Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

[drogulus]

Al, I don't know how you can be so sure that the second law holds in all possible physical situations even when the laws of physics (or prelaws or whatever we call them) are completely different to what we can even concieve of now... e.g. Does entropy increase if there is no time (as we know it?) There's just too many questions and unknowns for any one to be as sure about these facts as you appear to be... or am I missing something?

    What meaning can laws have without the context (explanations of behavior). I just don't understand how you are supposed to go outside everything using rules that have their only validity inside everything. That would apply to causality, origin, time, space and game shows. Besides, if you mean to take the concept of universe seriously, then there's no outside. Nothing is left out of a universe in my revised, improved definition. That includes any gods or other troublesome beings. If it exists, it's in. If it doesn't exist, it's in, too, as a bad idea. 

[Al Moritz]

     No, Al, you didn't get what I said. I didn't say "naturalism explains creation", I said creation can't be explained either theistically or naturally,

Ok, I may have misread you.

and I said elsewhere that I think creation will eventually be seen as unworkable because it exports the idea of time from its natural home in a continuum and turns it into an absolute. The idea of "time before time" is regressive. It returns to a form of the absolute coordinate system that relativity replaced. Once again, you're forced by these bad models to replace time with another time, matter with shmatter, which one hopes will do just as well as matter for preserving information so a god can form and grow up to design universes. What a mess!

What a mess indeed!!!

But you are the one that's making a mess, because your argumentation is both convoluted and uninformed. Despite all the sophisticated talk about an "absolute coordinate system that relativity replaced" (well, that is true) you are missing the point. Theistic philosophy holds that God created time, and there was no time before time. God is eternal, and God's eternity is timeless. The problem of "time before time" does however appear in the eternal-matter scenario that the materialist must embrace (you may not, but your simple "I don't know" doesn't get you out of this).

matter with shmatter, which one hopes will do just as well as matter for preserving information so a god can form and grow up to design universes.

Your typical strawman. From your materialistic perspective you set up God concepts that no theist holds, and then knock them down. That's both easy and a childish way to get out of it. But you are excused, since you have repeatedly shown to be utterly incapable of getting out of the prison cage of materialistic reasoning, all the atheist "free-thinking" notwithstanding. God is non-material, thus the laws of evolution do not hold, and He exists from eternity.  

[Al Moritz]

Al, I don't know how you can be so sure that the second law holds in all possible physical situations even when the laws of physics (or prelaws or whatever we call them) are completely different to what we can even concieve of now... e.g. Does entropy increase if there is no time (as we know it?) There's just too many questions and unknowns for any one to be as sure about these facts as you appear to be... or am I missing something?

That is not the point that I was making. I did not say that some other matter with some miraculous, wondrous, novel properties is not possible. What I did say that in the materialistic scenario you have to assume such properties for eternal matter, which makes this scenario anything but scientific. It is a faith, and we will never find out because of the visible horizon and the particle horizon of the universe (in one of my recent posts here I give a link to another post of mine that explains these things) that set absolute limits to scientific observation *). As I had said on page 8 of this thread:

<<The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh my ass off. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".>>

___________

*) and yes, just a reminder for everybody: science is ultimately based on observation, not on some fancy mathematical models that some cosmologists may cook up for the origin of the universe and then sell as "science".  Where the capability for observation stops, true science stops. It's that simple, even though maybe a hard pill to swallow for atheists who appear to live in the hope that "one day science will vindicate their beliefs". Many science-enthusiastic atheists (who are mostly not scientists themselves) have an endless and heartwarmingly naive faith in the capabilities of science, which are not borne out by stone-cold reality. BTW, I am speaking as someone who himself is a scientist.

[Al Moritz]

The problem of "time before time" does however appear in the eternal-matter scenario that the materialist must embrace.

I should explain: Time is a measure of material motion. Since eternal matter would be material (duh) and would have to be in some motion in order to do all its miraculous things such as giving birth to universes, some concept of time probably would have to apply.

[Ryan Howard]

I discuss the problems with the Hawking/Hartle model here:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5919.msg174242.html#msg174242

Thanks for the link.

You are absolutely right to be dubious in the way you mention. It is always a preexisting state or law, never "nothing", because truly nothing evidently has no properties. Quantum fluctuations (which might give birth to universes, a purely speculative and tremendously large leap from known physics into the unknown) presuppose quantum vacua in which they can occur. But a quantum vacuum is not nothing, it is a field, and the physical laws that govern it, are obviously not nothing as well.

In a previous post I had said that claiming creation of universes out of quantum vacua to be a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is the most profound intellectual blunder that I have encountered in all my life. I stand by this statement.

I see the point, I just have trouble comprehending how any physicist (let alone Hawking) could be capable of making such a gigantic oversight. (I believe someone wittily described the Hawking/Hartle concept of nothing as "a very complex and finely tuned nothing"...)

On the other hand, would it be right to say that the idea of eternally existing fundamental forces/states/etc. would not pose the same problem as the notion of of eternal matter (having to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics)? On the other hand, there would still be the question of why those particular states/forces existed rather than some others...

[Al Moritz]

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome, Ryan.

I see the point, I just have trouble comprehending how any physicist (let alone Hawking) could be capable of making such a gigantic oversight. (I believe someone wittily described the Hawking/Hartle concept of nothing as "a very complex and finely tuned nothing"...)

Well, first of all, many great scientists seem not to have the slightest education in philosophy. And someone like Stenger dismisses the difference between the philosophical nothing and the physical "nothing" (the quantum vacuum "nothing") as mere "wordplay". Go figure. Not the most intelligent of all intellectual choices, to put it mildly. I guess he does that in a desperate attempt to salvage his convoluted pseudo-physical materialistic philosophy. Not that I have anything against materialistic philosophy per se (from a purely intellectual view point), but then it needs to be a heck of a lot more intelligent than that.

On the other hand, would it be right to say that the idea of eternally existing fundamental forces/states/etc. would not pose the same problem as the notion of of eternal matter (having to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics)?

Certainly. But then the question would arise how eternal fundamental forces or states might bring about the birth of new universes if they are just a static mathematical entity. The ekpyrotic*) model, for example, supposes the birth of universes by collision of four-dimensional membranes (branes) in five-dimensional space (or something like that), and both "collision" and "membranes" reek suspiciously like actual matter, I would think. And  "collisions" require macroscopic motion that, if it were to be eternally self-renewing, would have to defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

*) the Greek "ekpyrotic" stands for "out of fire", as far as I know.

On the other hand, there would still be the question of why those particular states/forces existed rather than some others...

Exactly. And that "why" question cannot be answered by science. Science may one day answer the question if there is a unique solution to the physical system our universe is made of, i.e. one that accommodates both general relativity and quantum mechanics. With a unique solution in that system all physical constants would be fixed in relation to one another. However, it cannot decide why there should be this particular system of forces and not another. That is a question for logic and not for science. And logic would say that there is nothing that would prevent another system of forces to exist rather than this particular one, if it is mathematically just as self-consistent. Certainly, one could say that the fabric of "nothing" only allows for certain physical systems to arise, but this leads one again to the questionable definition of "nothing" as to have properties. And this, of course, is intellectual voodoo that I don't believe in.

[Bunny]

[snip]

Exactly. And that "why" question cannot be answered by science. Science may one day answer the question if there is a unique solution to the physical system our universe is made of, i.e. one that accommodates both general relativity and quantum mechanics. With a unique solution in that system all physical constants would be fixed in relation to one another. However, it cannot decide why there should be this particular system of forces and not another. That is a question for logic and not for science. And logic would say that there is nothing that would prevent another system of forces to exist rather than this particular one, if it is mathematically just as self-consistent. Certainly, one could say that the fabric of "nothing" only allows for certain physical systems to arise, but this leads one again to the questionable definition of "nothing" as to have properties. And this, of course, is intellectual voodoo that I don't believe in.

The "why" of anything isn't answered by religion either.  Hawking told of a conference in Rome where he and the other scientists were cautioned by Pope John-Paul II not to delve too closely into the beginnings of the universe lest they presume to try to "know the mind of God" (or some such thing).*  Religion answers the why question with "because."  That's an answer for little children who insist that there has to be a why.  Where science fails, you condemn it as "intellectual voodoo."  I suppose that means that religion is not "intellectual voodoo," except that voodoo is itself a corruption of an old African religion.

Religions posit that God is unknowable and that the Deity (or Deities) cannot not be fully understood or known by men.  Thus religion starts from the premise that full knowledge is impossible for men, thus men should not expect to get all of the answers.  Anyone who wishes to think that anything that cannot be explained through science is the "work of God," is free to do so.  However, that only makes God humanity's transitional object -- something that makes us feel so very, very safe in the vastness of the universe.

*As reported in USA Today:
Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe
Posted 6/15/2006 9:17 AM ET
HONG KONG (AP) — World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.

Hawking, author of the best-seller A Brief History of Time, said John Paul made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican. He did not say when the meeting was held.

Hawking quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

The scientist then joked that he was glad John Paul did not realize that he had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began.

"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said during a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

[...]

Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?"

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Al Moritz]

Where science fails, you condemn it as "intellectual voodoo."

That is not what I said, not at all. I had said:

"Certainly, one could say that the fabric of "nothing" only allows for certain physical systems to arise, but this leads one again to the questionable definition of "nothing" as to have properties. And this, of course, is intellectual voodoo that I don't believe in."

The failure in thinking that I refer to is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

*As reported in USA Today:
Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe

Yes, I have heard that story years ago, and if that is indeed true, it is rather perplexing. I don't see any problem with science going as far as it can (emphasis on: can). I myself have written a review of the research on the origin of life by natural causes, which is published on the leading evolution website talkorigins.org:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

The issue is a sort of untouchable holy cow for some, but I simply conclude that an origin of life by natural causes now is made probable by the scientific data that we have so far.

[Bunny]

That is not what I said, not at all. I had said:

"Certainly, one could say that the fabric of "nothing" only allows for certain physical systems to arise, but this leads one again to the questionable definition of "nothing" as to have properties. And this, of course, is intellectual voodoo that I don't believe in."

The failure in thinking that I refer to is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

Yes, I have heard that story years ago, and if that is indeed true, it is rather perplexing. I don't see any problem with science going as far as it can (emphasis on: can). I myself have written a review of the research on the origin of life by natural causes, which is published on the leading evolution website talkorigins.org:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

The issue is a sort of untouchable holy cow for some, but I simply conclude that an origin of life by natural causes now is made probable by the scientific data that we have so far.

Well, everything I have read says that Theory of Everything (the ultimate Holy Grail or philosopher's stone of physics ) is still a hot topic of research.  Who knows, the reconciliation of gravity and quantum mechanics may be right around the corner, and all of the dark matter will be accounted for.
One day religion and science, I hope, will not be a history of "tragic mutual incomprehension."

[Conservationist]

You've probably already received ads to buy Dawkins' books, then. If not, consider them forthcoming.

I would also recommend Stephen Pinker's books, if you want to help shed the religion of secular humanism (atheist religion) as well.

[Al Moritz]

Well, everything I have read says that Theory of Everything (the ultimate Holy Grail or philosopher's stone of physics ) is still a hot topic of research.  Who knows, the reconciliation of gravity and quantum mechanics may be right around the corner, and all of the dark matter will be accounted for.

Possibly, yes, even though I have great doubts the solution will come from string theory (Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" is a good read on this). Will be interesting.

[Operahaven]

Al,

I agree with much of what you have said on these threads, especially your explanations on why there is no evidence whatsoever for a naturalistic beginning of the universe.

But do you accept the fact that people don't really derive their ethics directly from religion, instead they learn them from the people around them, whether those people use religion to justify those ethics or empathy or social science... The idea that people somehow get their sense of ethics from religion assumes it's something separate from us, but religions are just constructs of the human mind.

[Al Moritz]

Al,

I agree with much of what you have said on these threads, especially your explanations on why there is no evidence whatsoever for a naturalistic beginning of the universe.

Glad you do.

But do you accept the fact that people don't really derive their ethics directly from religion, instead they learn them from the people around them, whether those people use religion to justify those ethics or empathy or social science... The idea that people somehow get their sense of ethics from religion assumes it's something separate from us,

You make valid points here. Like already people like St. Paul and Thomas Aquinas said, there is a moral law "written into everyone's heart". They might not have objected to an evolutionistic explanation how this came to be. Steven Pinker wrote an excellent article on this in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

with which I mostly agree (with the exception of a few questionable things).

I don't think the primary essence of religion is to provide a moral code superimposed on a "tabula rasa" (an empty template if you will). The primary essence is to allow for a meaningful relationship with God, and then to reinforce and expand the natural moral tendencies.

but religions are just constructs of the human mind.

You know that I don't agree with this, not with respect to all religions.

[Bunny]

[...] but religions are just constructs of the human mind.

You know that I don't agree with this, not with respect to all religions.

If you concede that even one religion is a construct of the human mind, then how can you assert that any other religion is not such a construct?  Do you really believe that only one or just a few religions have the patent on truth and that all other religions are counterfeit goods?  Is the mystical experience only valid in your narrowly defined religious system?