1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

The Tangent Topic (Currently: Homosexuality and Religion)

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Profesco, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Steampunk

    Steampunk One Truth Prevails

    Really, the anthropic principle falls better into the category of philosophy rather than science. The other one, I'm not so familiar with, I'll look it up when I get the chance. Also, not everything you find on the internet can be trusted.

    If it is the logical conclusion based on examples that we can relate to then why would it be silly?

    Let me reverse that question you posed me. Say, I go to the store and see an iPhone5, I pick it up and say "it was intelligently made", did I make the logical, scientific answer? Now lets say we look at the nearly infinite universe, from the biggest galaxy to the smallest atom, even our Earth. Would it be illogical to draw the same conclusion that I did with the iPhone5?

    Are you familiar with the concept of a legal precedent? Basically, its the idea that you use previous conclusions to help you make new, similar ones. Making the conclusion that the house, ring of stones, and iPhone5 are all precedents to coming to the conclusion that the universe had intelligent design.
  2. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Loaded question. If it looks intelligently designed, it may have been, but looks can be deceiving. You can't assume that everything that looks intelligently designed actually is.

    Yes, it would be illogical. Firstly, we know for a fact how iPhones are made. Secondly, we have no mechanisms at all that could suggest that the iPhone made itself. However, we know a whole lot about the universe. We know what actual parts make up the subatomic particles that we all know - Protons, Neutrons, etc, and how different arrangements of those even smaller particles make up the different properties of those particles.
    The major thing here is that the iPhone needs a designer. The Universe does not. Your argument is reminiscent of one that only worked decades ago.

    I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy in it's purest. False analogy fallacy, I believe is the one.
    "In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P. "
    An iPhone may be complex, the universe may be complex, and the iPhone may have had a designer, but that does NOT suggest that the universe did.
  3. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    If you designate everything as being designed, then by definition you can't have a logical basis for determining that it was designed. If everything was designed then there would be nothing that wasn't, meaning there is nothing to distinguish the two.

    Also, the human mind is a pattern seeking organ. It will find order where there is none, because that's how the imagination worked as the evolutionary mechanism that aided us in making tools and changing the world to suit us. Saying that a coke can is designed is normal; we know it was because we know where it happens and why. We know a tree is NOT designed because we contrast what is purpose-built for something with the tree. Sure, the tree might achieve a certain goal, but that means nothing in terms of design.

    Watchmaker arguments only get so far when the argument asserts the world is made of watches.
  4. Sedaheht

    Sedaheht Member

    First off, science says NOTHING definitive about whether or not the universe had a beginning. The known laws of physics break down at the earliest moments of the universe, at the instance of (alleged) creation, so we can only talk with confidence about any time AFTER that critical phase when the universe was unintelligible. We don't know that there was a "time" when the universe didn't exist. But anyway, my point is that if someone claims that a God created the universe and that God has always existed, then the same assumption can be made about the universe on its own. Both are equally (un)supported ideas, so if you're willing to utilize one, then what rules out the other?

    This argument assumes that organization and complexity can only result from intelligent design. It has been known for hundreds of years that this is not true. In some circumstances order can arise from disorder, and there are countless examples of this occurring in the real world, such as liquid water freezing into ice, gravity coalescing diffuse matter into stars, nebula, and galaxies. Or how about the evolution of life on Earth. All of these processes are well within the bounds of physical law. This idea, that all instances of complexity surrounded by simplicity is evidence of an intelligent designer, is not accurate. Your personal inability to imagine the formation of complexity in terms of natural law doesn't constitute evidence that it is impossible.

    Nothing. But science has so far shown us that design isn't NECESSARY to explain the universe. Design is one possible explanation, but even without a designer it seems that the universe could have emerged from natural law alone.

    What are you even talking about. I think you are just trashtalking science without knowing the first thing about what it actually is and the conclusions it makes. That circular argument that you attribute to science is something I've never encountered in any of my scientific study. Science has NOT concluded that God doesn't exist, just that God isn't necessary part of our understanding of the universe, that it isn't a better explanation than the current theories, that it has no testable claims or predictions that would confirm it's unique validity, unexplainable with any other theory. Yes, there are certain specific claims made in defense of specific Gods of specific religions, all of which are demonstrably false, but on the general question of whether a intelligent designer of SOME KIND is responsible for creating the universe, there is no definite conclusion because there is no way to test it. Science does not dismiss the God hypothesis out of hand, but with no way to test it, science has nothing to say for or against it.
  5. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    Ok, I think we are being one-sided on our points of view. (humanist science vs. religious science)
    I am one of the minority who believes the universe didn't come from a Big Bang (which perfectly supports a creationist idea) but many non-religious fellows still believe on it calling it science.
    IMO, The universe is huge (infinite) enough to consider that the physical laws we know must apply to its integrity.
    I ask, if the universe needed an intelligent designer... who "designed" this designer?
  6. Sedaheht

    Sedaheht Member

    The current evidence is overwhelming that the universe expanded outward from a small region, ie. the Big Bang. If you don't want to accept this, that's fine, but don't call your belief scientific unless you have some actual science to back it up.
  7. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    It is like when "science" assumed that the earth was the center of the universe before Copernicus, and Copernicus was also wrong (but he had to tools to disprove he wasn't)
    If I was a religious person I would say that the big bang provides overwhelming evidence of the existence of a supreme being. Do you get my point now.
    In 10000 years mankind will laugh at our primitive society and our "science".
  8. What you seem to think is the flaw of science is actually it's strength. Yes, scientists get it wrong sometimes, and that's okay. Science was never meant to be all knowing, perfect, or infallible. If science makes an error, it corrects itself. It's ever improving and strengthening.

    That's because there is only one side worth taking. There is no "humanist science" or "religious science" There is simply science and pseudo-science.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  9. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Wait, how? How does it even? I don't see how it suggests ANYTHING supernatural. The laws that we have explain the whole process nicely. And considering the theory is so consistent with itself an the assumptions made by other theories, the theory itself would only need to amended at the very most. While it can technically be proven wrong, it'd be incredibly hard to do so at this point.
    Do we laugh at what science the Greeks had? How about the Egyptians? The Mesopotamians? No, of course. Science constantly grows and adapts to new discovery, so even the findings of people from centuries ago is still relevant today. The Big Bang Theory isn't going anywhere - it might be slightly modified by the discovery of, I dunno, some funky particle or something, whatever. But it isn't going to go away, not with how accurate it has shown itself to be.
  10. Sedaheht

    Sedaheht Member

    So you think that Big Bang cosmology is inaccurate because in 10,000 years we might have a different understanding of cosmology? Sure, but since when does that mean that EVERYTHING we currently know about cosmology is wrong? In the progress of science, it rarely happens that an entire theory is proven wrong in all the minute details of it. Usually our understanding is added to, revised, and improved, but never completely thrown out altogether. People were wrong about the shape of the Earth, but they weren't wrong about the more general notion that the Earth exists. They didn't have to throw out the Earth hypothesis altogether, they just had to alter it. Big Bang Theory might be wrong in certain details that we have yet to find any contradicting evidence for, but it is unlikely that the idea general idea of cosmic expansion from a smaller region is going to radically change. Such major upheavals are extremely rare.

    Even Einstein's general relativity, although it completely changed our understanding of the fabric of space and time, didn't prove Newton's laws completely wrong and useless. Even with the additional notion of spacetime being curved in the presence of matter, and all the consequences that has on an object's motion, Newton's laws still prove to be almost, but not quite entirely, accurate on everyday scales. When the curvature of spacetime is low, Newton's laws are highly accurate. That's why we still teach Newton's laws to young physics students rather than ignoring them completely. They still say something useful about the universe, they are not completely invalid.

    On the subject of Big Bang Theory, it is very unlikely that some observation in the future is going to completely invalidate the current theory and force us to find a new a brand new one. Because each new observation we make doesn't change the thousands of prior observations that all seem to consistently show that the universe is expanding.

    Such a radical new theory would have to explain the observed expansion of the universe without invoking cosmic expansion. It would have to explain the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and explain the tiny but measurable fluctuations of temperature therein, without invoking the idea that all this radiation originated from a region small enough in size that quantum mechanical fluctuations within spacetime could have a non-negligible effect on the uniformity of the contents of this region. It would have to explain the observed pattern of redshifts of ALL galaxies outside of our local cluster without invoking the idea of their moving away from us due to cosmic expansion (their light isn't stretching for no reason). It would have to explain why entropy always seems to increase through time without invoking the idea that at some point very early in the universe, entropy was extremely low (ie. the universe was extremely uniform/ordered). The list goes on. The different lines of evidence we currently have are all tied together and give consistent results where they overlap. A new theory that does not rely on cosmic expansion would have to undermine everything. And it would have to be testable.

    It is much more likely that in 10,000 years, we will have a much more advanced version of Big Bang Theory. Perhaps cosmic expansion will be incorporated as one small piece of a much broader theory of the universe, like M-theory.

    As for your comparison with religion, the Big Bang Theory does NOT provide evidence of a supreme creator, and your hypothetical religious alter-ego ought to be educated about the actual scope of the Big Bang Theory. The theory says nothing at all about creation itself, except restricting the moment of creation to some point greater than 13.7 billion years ago. What the creation event was, science has yet to discover. There is no evidence.

    The Big Bang Theory is FILLED with evidence for the Big Bang Theory, however.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    You realize that was science under the chains of the church, right? The notion of Geofentricity came out of religion and was kept around as long as it was because of the church. "Say what we want you to say of your books will be burned, you will be labeled a heretic, be excommunicated and sentenced to death".

    You realize that's actually the strongpoint of scientific research? That science doesn't stagnate. Science seeks to find out the ways in which the universe works and why, it is always ready to change its own tenants to the reality of things when sufficient research is presented. That's something I can't say about the abrahamic faiths in particular. They're willing to cling to notions that have been proven incorrect or simply has no substantial evidence to back up beliefs. This wouldn't be a problem except we have these same impeding the rest of the world with their beliefs throughout history and today.

    Btw, the Big Bang is a theory that works just as fine as any argument for a deity if not better, and without the need for an supernatural intervention. Though it surely can be used in a theological standpoint, it's not really "overwhelming evidence" at all.
  12. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    The Catholic church was behind a lot of scientific discoveries. Who else could afford to pay people to study the stars? Most people lived hand to mouth growing food. they didn't have the time or energy to research things.

    Things varied from century to century.

    Copernicus's problem was that he couldn't prove his theory and that he stretched various theories to try and make them fit what he wanted.


    Last edited: Sep 6, 2014
  13. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    I was making a comparison.
    To all the defenders of the Big Bang, let me remember you guys that we are not even sure that the universe is R^3, what we call "universe" is not all the spacetime out there.
    If you tell me that "our finite universe" is product of an explosion, then I will believe you, but assuring that before the Big Bang there was spacetime is "naive".
    Remember guys, we are talking about a model, not discussing what is 2+2.
    BTW...Who was Georges Lemaître?
    About religion institutions, they acknowledge and recognize what "science" is convenient for it.
  14. Sedaheht

    Sedaheht Member

    But even if there are 4, 6, 11, or 26 dimensions or whatever, that fact remains that we see only three large, extended spatial dimensions. So any theory that posits extra dimensions will have to account for this observation. And if the theory is capable of explaining why three dimensions seem so special compared to the rest, then it will surely incorporate some aspects of what we currently call the the Big Bang Theory as a small piece of it. The universe seems to be expanding by all accounts. Any replacement theory to the Big Bang Theory must explain why the universe seems to be expanding if it's really not.

    I still don't get your point about the religious person claiming that Big Bang Theory provides "overwhelming evidence" for a creator. This person is wrong. It's like saying that germ theory provides overwhelming evidence for ghosts. The theory has nothing to do with the conclusion the person is making.
  15. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    Disregard what's in the italicized below. I know it's something I heard before, but until I find where, it might be wrong. I *think* I read something about three generations of matter implying three spatial dimensions in Griffiths' Particle Physics book, but I can't seem to find where in that book I found it. So, yeah, just disregard it unless I can find a source.

    We actually have a theoretical explanation for why there are three spatial dimensions; that explanation doesn't involve the big bang theory. Roughly speaking, for every generation of leptons/quarks there must exist at least that many dimensions. So if there are two generations (of leptons/quarks) there must exist at least two dimensions. We have observed three different generations, so that means there must be at least three spatial dimensions. And if there is another dimension, there should be another generation of lepton/quarks; we just haven't found it. Either way, this theoretical explanation doesn't invoke the Big Bang Theory at all.

    Edit: What I said above in italics was false. I was getting confused with another fact, which is that you can explain why there is matter than antimatter in the universe, but only if you assume there's at least three generation of matter. This was found in Griffith's "Introduction to Particle Physics" 2nd Ed on page 51. Still, I figured that might be worht mentioning.

    And while the universe is expanding, the Big Bang Theory isn't the complete picture. In particular, galaxies seem to be accelerating away from each other, and while we attribute this to dark energy, we have no idea what dark energy is so it's a rather moot point.

    That said, I agree that the Big Bang Theory doesn't corroborate the existence of a deity at all. I suppose this is because the major predictions of BBT are often rested in strong observable evidence or other theoretical models (e.g. the fact the universe is ~14 million years old actually has its origins in General Relativity). The only real implication I can see from the BBT is that during the Planck Epoch, we were probably in a very hot dense state. The BBT doesn't at all suggest that singularity even appeared out of nowhere or was created or anything like that. A lot of this is because to understand what goes in the Planck Epoch requires an understanding of quantum gravity, of which we don't have anything concrete.

    Either way, I decided to add some of my thoughts.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2014
  16. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    You said so, the universe seems to expand... I assume the idea of a "local universe" expansion rather than generic
    My point about the overwhelming evidence was "sarcastic" ;) I pointed the idea that we are linking facts to theories and adjust them to match.
    Science is not exact but relating religion to science is even worse.
  17. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    No no no no, The Big Bang Theory SUPPORTS NOTHING of religion because it makes no consequence along those lines.
    If religious people decide to misuse it and try to prove their God with it, that's not really fair to the theory, now is it? You could, in effect, 'invalidate', or at the very least associate, ANY theory in science that way.
  18. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    Hey! hold on! I'm atheist. I was talking about that theory because it was defended by a catholic "scientist" who also used it to justify creationism.
    My initial point is that many scientists (included atheists) bought the idea that the "universe" was created from a microscopic body, with no space-time precious to this event...it sounds like creationism to me.
  19. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    The fact that the "universe" was "created" from a microscopic body is simply a theoretical result (derived from Friedmann equations, as seen here--figure 4.1 is particularly helpful) that is corroborated with evidence via microwave background radiation and red shift. Now, whether or not "spacetime" was created is a point I don't think most physicists really make claim too. Rather, if you look at the 'radius' of the universe (where radius is defined in the context of Friedmann Equations) as a function of time, there exists a point in time which we call t=0 such that R=0. Any other theories, such as stead state models, simply do not work. Hawking gives a good overview of the stead state theory here, and why it was falsified. Either way, I'm under the impression that cosmologists just take this supposed beginning of "spacetime"--that is the point in time where the Friedmann solution suggests that we are infinitesimally dense. This is a consequence of the universe we know and can't explain why this point in time exists. Put another way, there simply isn't another good explanation consistent with known evidence. This is no different than pretty much all scientists who say that atomic theory is fundamentally a probabilistic theory. We don't try to explain why nature is probabilistic, we just accept it as fact.

    Which isn't to say that such a theory may not exist. A particularly important point is that the Friedmann Model exists in the context of General Relativity; however, the actual Planck Epoch is (probably) dominated by quantum mechanics (or at least quantum gravity--which is the name physicists give to a theory that doesn't exist yet). If you're really desperate for an answer because you don't like the whole "scientists don't know what spacetime is therefore it didn't exist," Hawking Lecture provides an educated guess:

    Other explanations invoke m-theory or sting theory or some other similar theory--all of which suffer from a lack of observable evidence and thus may be adequately surmised as the "not even wrong" theory.

    Either way, the point I'm making here is that whether or not spacetime just "poofed" into existence isn't something that scientists necessarily purport or suggest. Either they are trying to find some mechanism by which spacetime could manifest, or otherwise just acknowledge that our universe's dimensions were once very dense and time began (or rather, our universe began expanding--they're tautological in this context) some time 13.8 billion years ago and keep it at that.
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  20. Sheepy Lamby

    Sheepy Lamby Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the detailed answer, I am not really desperate for answers, I was just expressing a point of view.
    Let me guess, you study physics or engineering, I studied some of this concepts (lots of years ago).
    I am aware that our "visible universe" can be product of a more condensed state, my criticism is based on the fact of making "universe=known universe"
    in the same way known physical laws may not work inside a black hole (even when IMO our knowledge is insufficient to explain effects of G forces out of our immediate planetary boundaries) they may not work in the non-visually-reachable universe.
    To make it simple... you have a dish with water and pour some drops of oil, the spot where the oil "touches" the water expands... but, what about the rest of the dish?
    we, humans, in this context, would be like quarks thinking that our "oily" universe expands and was born from a singularity.
    If you say "out time" began about 13.8 B years ago I may buy it.

Share This Page