Ethereal said:In a previous thread (Prove God Exists) we discussed the physics and mechanics of God's existence, and I, for one, thought that was an extremely interesting topic. I'd like to dedicate a thread geared specifically toward the scientific aspects of God and the universe.
The foundation for our previous debate was that the universe, being dependent upon cause, could not have caused itself, and subsequent to this a being or entity independent of cause must have created the universe.
Furthermore, the infinitude of the universe was discussed and contested. My thoughts on this were that the universe cannot possibly be infinite since this would be a direct violation of Newtonian physics, specifically the law of inertia and the law of reciprocal actions. How could these Newtonian theories be true if nothing was required to set the hypothesized, infinite set of events into motion as the law of inertia states must occur for any action or event to initially take place? Also, I think it a logical fallacy to divide the universe into a sequence of events or occurrences. If the universe were truly infinite then the following equation must be false - ... => event => event => event => ... - since infinitude is singular, or even circular in nature, each divisible event in the sequence of infinitely occurring events could be considered implicitly the beginning and the end, and pursuant to this it doesn't seem possible that something singular or circular could have a beginning or an end.
Whether it's intrinsic infinitude which would constitute the following; B = Beginning of event, E = Ending of event, and (B + E) = Event where ... => (B + E) => (B + E) => (B + E) => ...
or extrinsic infinitude where B = Beginning of infinitude, E = End of infinitude, and where (B + ... + E) = Infinitude.
It seems to me that neither one of these equations could possibly be true.
The foundation for our previous debate was that the universe, being dependent upon cause, could not have caused itself, and subsequent to this a being or entity independent of cause must have created the universe.
Second, the universe may not be causal in the Newtonian sense. The statement that "every thing must have a cause" may not be necessarily true, and is indeed not the case in many areas of Quantum Mechanics (zero-point energy, anyone?). Our laws of physics break down at the singularity level, so we really have no idea how the universe would act before or at the time of the Big Bang. The idea of the deist watchwinding God is not one that can result from our current understanding of physics, and is really an appeal to ignorance.
quantum physics proves that the universe is not based on causality (it is a probabilistic universe). You are not the only one who finds this hard to accept. Einstien had a problem with it (god does not play with dice) and fought it vigorously with his EPR paradox but Bell's theorum came along and proved him wrong.
ashurbanipal said:Hang on a second. It sounds like you guys are confusing causality with determinability, which are two separate issues. Nothing in quantum mechanics does away with the necessity of causality--that would be remarkable. QM does show many instances in which it is impossible to determine the exact outcome of an event from known preconditions--which is just to say that events appear to be ultimately underdetermined by their physical precursors (which ought to lead us to infer something resembling God). That doesn't mean that those preconditions don't have to exist in order for the event itself to happen, or that their existence doesn't cause the outcome.
I personally don't see the need to bring physics into the causal argument for God, which I've recently come to realize is a much more powerful argument than is usually thought.
No, no, of course Quantum Mechanics removes the classical idea of determinism from our equations, the Uncertainty Principle makes sure of that. The fact of the matter is that our physical models of the universe (based on QM or GR) cannot predict what happens before or at the point of singularity.
Even on regular scales, QM has things that defy causality.
Like I mentioned before, the spontaneous creation of particles/anti-particle pairs occurs constantly on the subatomic level
Indeed, this is the basis for Hawking Radiation, and the mechanism by which black holes shrink.
As well, causality is often equated with determinacy, at least semantically.
What, exactly, are you basing the idea that there can be no uncaused events (if that is indeed what you are saying) on?
ashurbanipal said:Quantum fluctuations themselves are a little trickier--no one knows what causes them, but that hardly means that nothing causes them, and no theory with which I am familiar makes that precise claim.
Ethereal said:I'd like to dedicate a thread geared specifically toward the scientific aspects of God and the universe.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:That is an oxymoron. God has no place in science because science depends on empirical data and observable phenomenon and God is neither of those two things.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Well, not really. The more and more we learn via the scientific method, the smaller and smaller the box God lives in becomes. Right now God lives in a box a Planck Length on a side.
Well, not really. The more and more we learn via the scientific method, the smaller and smaller the box God lives in becomes. Right now God lives in a box a Planck Length on a side.
Not so. The ultimate nature of anything is the way it behaves. An electron behaves in such a way. It's not made of chocolate or wood. It is a certain combination of quarks & it behaves in a certain way as we all know from it's charge & mass etc.ashurbanipal said:Science allows us to substitute terms, but does not tell us the ultimate nature of anything.
If the laws of nature are outside space & time then nothing was needed in the 1st place to give rise to them. This universe is just a bubble in infinity. So there's your God... infinity. Not quit the loving caring figure you might think, but there nevertheless.Ethereal said:The foundation for our previous debate was that the universe, being dependent upon cause, could not have caused itself, and subsequent to this a being or entity independent of cause must have created the universe.
Not so. The ultimate nature of anything is the way it behaves.
An electron behaves in such a way. It's not made of chocolate or wood. It is a certain combination of quarks & it behaves in a certain way as we all know from it's charge & mass etc.
That's the ultimate nature of the electron. There is no more to it than that. It's that simple.
If you are looking for a metaphysical explanation it simply isn't there.
Metaphysics is like religion. It professes to answer higher questions. But it doesn't. Those 'higher questions' are in fact meaningless & just serve to make things more complicated than they are.
A complete definition of a sword will need to include the fact that it's not always used as a weapon. Any other definition of the nature of swords is incomplete. Therefore my premise stands.ashurbanipal said:That's a cop out, and demonstrably false. A sword may never be used to cut someone or inflict violence in any way--does that change the fact that it's a weapon? Its behavior has not reflected its nature--according to your principle, it's not a weapon.
You are playing with words. You are speaking of the scalpel/human combination as if it's the scalpel alone. You did the same with the sword.ashurbanipal said:Or, suppose we focus instead on a scalpel. First, I use it to operate on someone, and thus by its behavior, it's an instrument of medicine. But then a crazed maniac breaks into my operating room and I use it to kill him. Now it's a weapon. What about the scalpel actually changed from point A to point B?
Humans are complex & capricious. You've just proved that to be so. Does that make the 'nature of humans' as being any less valid as a means to define them ?ashurbanipal said:Or, we could focus on a class of objects that you acknowledge to exist, but that defy such analysis: behaviors. If we ask what the ultimate nature of a behavior is, we'd have to say (by your logic) that it's nature is how it behaves. How does behavior behave? I'm not sure I can figure that out.
Isn't 'The nature of nature' a circular argument ?ashurbanipal said:Note that the reverse idea--that the nature of a nature is equally absurd, is not true. The ultimate nature of an electron may be abstract, but the nature of that nature is just the sum total of every aspect of the electron.
I never said the constituent parts are not of interest. For example.. the electron has negative charge of minus one. That explains many aspects of it's nature.ashurbanipal said:You were just saying that a thing is the way it behaves...who cares about all that other stuff? I think electrons are made of bananas--and so long as they continue to behave like electrons, who is to challenge my claim? Certainly not you.
A quark is that which along with other quarks necesary can comprise an electron & also that which behaves as a lone quark does. Incidently they haven't isolated quarks yet have they ?ashurbanipal said:I agree, but why stop there? You said it's made of quarks. What is a quark? Whatever your answer, what is that? And whatever your answer, what is that? So on, ad infinitum.
It's erroneous to speak of natural laws as 'physical objects'.ashurbanipal said:Aristotle coined the notion of the Meta-ta-phusika (sorry, no Greek fonts) to mean those things we must invoke to explain the phusika--the physical world. In this light, there are lots of metaphysical things. A natural law, for instance, qualifies as a metaphysical object. You can't take a picture of a natural law (only how we denote it or how it affects physical things). You can't weigh it. You can't put an ounce of it in the mail and post it to someone. If you think about it, there are all kinds of everyday things that people talk about that fall into the same category. Language, words, numbers, operands, wrath, power, processes, etc. are all metaphysical in that we acknowledge they exist, but we know we'll never bump into them at a train station.
Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment that you classify me with such great men as Kurt Gödel :smile:ashurbanipal said:You sound a lot like Mortiz Schlick. There's a reason he's fallen out of favor.
Your tone is a little harsh to start with & not condusive to a constructive or indeed pleasant debate. Nevertheless I shall reply on this occasion.
A complete definition of a sword will need to include the fact that it's not always used as a weapon. Any other definition of the nature of swords is incomplete. Therefore my premise stands.
You are playing with words. You are speaking of the scalpel/human combination as if it's the scalpel alone. You did the same with the sword.
Humans are complex & capricious.
You've just proved that to be so. Does that make the 'nature of humans' as being any less valid as a means to define them ?
We can go on to explain some behaviours.. example.. woman can be irrational due to PMT etc etc. Men aggresive due to testosterone etc etc. In so doing we would be giving the causes for some behaviour but not the nature of it. Or do you define humans as 'PMT' or 'testosterone' ?
You would be being rather incomplete if you did.
The ultimate nature of anything is the way it behaves.
Isn't 'The nature of nature' a circular argument?
I never said the constituent parts are not of interest. For example.. the electron has negative charge of minus one. That explains many aspects of it's nature.
A quark is that which along with other quarks necesary can comprise an electron & also that which behaves as a lone quark does. Incidently they haven't isolated quarks yet have they ?
If so then they can only be defined in terms of how they behave in conjunction with the other constituent quarks of the electron. There's the nub... namely that a vital part of the nature of a quark is.. you can't have a single quark in isolation. They always come in groups in the form of hadrons.
It's erroneous to speak of natural laws as 'physical objects'.
Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment that you classify me with such great men as Kurt Gödel.
ashurbanipal said:Godel and Schlick have nothing to do with each other in this context. Godel was not a positivist, though he probably was the more intelligent of the two.
Ummm...I've got a book on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem sitting on the shelf that I need to read, but I do believe that saying that Godel wasn't a positivist is an understatement. Wasn't the Incompleteness Theorem the death blow to "Postivism"?
PS I just checked. Electrons aren't hadrons so not made of quarks, so imagine I'm talking about protons instead visa vie quarks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?