Stephen Hawking on Discovery's curiosity

[pkirhagis]

Stephen Hawking on Discovery's "curiosity"

I recently watched Stephen Hawking on Discovery's "Curiosity" and found his assertion that a grand designer could not exist based on the logic that there was no time before the big bang troubling.(Due to the fact that the universe before the big bang was an infinitesimal black hole, and time does not exist in the black holes that we can observe due to immense gravitational forces)

I will not pretend to understand the intricacies of the science involved in his proposition, but, I do find a flaw in his logic that I hope you can clear up for me.

Based on the assertion that time did not exist before the big bang(and therefore no creation or event could occur before that) wouldn't that same logic lead us to the conclusion that a "spontaneous" event that caused the big bang would also be impossible because of that same absence of time? It seems to me that his argument proves itself to be untrue because without time there could be no "event" to cause anything.

 

[Cryptonic]

I think the old oft-toted notion of spacetime "quantumly fluctuating" into existence out of "nothing" is a misleading concept and these media whores like Stephen Hawking, Paul Davis & Michio Kaku seem to be regurgitating it all the time = why?

Just because a particle can pop in & out of existence in an empty vacuum, how does this equate to an entire universe popping into existence out of sheer nothingness? By that same logic, it can "pop out" of existence anytime.

 

[Chronos]

Hawking is just making a pointless and unsupported commercial for the sterile, 'godless' version of science. It has no validity. Science does not exclude, or require a god.

 

[Chalnoth]

Science does not exclude, or require a god.

Actually, it does, through the exclusion principle. Basically, this says that if the laws of physics describe everything in our universe (which they do), then there is no god that has any relevance to anything we might ever do because there is nothing for a god to do. This argument applies to anything supernatural.

It should be no wonder, given this argument, that people try to stuff their own idea of a god into our gaps in knowledge, such as the birth of our universe, but this is fundamentally illogical.

 

[Algr]

From what I've seen, I'd goten the impression that asking what happened before the big bang, is like asking what is north of the north pole. Any answer would require redefining what "North" or "Time" even mean.

 

[yenchin]

From what I've seen, I'd goten the impression that asking what happened before the big bang, is like asking what is north of the north pole. Any answer would require redefining what "North" or "Time" even mean.

The fact is that we just don't know if the instant of big bang is truly the beginning of time.
See http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/" :

There is something of a paradox in the way that cosmologists traditionally talk about the Big Bang. They will go to great effort to explain how the Bang was the beginning of space and time, that there is no “before” or “outside,” and that the universe was (conceivably) infinitely big the very moment it came into existence, so that the pasts of distant points in our current universe are strictly non-overlapping. All of which, of course, is pure moonshine. When they choose to be more careful, these cosmologists might say “Of course we don’t know for sure, but…” Which is true, but it’s stronger than that: the truth is, we have no good reasons to believe that those statements are actually true, and some pretty good reasons to doubt them.

 

[Chalnoth]

From what I've seen, I'd goten the impression that asking what happened before the big bang, is like asking what is north of the north pole. Any answer would require redefining what "North" or "Time" even mean.

Well, that depends. On a few things. It is conceivable, for instance, that our particular "bang" was just the start of our region, and that our region was born from a previous one. There's also the point to be made that the singularity in our theories is an artifact of General Relativity. A quantum theory of gravity is likely to show that the singularity isn't actually singular, and that there may be some stuff that happened before the time we might infer, using General Relativity, that there was a singularity.

 

[Tanelorn]

I very much enjoyed Steven Hawking book "The Grand Design" which I just finished and will reread. I had come to the conclusion myself that the Universe seems to be very finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex systems to develop and evolve. This seemed to me to be the biggest justifcation for thinking the universe to be the work of an intelligent designer. Hawking agrees but then counters with this universe is just one example of many possible universes in a Multiverse of possible universes and thus no creator is required. It makes sense but are there stronger reasons to believe in the Multiverse vs a divine Creator? Also this just passes the problem on to the next level where we can ask what created the Multiverse or in the case of God what created God. The only way out of this loop is for an ultimate Creator or God that has always existed, but this is something which I have trouble with because every time we think that a creator is necessary for something we don't understand it turns out that none is required.

It seems that Stephen is a believer in M-theory and that this is the Grand Design. Can such a theory or model ever be tested?
My one complaint is that throughout the book Stephen discusses tried and tested and known Physics, but then he moves on to modern theories, which I think gives them more credibility than they presently deserve, some being just conjecture. I would advocate a kind of rating system for Physics theories which rates how certain we currently are in them to avoid such confusions. We can't just rely on how recently they were proposed or how many papers have been written on them.

 

[Chalnoth]

I very much enjoyed Steven Hawking book "The Grand Design" which I just finished and will reread. I had come to the conclusion myself that the Universe seems to be very finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex systems to develop and evolve. This seemed to me to be the biggest justifcation for thinking the universe to be the work of an intelligent designer.

This argument is fundamentally flawed, however, because the designer is, by definition, more complex than what is designed. So positing a designer just makes things worse in terms of fine-tuning, not better. It also doesn't help that this explanation lacks all predictive power.

 

[jackmell]

From what I've seen, I'd goten the impression that asking what happened before the big bang, is like asking what is north of the north pole. Any answer would require redefining what "North" or "Time" even mean.

But there lies, in my personal opinion, the key to solving the paradox about the pre-existence: What happens when you get to the North Pole? You reach a singularity. Not a physical singularity, but a singularity in our description of Nature, geography in this case. The rules change when the singularity is breached, so that "laws" about direction outside the singular point, become inapplicapable. Something new, something qualitatively different is required to describe the geography beyond the singular point, laws that do not contain the words "North" and "South". So too I think is the case for the Big Bang. The thread author writes:

"Based on the assertion that time did not exist before the big bang . . . wouldn't that same logic lead us to the conclusion that a "spontaneous" event that caused the big bang would also be impossible because of that same absence of time? It seems to me that his argument proves itself to be untrue because without time there could be no "event" to cause anything."

But he's relying on our rules, our laws of physics about time, events, and causes, to describe something that is beyond what I think is the singular point of the Big Bang and those terms may not be applicapable: There may be no "time" in the pre-existence but something different that is perfectally applicapable to describing it may be devised by the human mind . "Nothing" may in fact be there and can "create" "something" like our Universe by virtue of the qualitatively different state that arises through the singular breach.

In my opinion, we may not be capable of applying the current diction of time, space, matter, cause and effect, and other phenomena of our Universe to the pre-existence. Something qualitatively different may be required because it is separated from us by a singular point like the North Pole is separated from descriptions like "north" and "south".

Also I'd like to add this viewpoint resolves the paradox of "turtles all the way down:" at some point, a critical point is reached (a singularity) and the rules change. Beyond that, the concept of "turtle" and "standing on" no longer applies, and anyone that demands "something else" is simply no longer following the rules.

 

[Chalnoth]

But there lies, in my personal opinion, the key to solving the paradox about the pre-existence: What happens when you get to the North Pole? You reach a singularity. Not a physical singularity, but a singularity in our description of Nature, geography in this case.

Well, only if we use a spherical coordinate system. There are other coordinate systems that have no singularity at the north pole.

But regardless, General Relativity states unequivocally that there is a singularity in the finite past. Granted, almost nobody in physics believes General Relativity is correct here, but this does indicate that we likely need a quantum theory of gravity to describe our very early universe. The idea that it turns out to be like the north pole is a particular hypothesis for the way our universe may have begun, one of many.

 

[only1universe]

Well, only if we use a spherical coordinate system. There are other coordinate systems that have no singularity at the north pole.

But regardless, General Relativity states unequivocally that there is a singularity in the finite past. Granted, almost nobody in physics believes General Relativity is correct here, but this does indicate that we likely need a quantum theory of gravity to describe our very early universe. The idea that it turns out to be like the north pole is a particular hypothesis for the way our universe may have begun, one of many.

Does GR say that the universe couldn't have ever morphed into the singularity over time- perhaps as matter ceased existing either by getting ripped apart by expansion or all of it being consumed by black holes?

 

[dilletante]

I am not convinced that the laws of physics describe everything, at least not correctly. The interior of a black hole comes to mind, as does the question of how consciousness arises from an arrangement of non-sentient particles. Heck, I don't even know how many dimensions we live in, nor have I heard a great explanation of what time really is or why it exists. But on that note I have to quote Yogi Berra, who when asked "what time is it?", replied, "You mean now"?

 

[Cryptonic]

the question of how consciousness arises from an arrangement of non-sentient particles

That's the biggie.

 

[cephron]

Actually, it does, through the exclusion principle. Basically, this says that if the laws of physics describe everything in our universe (which they do), then there is no god that has any relevance to anything we might ever do because there is nothing for a god to do. This argument applies to anything supernatural.

Actually, the laws of physics don't necessarily describe everything in our universe. They only describe things which are empirically observable and repeatable. I see right away two areas that this leaves for God and/or supernatural forces to act.

1. Qualia, which are not empirically observable. If the Judeo-Christian God existed, he could cause us to experience things differently from how the firing neurons alone would prescribe (the mechanism of which is not described by the laws of physics, either), and any ECG taken of the patient at the time need be none the wiser.

2. Miracles, which are not repeatable under controlled conditions. If the Judeo-Christian God existed, he could do whatever he wanted to the universe - spawn matter/energy out of nothing, screw up gravity in a particular body of water, etc. Anything he does in an inconsistent manner would be classed as miracles because they can't be repeated in a controlled environment. The laws of physics do not cover inconsistent behavior such as this. If a consistency behind a certain behavior were to be discovered, it would cease to be a miracle by definition; some law would be drawn up to describe it instead.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am not convinced that the laws of physics describe everything, at least not correctly.

Our current laws of physics, no. But that is irrelevant to the argument. As long as there exist some laws of physics that accurately describe reality, the argument holds.

The interior of a black hole comes to mind, as does the question of how consciousness arises from an arrangement of non-sentient particles.

The interior of black holes probably needs a theory of quantum gravity.

Consciousness, however, most certainly does not require any new laws of physics, as consciousness does not access any energies even remotely close to the energy levels we have tested current physics. That we do not understand how to go from the laws of physics we know to understanding the very complex configuration of matter that is the human brain is irrelevant. We do know that our laws of physics apply at these temperatures with this sort of matter. And that is enough.

Heck, I don't even know how many dimensions we live in, nor have I heard a great explanation of what time really is or why it exists. But on that note I have to quote Yogi Berra, who when asked "what time is it?", replied, "You mean now"?

These are pretty much irrelevant points.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, the laws of physics don't necessarily describe everything in our universe. They only describe things which are empirically observable and repeatable. I see right away two areas that this leaves for God and/or supernatural forces to act.

1. Qualia, which are not empirically observable. If the Judeo-Christian God existed, he could cause us to experience things differently from how the firing neurons alone would prescribe (the mechanism of which is not described by the laws of physics, either), and any ECG taken of the patient at the time need be none the wiser.

2. Miracles, which are not repeatable under controlled conditions. If the Judeo-Christian God existed, he could do whatever he wanted to the universe - spawn matter/energy out of nothing, screw up gravity in a particular body of water, etc. Anything he does in an inconsistent manner would be classed as miracles because they can't be repeated in a controlled environment. The laws of physics do not cover inconsistent behavior such as this. If a consistency behind a certain behavior were to be discovered, it would cease to be a miracle by definition; some law would be drawn up to describe it instead.

Yeah, so you're basically asking us to believe in magic? Sorry, no dice.

 

[Cryptonic]

Consciousness, however, most certainly does not require any new laws of physics, as consciousness does not access any energies even remotely close to the energy levels we have tested current physics. That we do not understand how to go from the laws of physics we know to understanding the very complex configuration of matter that is the human brain is irrelevant. We do know that our laws of physics apply at these temperatures with this sort of matter. And that is enough.

That is ENOUGH?

My GOD, man! Are you not a SCIENTIST?

 

[Chalnoth]

That is ENOUGH?

My GOD, man! Are you not a SCIENTIST?

*sigh*

Why do so many people have difficulty with this? If there were any laws of physics that we don't know that impact consciousness, our current tests of said laws of physics would have detected the discrepancy long ago.

This, ultimately, stems from the fact that matter is made out of particles that interact with one another in specific ways, and different particles of the same type are completely indistinguishable from one another. To put this more explicitly: our brains are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and we know to a very high level of accuracy how protons, neutrons, and electrons behave, well up into the tens to hundreds of billions of electron-volts energy scale. But at the temperature of our brains, only interactions of a few electron volts are available for routine reactions.

You can potentially claim that there might be some additional long-distance reaction that is present in our brains, but then that interaction would have been detected long ago in our study of crystals (because it is often possible to calculate the behavior of crystals). The fact that we can't calculate the behavior of our brain from the laws of physics we know isn't any reason at all to believe we may need some new laws of physics. The experiments we have so far are utterly conclusive: our current laws of physics are sufficient. Anything else is just magical thinking.

 

[cephron]

Yeah, so you're basically asking us to believe in magic? Sorry, no dice.

No, I was simply pointing out that there are venues for a God to interact with this world (you made the claim that there was no way for a god, if one existed, to be at all relevant to this world).

As for actually believing in miracles, there are only two ways for that to happen: to witness/experience one yourself, or to hear a clear and convincing firsthand account from someone you trust. Unless one of these has happened to someone, I most certainly don't expect them to believe in miracles.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, I was simply pointing out that there are venues for a God to interact with this world (you made the claim that there was no way for a god, if one existed, to be at all relevant to this world).

Yes, magical venues. What you're basically asking for here is for the laws of physics, which work precisely in all areas where we have ever tested them, to suddenly stop working. And that is ridiculous.

As for actually believing in miracles, there are only two ways for that to happen: to witness/experience one yourself, or to hear a clear and convincing firsthand account from someone you trust. Unless one of these has happened to someone, I most certainly don't expect them to believe in miracles.

This sort of evidence is the worst sort of evidence imaginable. Our minds are far, far too mistake prone for this to be a valid reason to believe. This is so because our brains are horrible recording devices: every time we recall a memory, we modify it. See here:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

What this means, basically, is that the instant the witness started to believe it was a miracle, the next time they recalled it their recollection would have been colored in that light, modifying certain details, omitting others, and potentially even making things up entirely.

To believe your own, faulty recollections in the face of all verifiable evidence ever collected is highly irrational.

 

[Tanelorn]

I stand firmly with Chalnoth on every one of these issues. The laws of nature are real and consciousness derives from them. There is no magic and no is magic needed. If there was/is a creator he is most certianly not creating of changing reality here now, unless we are all suffering from mass deception and that would reduce the Creator to being a trickster.


Here is an excellent paper on Multiverse theories and how speculative they are relatively speaking:

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v305/n2/full/scientificamerican0811-38.html


Next I am off to learn more about model dependant realism and whether it matters whether a model actually describes reality. I agree that if the right answer is given to the right question every time then a model is good, but in addition I also really want to understand what is taking place in the real world. eg. Do quarks really exist in the real world?

 

[jackmell]

Well, only if we use a spherical coordinate system. There are other coordinate systems that have no singularity at the north pole.

But regardless, General Relativity states unequivocally that there is a singularity in the finite past. Granted, almost nobody in physics believes General Relativity is correct here, but this does indicate that we likely need a quantum theory of gravity to describe our very early universe. The idea that it turns out to be like the north pole is a particular hypothesis for the way our universe may have begun, one of many.

. . . suppose I could argue changing the coordinate system represents a qualitative change in the system.

I believe I'm close on this guys. May turn out to not be as dramatic as I suggest, some of our world physics still may apply, but still I believe something significantly different, maybe LQG, will probably be needed to go beyond the Big Bang and what we find there I suspect will be quite different than what we see now: there we may find "nothing" has no problems creating something by virtue of pasing through a critical-point.

 

[Chalnoth]

. . . suppose I could argue changing the coordinate system represents a qualitative change in the system.

That would be a really bad stance to back. It's basically the same as claiming that changing the numbers on your ruler changes the physical properties of the objects your ruler measures!

 

[jackmell]

That would be a really bad stance to back. It's basically the same as claiming that changing the numbers on your ruler changes the physical properties of the objects your ruler measures!

I don't know if that's appropriate. I do feel changing the coordinate systeem does represent some type of qualitative change, not in the physical phenomena being measured, but rather in the technique of measurement: a qualitative change in the technique of mesaurement has occurred. Yeah, I think that sounds ok.

I stand by my original thesis: the world is filled with shock-penomena (critical-point transitions). Based on this empirical observation, I propose the world was created by such a shock-phenomenon and those that we observe now are "ripples" from that original shock. And since we often observe qualitative change when transitioning through a critical-point, I suggest a likewise qualitative change is needed transitioning through the Big Bang.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know if that's appropriate. I do feel changing the coordinate systeem does represent some type of qualitative change, not in the physical phenomena being measured, but rather in the technique of measurement: a qualitative change in the technique of mesaurement has occurred. Yeah, I think that sounds ok.

No, it makes no physical change whatsoever. Unless you use a bad coordinate system (one that has a singularity relevant to the measurement), your measurements of a system will always come out identical no matter which coordinate system you use.

You have to actually change your measurement apparatus to change the result of the measurement, which a coordinate change does not do.

 

[jackmell]

Surely some type of change is occurring: we use a system of latitudes and longitudes and conceive of ideas of direction in terms of north and south. These make sense except at the poles where they loose meaning. A critical point is reached there. In order to "pass through" the singular points at the poles, we qualitatively change the system of coordinates to say the location on the sphere x^2+y^2+z^2==1 which does not contain the old concepts of north and south. That to me represents a qualitative change although nothing physical is changing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Surely some type of change is occurring: we use a system of latitudes and longitudes and conceive of ideas of direction in terms of north and south. These make sense except at the poles where they loose meaning. A critical point is reached there. In order to "pass through" the singular points at the poles, we qualitatively change the system of coordinates to say the location on the sphere x^2+y^2+z^2==1 which does not contain the old concepts of north and south. That to me represents a qualitative change although nothing physical is changing.

Well, not really. What is normally done instead is to use a polar projection. And regardless of your coordinate system, you can still define a north and south: these are just the directions towards the north and south poles. Whether or not we make use of north/south in our coordinate system is irrelevant.

 

[jackmell]

Ok Chalnoth, maybe I'm loosing this one on the coordinate change.

But if I may return to the original topic: We're often confronted with paradoxes about existence, what is time, what caused the Big Bang, what existed before it, how could "something" emerge from "nothing" and other philosophical questions. In my humble opinion, my proposal that I have discussed here answers all these questions and does so with empirical grounding. It's not turtles all the way down because of critical points and anyone demanding another turtle is simply not following the rules. Nothing may be capable of giving rise to something if nothing is qualitatively different from something and a singular point is involved. "Nothing events" may occur without time on the other side of a singular point which has time on that side. Using concepts of our world such as time and cause and effect, we may only be capable of constructing ill-posed questions about the pre-existence such as the thread author proposed because concepts that were used to construct the questions, may not be applicapable to the pre-existence again, because a singular point is involved.

I really feel I'm on the right tract with this.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok Chalnoth, maybe I'm loosing this one on the coordinate change.

But if I may return to the original topic:

Fair enough.

We're often confronted with paradoxes about existence, what is time, what caused the Big Bang, what existed before it, how could "something" emerge from "nothing" and other philosophical questions. In my humble opinion, my proposal that I have discussed here answers all these questions and does so with empirical grounding. It's not turtles all the way down because of critical points and anyone demanding another turtle is simply not following the rules. Nothing may be capable of giving rise to something if nothing is qualitatively different from something and a singular point is involved. "Nothing events" may occur without time on the other side of a singular point which has time on that side. Using concepts of our world such as time and cause and effect, we may only be capable of constructing ill-posed questions about the pre-existence such as the thread author proposed because concepts that were used to construct the questions, may not be applicapable to the pre-existence again, because a singular point is involved.

I really feel I'm on the right tract with this.

I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here.

 

[jackmell]

Fair enough.


I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say here.

Oh my goodness. I hope I'm not a quack. Mostly I'm in this forum for the math but I've liked Astronomy since I was very young so I'm often seduced into these parts fully aware my opinions about some things might cause me some problems. I try to be careful but do believe all the secrets of the Universe can be found in differential equations and frame my perception of the world in terms of that. The viewpoint I proposed here about origins stems directly from my work with differential equations.

 

[phinds]

Oh my goodness. I hope I'm not a quack. Mostly I'm in this forum for the math but I've liked Astronomy since I was very young so I'm often seduced into these parts fully aware my opinions about some things might cause me some problems. I try to be careful but do believe all the secrets of the Universe can be found in differential equations and frame my perception of the world in terms of that. The viewpoint I proposed here about origins stems directly from my work with differential equations.

Like Chalnoth, I don't follow what you are saying, but it seems to me to boil down to "I think the singularity was a state-change and I want to define how the state-change happened and rules around how it can happen". I think you're going to need more than a verbal argument to take that anywhere on this forum.

I DO agree that the singularity may well have been a state-change but I think we need more physics to say anything beyond that unless we indulge in metaphysical speculation.

 

[cephron]

Yes, magical venues. What you're basically asking for here is for the laws of physics, which work precisely in all areas where we have ever tested them, to suddenly stop working. And that is ridiculous.

No, I'm not asking for anything. I'm disagreeing with your argument that science "excludes" God through the exclusion principle. What you originally said was:

Actually, it does, through the exclusion principle. Basically, this says that if the laws of physics describe everything in our universe (which they do), then there is no god that has any relevance to anything we might ever do because there is nothing for a god to do.

My point was, working with the Judeo-Christian definition of God, this is not true, because God does have something to do. You seem to like to call it "magic", and that works for our purposes. Science cannot exclude the possibility of "magic", it simply has to assume no interference from "magic" in order to make useful predictions. Anyway, God could also have relevant things to do that are undetectable in this universe. If anything happens to people after they die, and God has some role to play in that, that's ultimately relevant to our existence even if science has nothing to say about it one way or the other. All this to say: while science can exclude God from playing a relevant role in science, it cannot exclude the existence of a god, be it the Judeo-Christian one or otherwise, in the manner that Hawking seems to be claiming.

 

[Chronos]

Science deliberately avoids invoking 'god' - viewing it as an excuse to fill in the gaps between whatever cannot currently be explained by the scientific method. I agree with that position. It is, however, logically inconsistent to consider this as 'proof' a 'god' does not exist. Scientists still squirm uncomfortably when confronted with the prospect of a spontaneous and unique creation event to account for the existence of our universe.

 

[finiter]

It seems to me that his argument proves itself to be untrue because without time there could be no "event" to cause anything.

The definition of 'time' has changed with time. I think that the change was made to suit the requirements, like changing the goal post during the course of the play. Now based on the changed definition of time, it is argued there was no time before big-bang. I think it is the relative time (the time that has relevance to our universe) that started from the event Big-bang.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, I'm not asking for anything. I'm disagreeing with your argument that science "excludes" God through the exclusion principle. What you originally said was:


My point was, working with the Judeo-Christian definition of God, this is not true, because God does have something to do. You seem to like to call it "magic", and that works for our purposes. Science cannot exclude the possibility of "magic", it simply has to assume no interference from "magic" in order to make useful predictions. Anyway, God could also have relevant things to do that are undetectable in this universe. If anything happens to people after they die, and God has some role to play in that, that's ultimately relevant to our existence even if science has nothing to say about it one way or the other. All this to say: while science can exclude God from playing a relevant role in science, it cannot exclude the existence of a god, be it the Judeo-Christian one or otherwise, in the manner that Hawking seems to be claiming.

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

 

[Chalnoth]

Science deliberately avoids invoking 'god' - viewing it as an excuse to fill in the gaps between whatever cannot currently be explained by the scientific method. I agree with that position. It is, however, logically inconsistent to consider this as 'proof' a 'god' does not exist. Scientists still squirm uncomfortably when confronted with the prospect of a spontaneous and unique creation event to account for the existence of our universe.

Here's a good explanation as to why it does very much prove this:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientific-proof-gods-non-existence

You can hem and haw about the semantics of "proof" all you like, but the fact remains that the moment a god is purported to exist (as opposed to just being colorful language), that being falls under the purview of science. And when you apply the tools of science to the idea of a god, you come to an inescapable conclusion: it's wrong.

 

[cephron]

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

Lol yes, that the Judeo-Christian God is nonsensical is a very widely held viewpoint, even by many who believe in him. If he exists, he clearly doesn't always think like us! :)
I'm mildly interested in how "magic" is supposed to be a contradiction of terms, but I think that it's tangential to the discussion of whether science rules out God's existence.

Chalnoth, the link you posted seems to actually support Chronos's (and my) point of view. Quoting from the conclusion:

So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.

Earlier in the article, he explains that, while it's impossible to rule out the existence of a third charge, the two-charge model has worked perfectly so far and is accepted as "proven" by scientists. So if someone believes in a third charge, or in "God"...

As a result, someone can come along and say that scientists are wrong, that there does exist a third kind of charge but that either it has not been found yet or that it does not interfere with the experiments that scientists do. There is no way that scientists can prove this person wrong. How could they? But what they will do is ignore this argument as not worth responding to because that kind of argument has the same standing as magical unicorns in my office or a god who is determined to avoid leaving evidence of his/her existence.

So according to this author, people who believe in God are, at worst, "not worth responding to". I believe he means that specifically in a scientific context, but that's perhaps an argument for another time. This author clearly says that science cannot and does not rule against the possibility of God's existence. That is what Chronos was asserting.

 

[Chalnoth]

Lol yes, that the Judeo-Christian God is nonsensical is a very widely held viewpoint, even by many who believe in him. If he exists, he clearly doesn't always think like us! :)
I'm mildly interested in how "magic" is supposed to be a contradiction of terms, but I think that it's tangential to the discussion of whether science rules out God's existence.

Because there exist laws fundamental laws of physics. That puts the nail in the coffin right there.

Heck, even disregarding the most fundamental laws of physics which we don't yet know, the laws of physics which we know today exclude a god: in quantum mechanics, all possible outcomes happen anyway, and since nothing can do the impossible, there simply isn't anything for a god to do.

Earlier in the article, he explains that, while it's impossible to rule out the existence of a third charge, the two-charge model has worked perfectly so far and is accepted as "proven" by scientists. So if someone believes in a third charge, or in "God"...
So according to this author, people who believe in God are, at worst, "not worth responding to". I believe he means that specifically in a scientific context, but that's perhaps an argument for another time. This author clearly says that science cannot and does not rule against the possibility of God's existence. That is what Chronos was asserting.

The main point of this line of reasoning is that you'd have to be nuts to assert with confidence that there is a god. Heck, it'd be pretty irrational to even accept it as a remotely likely possibility.

 

[phinds]

... even disregarding the most fundamental laws of physics which we don't yet know, the laws of physics which we know today exclude a god: in quantum mechanics, all possible outcomes happen anyway, and since nothing can do the impossible ...

Uh, wait. I thought the rule was that anything NOT EXCLUDED BY THE LAWS OF PHYICS will happen according to QM. I'm not arguing here, I'm questioning whether perphaps my understanding is incorrect. Are you saying that QM predicts that things will happen that are against the laws of physics? That seems contradictory.

 

[phinds]

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

I absolutely agree w/ you that it's nonsense but I see my belief as just that ... a BELIEF. I have never yet seen any evidence yet that positivily excludes the possible existence of a god, and that includes the long and well stated argument in the link listed in post #37.

I'd LOVE to hear a solid proof but I don't see how you ever prove a negative like that. I like the analogy of the 3rd type of charge, but that's NEVER going to the slightest impact on even the most logical of firm believers.

 

[cephron]

The main point of this line of reasoning is that you'd have to be nuts to assert with confidence that there is a god. Heck, it'd be pretty irrational to even accept it as a remotely likely possibility.

I'd LOVE to hear a solid proof but I don't see how you ever prove a negative like that. I like the analogy of the 3rd type of charge, but that's NEVER going to the slightest impact on even the most logical of firm believers.

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence. Believers who have examined their faith (and honestly still believe) usually have some sort of evidence for why they think God exists/who he is, but rarely does this evidence include much in the way of empirical, observable measurements of something. It's subjective evidence, perhaps a bit more like the reasons why someone might think their parents love them. But even more difficult to communicate objectively, because your parents and what they do for/with you is at least physically tangible. By all accounts, that doesn't happen frequently with God.

 

[phinds]

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence ...

That's not at all what I'm talking about. Believing something because it can't be disproved (what you're talking about) is WAY different that beliveing it in the face of evidence that complels a logical mind to disbelieve it (what I'm talking about).

 

[only1universe]

I think exclusion at the very worst gives a "god" little to do. (per examples stated above- twiddle his thumbs inside black holes or grand design a universe he will never interact with.)

Most faiths are destroyed by this logic. Could a "god" exist? Most certainly, but I can think of exactly 0 belief system that characterize the behavior of a deity in this way.

 

[Chalnoth]

Uh, wait. I thought the rule was that anything NOT EXCLUDED BY THE LAWS OF PHYICS will happen according to QM. I'm not arguing here, I'm questioning whether perphaps my understanding is incorrect. Are you saying that QM predicts that things will happen that are against the laws of physics? That seems contradictory.

Um, no. I said anything possible.

 

[cephron]

That's not at all what I'm talking about. Believing something because it can't be disproved (what you're talking about) is WAY different that beliveing it in the face of evidence that complels a logical mind to disbelieve it (what I'm talking about).

Sorry phinds, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I didn't realize that you consider there to be evidence that actually compels a logical mind to disbelieve in God, as opposed to a simple lack of objective evidence for God's existence (which is what my mind was working with when composing that post, yes).

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence. Believers who have examined their faith (and honestly still believe) usually have some sort of evidence for why they think God exists/who he is, but rarely does this evidence include much in the way of empirical, observable measurements of something. It's subjective evidence, perhaps a bit more like the reasons why someone might think their parents love them. But even more difficult to communicate objectively, because your parents and what they do for/with you is at least physically tangible. By all accounts, that doesn't happen frequently with God.

Except for the example of parents' love, there is objective evidence available, and we have organizations such as Child Protective Services in the US whose purpose is to step in when parents clearly don't love their children (though granted, they don't always do a good job).

With gods, there simply isn't any objective evidence. Nor can there be. And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[cephron]

Except for the example of parents' love, there is objective evidence available, and we have organizations such as Child Protective Services in the US whose purpose is to step in when parents clearly don't love their children (though granted, they don't always do a good job).

Yes, I did concede that even the example of parents loving children can and usually does have some sort of tangible evidence. My point is that it's a different sort of problem than the usual scientific inquiries; it requires us to define a fuzzy concept like "love" and try to deduce the internal motives of the parents based on the objective evidence of their actions. Depending on how you define love, it may be possible or impossible to actually prove it.

With gods, there simply isn't any objective evidence. Nor can there be.

I'm almost agreed to that. I think, in theory, there could be objective evidence, but we certainly haven't observed any.

And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

Now there's a topic for the philosophy forum! Are you using statistics to back up that claim? If so, I'd be curious about your data set. If not, how does one justify such a claim without using subjective evidence?

Edit: if you're interested in responding, maybe we actually should start a thread in the philosophy forum??

 

[phinds]

Um, no. I said anything possible.

I see I DID misinterpret your statement; thanks for the clarification.

 

[phinds]

Sorry phinds, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I didn't realize that you consider there to be evidence that actually compels a logical mind to disbelieve in God, as opposed to a simple lack of objective evidence for God's existence (which is what my mind was working with when composing that post, yes).

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here of if perhaps I worded my post badly. I am NOT aware of any evidence that anything compels a logical mind to disbelieve in a god. BUT, I also DID state that I see no objective evidence against the existence of a god (which IS, I realize not exactly what you said above; you were talking about LACK of evidence for something and I'm talking about clear evidence against something.

What I DO believe is that a strongly logical mind will at the very least be seriously conflicted if it sees what it considers inescapable evidence that there is no god. I realize that belief in a god is not in any way based on objective evidence FOR (except in the tortured logic of the believer, many of whom will argue strongly about the existence of evidence which they firmly believe is object but which most of us would categorize as either nonsense or magic) and so objective evidence AGAINST will not necessarily change belief, but it WILL shake belief.

My fundamental point is that I have never seen any evidence that will shake in the slightest a belief if a god, by even the most logical mind and that I would love to see such evidence. I further stated, and reiterate here, that I'm not sure there ever CAN be such evidence, not because I think there is a god but because I don't see how you ever totally prove a negative.

I know plenty of people who will never, I'm pretty confident, be swayed by ANY argument based on objective evidence and logic because to them evidence and logic are simply irrelevant to faith. But I also know people who are very attuned to science and logic who at the very least would have to very strongly reexamine their belief system if they encountered what their logic/objective side considered to be undeniable evidence against a god. The conflict might make their head explode, which would not be my goal, but it might get them off of making arguments that to my mind have no basis in reality, and that would be my preference. I have relatives who are rabidly religious and I have to grit my teeth a lot at family reunions, but a couple of my favorites would, I think, be in my second category of people which is how I got off on this whole rant in the first place. I love them but half the time I can't stand to listen to them talk.