichotomy. I'm simply trying to clarify that if both are unprovable and NEITHER are falsifiable. I think the mental and mathematical gymnastics needed to even express m-theory is just as absurd as trying to prove a creator. So, equal credibility, perhaps not, equal absurdity,...sure. 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:M-theory is

BobSpence1 wrote:

M-theory is a plausible, while not (yet) provable or falsifiable, proposal, based on extrapolations from established theories, providing a possible framework to make sense of a set of current puzzles in physics and cosmology.

Creator god 'theories' have no empirical plausibility, have attributes inconsistent with the observed universe, and don't provide any even potential explanatory power.

They are simply primitive, half-baked ideas, that have no place in serious investigation of the origins and nature of reality. They are not remotely worth taking seriously.

I understand why someone with a limited grasp of science, and a lot of exposure to religious arguments, would adopt your position, but you need to persevere with re-examining many of your assumptions.

 

And I understand why a really smart person can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, what religious argument have I used??? I am constantly trying to re examine my assumptions. I only ask that everyone does. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi relrick

relrick wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

relrick wrote:

 Let me try to clarify something. I am not trying to convince anybody of a creator. I am simply trying to understand why is it, that it is not even a possibility for some. True or False? A creator cannot be proven or falsified.

....So when we have a universe that "appears" fine tuned for life it could be simply tautological or a necessary component of intentional creation. Isn't agnosticism the reasonable place? 

M theory has no empirical support or experimental aspects, yet it seems to be the home of the strong atheist. I am trying to "rationally" get a grip on why there can be no God vs. I believe in something that has no empirical or experimental support. 

 

The position that there must be either an explanation that conforms with physicalism or an exo-universal deity is a false dichotomy. We have no proof of supernatural creators anywhere in this universe and plugging them into the pre-universe gap may be entertaining from a philosophical perspective but it's logically flawed. Personally, I'm enjoying relrick's elevated position on this thread but I think giving the god hypotheses equal credibility with that of the falsifiably demonstrable on the basis of mystery is a fundamental error.

Do you really think M theory compares to the concept of unknowable creator? Do you believe creation is reflected in our knowledge of this universe? If so, at what point do you discard falsifiable evidence? M theory really is recognised as being right out there but there is some core data based on duality that seems to support its basis. 

 

P.S. Does any brain box on here (cue Bob) actually comprehend M theory - I just wiki-ed it and my head did the splits.

 

You are correct that it is a false dichotomy. I'm simply trying to clarify that if both are unprovable and NEITHER are falsifiable. I think the mental and mathematical gymnastics needed to even express m-theory is just as absurd as trying to prove a creator. So, equal credibility, perhaps not, equal absurdity,...sure. 

 

Appreciate your position and think you are being very straight up with your doubts. Do you wonder if your (and my for that matter) cognitive abilities falter before a comprehension of 11-dimension superstring theory can be conceived? Is an overarching creator figure a cognitive shortcut? I think as bob says, string theory attempts to explain the universe in a falsifiable way and while M theory is theoretical, this theory is a framework for future falsifiability in much the same way newton's Mathematical Principles of General Philosophy used to be - before Einstein proved and improved them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not meaning to horn in on this

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

M-theory is a plausible, while not (yet) provable or falsifiable, proposal, based on extrapolations from established theories, providing a possible framework to make sense of a set of current puzzles in physics and cosmology.

Creator god 'theories' have no empirical plausibility, have attributes inconsistent with the observed universe, and don't provide any even potential explanatory power.

They are simply primitive, half-baked ideas, that have no place in serious investigation of the origins and nature of reality. They are not remotely worth taking seriously.

I understand why someone with a limited grasp of science, and a lot of exposure to religious arguments, would adopt your position, but you need to persevere with re-examining many of your assumptions.

 

And I understand why a really smart person can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, what religious argument have I used??? I am constantly trying to re examine my assumptions. I only ask that everyone does. 

 

part of the discussion but relrick you are holding the door open for a theistic position for which there can never, ever be any falsifiable proof and saying it equates to M theory.

You are saying the 2 positions are equal, when one attempts to lay groundwork for a falsfiable explanation and the other requires a falsifiable explanation to be impossible.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:BobSpence1

relrick wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

M-theory is a plausible, while not (yet) provable or falsifiable, proposal, based on extrapolations from established theories, providing a possible framework to make sense of a set of current puzzles in physics and cosmology.

Creator god 'theories' have no empirical plausibility, have attributes inconsistent with the observed universe, and don't provide any even potential explanatory power.

They are simply primitive, half-baked ideas, that have no place in serious investigation of the origins and nature of reality. They are not remotely worth taking seriously.

I understand why someone with a limited grasp of science, and a lot of exposure to religious arguments, would adopt your position, but you need to persevere with re-examining many of your assumptions.

And I understand why a really smart person can't see the forest for the trees. I mean, what religious argument have I used??? I am constantly trying to re examine my assumptions. I only ask that everyone does. 

You keep treating creator God ideas as equally respectable to the latest ideas in physics. Just forget about them, they never really worked, and they are a more epic fail now.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:Interesting.

relrick wrote:

Interesting. My understanding is that before the BB it was nothingness. Not that I can wrap my head around that. Further clarified, what is described as the singularity, was not so much a physical entity, but better stated as a coordinate of 0/0. I'm curious what principles are you describing when you say "sheds its material form"?  I have been wondering if the ramifications of the "measurement problem" indicate that the mind precedes the physical. I haven't exactly gotten clear on what my induction is trying to get at, but am compelled to feel there is something interesting there. Hope that even makes sense. 

Well, my understanding is, that there was somethingness, but little no dimensions for it to manifest in. The whole universe now has 11 dimensions according to M-theory, but we know only space, time and one-half of our own dimension. The other half of our dimension is the dark matter, which we can hardly detect.


My opinion is, that in the moment of BB there were major two lines of manifestation, matter and energy. When matter and energy combine, complexity arises, up to the point of intelligent life. But the idea is, that the matter itself under the influence of life changes its structure. It becomes able to convert its dimension partially or even totally, as the life demands. Eventually it will be able to ascend as the dimensions will fold back into the source. But that includes many notions that are considered supernatural, because there is obviously not enough biological life around to make that happen. The idea is, that dark matter is teeming with life, that the basic nature of energy itself is a fundamental principle of life and consciousness, that gains form once it's combined with matter. Of course, no such principles are yet scientifically discovered. There is just the observation that on quantum level basic particles can pop in and out of the underlying quantum foam.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:mellestad

relrick wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Relrick:  Have you ever tried thinking about the issue from a position of neutrality?  Pretend you've never heard of a creator deity, all you have is your brain and the universe.  Pretend you're immortal, and you start with basic reasoning tools and have at your disposal every piece of scientific data possible.  Now, from that starting point, how would you come to the conclusion that the universe was created by an extra-dimensional creator god?

 

I guess what I'm asking is if you remove your cultural bias towards a religious cosmological explanation, how would you ever arrive at that conclusion independently?  To make it worse, what explanatory power would that conclusion have over, say, extra-dimensional aliens, or a multi-verse?

 

 

Yes, hell I think I'm neutral now. I'd be curious where I demonstrated otherwise. I hate to throw this out, cause it sounds like the, some of my best friends are black, or Jews or whatever, but... I am a former atheist, but always had that agnostic aspect going. 

 

"Pretend you're immortal, and you start with basic reasoning tools and have at your disposal every piece of scientific data possible.  Now, from that starting point, how would you come to the conclusion that the universe was created by an extra-dimensional creator god?"

 

Pretend I'm immortal, doesn't that kinda make me Godlike?? And to be clear I can only conclude that it seems inferred that there is a creator. I cannot positively conclude that. 

I don't think I'd ever equate immortality with being Godlike.  I just mean you have as much time to think about things as you want.  I want to know how you would ever infer that there was a creator if you didn't know about the concept.  What evidence would prompt that idea without religious influences?  As far as I can tell, a neutral observer would get to the moment of the big bang and then...I don't know what they would think, but I'm not sure how you would come up with the idea of a creator deity being responsible.  It seems like that would be giving up, just hand-waving the whole problem away with a solution that doesn't actually explain anything in a meaningful way.  How is positing "God" any more helpful that positing "It just is" and shrugging it all away?  Positing God generates an endless series of things you have to explain and you still don't get any answers to the question you asked in the first place.

Like Bob said, M theory isn't falsifiable either, but at least you can examine the deductive path that lead physicists to start thinking about it by following quantum theory.  How can you do the same for the God idea?  All you can do is follow the progress of theism shoe-horning itself into every modern cosmological theory, shifting to match progress without ever helping to advance anything.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: M-theory has

relrick wrote:

M-theory has no experimental test,..yet. It is essentially a theory with lots of complicated math that seems concerned with creating a work around to avoid the leading thought that belief in a creator is a very reasonable position to hold.

Just on this point, which should probably be corrected, M-Theory is concerned with creating a work that encapsulates all types of string theories as ultimately the same theory from different starting points, and string theory is a mathematically proven bridge between physics in orders of relative magnitude, and physics in orders of quantum magnitude.  i.e. whether belief in a personal deity is reasonable has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The collective aim of the scientific establishment vis a vis 'gods' is basically to not enter into argument about them or anything one must, likewise, 'assume' to be true, because it corrupts the scientific process.  Ultimately M-Theory is concerned with String theory which is, in turn, concerned with uniting the two most successful predictors of physical phenomenon, quantum and relativity.

To say a science is concerned with avoiding any particular result is to level a heavy charge against the scientist, one his work will most likely not survive, under the scrutiny of peers. Generally, its fair to say, a scientific theory that has been given to a good hashing of review, and survived to be interesting to most of the community, must lack such a bias or it would probably have been picked off for it. 

I hope you'll see this as two good reasons to begin considering M-Theory more in the neutral sense, on the question of God, that it was most likely intended.  And for clarity, of course I am not saying physical theories cannot be relevant to questions about the existence or non-existence of god, of course they are, but if you would divest yourself of the thinking that any science of respect is primarily concerned with it you will find yourself much better understanding said science, I believe. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Ok relrick, what are you

 

Ok relrick, what are you actually trying to get at?

 

Really, the anthropic principal, in basically any formulation, is going to have an element which is a tautological observation. Ie, the universe is as it is. I really don't see anything in that which then leads to: therefore god.

 

Sure, there are people who think like Ray Comfort who would use it that way. However, the reasoning there is actually backwards. Pretty much they are going to start with: There is a god and what bit of modern thought will go there? The problem is that the anthropic principal as stated really doesn't even develop the god of Spinoza as a required being (and it bears note that the god of Spinoza is not a great candidate for a being that could have been a creator).

 

So in that it does not get to god as a required critter or what god happens to be, then how is it useful in this context?

 

You mentioned fine tuning but that really doesn't do much either.

 

Perhaps, as BobSpence suggested, there are many other universes. Then you hardly have much of an issue with fine tuning as each can have very different properties. Perhaps 20% of the other universes harbor life in some sense. Heck but I think one may even be able to save the strong version in such a scenario simply by saying “This is our universe. There are many others but none is quite like ours”.

 

Even then, you still have not found god.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:relrick wrote:

Eloise wrote:

relrick wrote:

M-theory has no experimental test,..yet. It is essentially a theory with lots of complicated math that seems concerned with creating a work around to avoid the leading thought that belief in a creator is a very reasonable position to hold.

Just on this point, which should probably be corrected, M-Theory is concerned with creating a work that encapsulates all types of string theories as ultimately the same theory from different starting points, and string theory is a mathematically proven bridge between physics in orders of relative magnitude, and physics in orders of quantum magnitude.  i.e. whether belief in a personal deity is reasonable has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The collective aim of the scientific establishment vis a vis 'gods' is basically to not enter into argument about them or anything one must, likewise, 'assume' to be true, because it corrupts the scientific process.  Ultimately M-Theory is concerned with String theory which is, in turn, concerned with uniting the two most successful predictors of physical phenomenon, quantum and relativity.

To say a science is concerned with avoiding any particular result is to level a heavy charge against the scientist, one his work will most likely not survive, under the scrutiny of peers. Generally, its fair to say, a scientific theory that has been given to a good hashing of review, and survived to be interesting to most of the community, must lack such a bias or it would probably have been picked off for it. 

I hope you'll see this as two good reasons to begin considering M-Theory more in the neutral sense, on the question of God, that it was most likely intended.  And for clarity, of course I am not saying physical theories cannot be relevant to questions about the existence or non-existence of god, of course they are, but if you would divest yourself of the thinking that any science of respect is primarily concerned with it you will find yourself much better understanding said science, I believe. Smiling

 

I am certainly open to what ever gets fleshed out. Facts are facts. Perhaps the LHC will let us know soon enough. I do think it is a false idea that if there are inferences to anything metaphysical they should be tossed. Let the cards fall where they may.