Why God Did Not Create the Universe

Discussion in 'Fantasy / Horror' started by Fung Koo, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. Evil Agent

    Evil Agent Saturn Comes Back Around

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    171
    I have not yet tackled Nietzsche. I'm currently reading Dawkins (and just bought a few books by Christopher Hitchens), but the truth is that these are probably the first non-fiction/philosophy/science books I've read since I finished university about 8 years ago!

    I find I'm enjoying it more than fiction these days, and maybe I will actually up for tackling some Nietzsche down the road.
     
  2. N. E. White

    N. E. White tmso Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,494
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    163
    My all time favorite quote:

     
  3. N. E. White

    N. E. White tmso Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,494
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Ah, just skimmed through this entire thread. Lots of good stuff and interesting things to think about. If I didn't have NaNo stuff to do, I'd think some more and offer my own warp opinions, but got to go.

    But one thing, I do believe that a Belief and Science can co-exist. I think Betty Cross said it best with the idea of regression.

    I happen to not believe, and find wonder in all things simply because they are wonderful whether a god (which one?) created them or not.
     
  4. Hereford Eye

    Hereford Eye Just Another Philistine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    123
    My mind immediately wonders where the dimensions and branes came from. And I immediately return to Fung Koo's statement. which I'll edit for the circumstances:
    Context, I guess. Everything depends on context.
     
  5. Gary Wassner

    Gary Wassner GemQuest

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    4,040
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Nietzsche's more of a revelation than God. At least in my opinion. Just what anyone really gets out of the bible i'm not sure. I see people reading it daily like a mantra. Does it numb the brain? Or is there something so profound in it that one benefits from reading it over and over and over again? Unlikely.

    Faith, once again, allows us to do all kinds of foolish things.
     
  6. N. E. White

    N. E. White tmso Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,494
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    163
    If nothing else, inspiration (for a story). ;)
     
  7. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|: <

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    73
    How often do you read Nietzsche?

    What do you make of Hawking saying that philosophy has been outmoded by science? That philosophy is essentially a relic of a past age?

    It's one thing for science to trump religion, but it's something else entirely for science to trump philosophy. What say you?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2010
  8. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It gives people comfort.
    Think of it as the placebo effect writ large.

    But is it all that different from folks who escape their circumstances by reading nothing but fantasy novels?
     
  9. Gary Wassner

    Gary Wassner GemQuest

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    4,040
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Funny Sparrow, that's been my premise all along. Scripture is Fantasy, and probably functioned historically as fantasy does fro someo people today. People don't take fantasy stories literally. We may hope and feel exhilirated by the promise or dream of such extraordinary beings and powers and events, but we know they are fabrications. They don't comfort us today for that reason, yet scripture still does? Explain that? No explanation. We'd like it to be true, perhaps.

    Fung, philosophy, other than the history of philosophy which is still fascinating, since it parallels the history of so much else, may be a dying discipline. At least it's being transformed by science. But there's still a place for ethics, and we need metaphysics when science can't satisfy us. And we need ontology as a result of our inability to certify our claims fully through science. But speculative thought hopefully will never die. Even the structure of our language requires it. And half of our vocabulary requires speculation in order to understand the meanings (which we often don't really understand at all, but merely assume we do).

    I just used the word 'hopefully'. Speculative? Philosophical? you bet. When will science eliminate the our impulse to speak speculatively? and think speculatively? I doubt ever.
     
  10. Evil Agent

    Evil Agent Saturn Comes Back Around

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    171
    The difference is that we know fantasy is fiction, we don't pretend it is REAL, nor do we go around spreading it, killing in its name, or basing our life on it.

    Also, there are those of us that are more interested in the truth, whether it's comforting or not.
     
  11. Hereford Eye

    Hereford Eye Just Another Philistine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    4,519
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    123
    We posit, then, an impulse which we all share to speak and think speculatively.
    If we take this as a given, then does it not follow?
    (a) speculation can lead to truth and/or untruth
    (b) the truth of a speculation can be established only by repeatable tests
    (c) the tests of speculative truth are themselves speculative
    (d) any truths derived must be speculative

    In plane geometry, a triangle is limited to and composed of angles summing to 180 degrees. This truth does not hold sway in contexts other than a plane. The truth about triangles depends on context.

    When you reach the point where every statement of truth must be qualified by a delimiter such as “per the state of our knowledge today...” then are you not permanently in the speculative mode? We look at our physics, chemistry, biology, all the “hard” sciences, and cannot imagine a world that does not support these truths. There is no doubt in my mind – my truth – that much of what we accept today as scientific truth will be revolutionized by new discoveries or new applications of existing knowledge that turn everything we believe to be truth on its ear. It's happened many times before and there is no reason that I can see to believe we occupy a privileged position where it can't happen again.

    Newton presented a formula for gravity that is truth for a closed system such as the surface of a planet such as ours. Einstein demonstrated that this truth is not absolute for an open system thereby casting doubt on the concept of a closed system.

    When you and I studied physics in our youth and we got to talking gravity, the orbits of the nine planets were pretty well defined. But, in this century, we know there are not nine planets, only eight. Definitions changed and less than complimentary assertions arose as to the beauty of the math that produced the discovery of Pluto and its orbit, the math that was the crowning achievement in our text books.

    Now, if scientific applications work, e.g., my toaster produced a nicely warmed bagel this morning and we know absolutely nothing about what electricity is or why it works the way it does; then does it matter we are still speculating about electricity?

    For those of us who tend to wallow in our scientific world, doesn't it bother us just a bit that this portion of the universe is anthropomorphic to a fault, that a difference of a decimal here and there in the constants of nature would prohibit our existence, that there is nothing particularly sacred about our constants – it's possible they don't hold true elsewhere in this universe.

    It seems to me it is a case of pick your poison: which belief system helps you make it through the day?
    I have no problem with you or anyone else believing whatever you or they want to believe. Just don't present it as the truth and nothing but the truth. Don't try to make me believe it just because you do. And let's don't go to war to prove that we're right.
     
  12. Gary Wassner

    Gary Wassner GemQuest

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    4,040
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    121
    There are no facts, only interpretations.

    Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

    Every word is a prejudice

    Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are.

    We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error.

    Thus he spoke.
     
  13. Third Eye

    Third Eye Guest

    Not it doesn't bother me at all. The difference of a decimal is the knifes edge of existence. We are of no consequence. We are however remarkably lucky. We are a royal flush. Every breath we take amounts to hitting the lottery. How many wrap themselves in things of no consequence in search of substance? If dogmatic constructs bring one peace so be it. The problem is when dogmatic constructs become social framework.

    I am of no consequence. My life has no purpose or meaning. There is no afterlife that I will go to after I die. So I endeavor to live as best I can. Acknowledging my strengths and my weaknesses. Aware of the fact that my tomorrow is by no means guaranteed.

    I see no divine purpose. No intelligent design. I see dice tumbling. Random numbers. And I dream of better days.
     
  14. Sparrow

    Sparrow Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We can speculate about the wonderous mystery that is electricity because we have a profound interest in it... and it's real. The problem with science fiction is that too often the toaster is traveling faster than the speed of light, which is profoundly unreal.

    But if it's not real science, or not supported by the tried and true laws of nature, than isn't it fantasy?


    The truth is a harsh mistress. ;)
     
  15. Davis Ashura

    Davis Ashura Would be writer? Sure.

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    123
    You've obviously never been to a Star Trek or LotR convention. Not to mention those who are praticing Jedis.
     
  16. 3rdI

    3rdI Edema Ruh

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Post Removed
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  17. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|: <

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Respectfully, I disagree that this addresses the topic at hand. The video you posted is merely a rant calling a group of people stupid, which would be against the rules of this forum were you to type those things yourself into a post. Nor does it add anything to the debate.

    Religion is one matter, faith another, and the question at the core of this topic is another still. The discussion at hand is "the prime cause" of existence. In his most recent book, Hawking says that science has outmoded philosophy. Yet Hawking famously concluded his A Brief History of Time saying:

    Hawking's religious beliefs have been identified as atheist since the point when he made this comment. The question of what he means by "God" here has been a point of argument for a long time. In a nutshell, Hawking retained God as the placeholder of existence -- which is to say, the unanswerable question of "where does existence itself come from?"

    It is less a religious question than it is either philosophical or scientific. In a nutshell -- stripping everything related to belief away (i.e. religion and faith), why is there existence at all? Not "why is your faith subverting the freedom of your mind?" where the rant in the video you posted would lead, but to the fundamental question of existence itself. Stripping away the cladding of the infinitude of faiths that have existed in human history, every religion can be understood as a model of understanding existence. Science, too. Yet for science's efforts, it hasn't been able to answer the question of primary cause. Until now, says Hawking.

    Hawking has published a new book wherein he postulates that his previous position of God and the placeholder of existence, the primary cause, is no longer necessary. It is now, he is arguing, an answered question. Science has stated, through M-Theory, that a primary cause -- God -- is not necessary to explain existence.

    As others have pointed out earlier in this thread though, science has not in fact answered the question -- it has only removed it from being an issue for our existence. Our existence is, the argument of M-Theory goes, one amongst many. All of which are arising from something else. From whence that "something else" arose, neither I nor Hawking have any idea...

    So, God did not create our universe, says science. But it is still quiet on the issue of where the strings themselves came from. In his article, Hawking says that science has outmoded philosophy. The discussion at hand is: has it really?

    So, sorry, but that video ain't the topic.
     
  18. 3rdI

    3rdI Edema Ruh

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Normally I wouldn't care what you thought about the video. Disclaimer was there you click its on you. But since you started the thread it is basically yours. Therefore if you deem it off topic I respect that. I have removed the link.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  19. Fung Koo

    Fung Koo >:|Angry Beaver|: <

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Likewise, it doesn't matter to me what people think of the video -- but it doesn't answer the question. Clearly from the atheist position it is anathema that God would have anything to do with anything. That sorta goes without saying. ;)

    If there was a particular point that you thought was salient, though, I'm all for a little fiery, antagonistic debate :D
     
  20. 3rdI

    3rdI Edema Ruh

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In this case I made the mistake of not reading the thread in its entirety. I saw mention of Dawkins and read some of the posts and thought bringing Pat Condell into the discussion would spice it up. But after re-reading the thread I understand this thread isn't really an atheist rally point at all rather a fundamentally philosophical discussion on the exact nature of the "cause" of existence. Therefore indeed the Condell link was off topic and removed out of respect to the OP, which in this case, is you.

    As an aside I have enjoyed the thread, particularly the discussions on MTheory as I am a cosmology buff.