Many scientists have a problem with the EVIDENCE they have discovered as it relates to the Big Bang, and therefore have ventured into the metaphysical arena that they claim to reject. Most often they claim that an eternal nothing suddenly and without cause went BANG!By ascribing "eternal" characteristics to the universe, they do not escape the logical necessity for a FIRST CAUSE to the current manifestation of the universe. Furthermore, you only push the debate back into a time (as it were) where there are no observable or calculable EVIDENCES. Without evidence, you are now left with nothing more than BELIEF. Add this to the scientific fact that for order to arise from chaos, it is necessary to determine the reason why this order came to be and persists contrary to known entropic laws of the universe.
Just to make sure everyone understands this completely. The best argument scientists have against ID (cosmological, not biological) is that they have a BELIEF that is without EVIDENCE of an ETERNAL universe (eternality, by the way is an attribute of God) -- that without cause or volition – initiated the Big Bang. Wow! And I thought I was the one with a FAITH-based metaphysic!
It is clear that many scientists have closed-mindedly accepted an atheistic religious dogma that is LOGICALLY inconsistent with their own understanding of the universe and which allows them to attempt to undermine, without merit, the possibility of the existence of God. Instead, they would rather say, “Nothing Did It!” Many scientists currently worship a “Dying Nothing Monster” rolling dice with no spots.
I never really intended for my blog to become so overwhelmingly Intelligent Design centric and would rather explore some other areas, particularly politics in the future. I will continue to post on ID from time to time [I currently have a post or two in the works], but mostly intend to explore other interests in the coming months.
8 comments:
You're getting biased now, DRB - there *are* hypothesis that describe the mechanics of the Big Bang and its cause. It would seem that you don't want to entertain them, because to do so would be damaging to ID in the extreme.
Singularities like those from which the Big Bang occured, occur throughout our universe. Whilst I agree that the search for a first cause has not yet born fruit, to use this as a weapon against cosmology is unfair. Perhaps I could comment; "You have no proof of the existence of God, therefore you are wrong." Not fair, is it.
You seem to misunderstand (or perhaps misrepresent) the difference between universe and cosmos. We live in a universe, an aparently finite 'object' - the cosmos refers to everything, both within our universe and 'beyond'. Usually, this is simply referred to as a 'larger space-time'. Nobody, of course, knows what lies beyond. Yet.
Once again, you suggest that science is saying "Nothing did it". Once again, only you are claiming so - no scientist on earth has ever said that, and I'm surprised you persist with such an illusory comment. Something did it, we just don't know what. Yet.
I can, if you or anyone else wants me to, provide a slightly more lengthy blog describing how it is *possible* for a universe like our own to appear. It's a simple answer but it isn't simple to explain (a paradox, I know) and I don't want to break the rules of this site. Here's a link for a brief review of one scientist's views on a similar theme;
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/s/smolin.htm
Science isn't ruling out the possibility of a God, and never has. Only those who unbendingly believe in a God are threatened by the centuries of advancement that have relegated that God to virtual fallacy. It isn't impossible for one to exist - it's just looking less and less likely, as each new mystery finds its answer in science.
DC
George the Troll,
You can keep CLAIMING that there is logical and evidential basis for your FAITH in NOTHING. But just because you repeat it over and over and over doesn't make it true.
Perhaps you should put your claims into a poetic form and coordinate it all to music. Your chanting then would more accurately reflect the fanatical atheistic fundamentalism you exhibit.
Below is what an honest atheist with an open mind has to say about this subject.
Antony Flew, who has often been called world’s most influential philosophical atheist, perhaps demonstrates the open-mind that scientists should follow. While I definitely believe that Flew is probably still an atheist, he certainly demonstrates the open-minded spirit that leads to constructive dialogue. Below is excerpts clipped from a conversation he had with Gary Habermas. To view the entire interview for your assurance that I have not taken this out of context, please go here: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. [clip] I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.
HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
HABERMAS: Since you affirm Aristotle’s concept of God, do you think we can also affirm Aristotle’s implications that the First Cause hence knows all things?
FLEW: I suppose we should say this. I’m not at all sure what one should think concerning some of these very fundamental issues. There does seem to be a reason for a First Cause, but I’m not at all sure how much we have to explain here. What idea of God is necessary to provide an explanation of the existence of the universe and all which is in it?
HABERMAS: If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?
FLEW: Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on. I suppose that does imply creation “in the beginning.”
Who am I to believe has more credibility, Antony Flew or some blog troll?
George,
You said, ”It isn't impossible for one to exist - it's just looking less and less likely, as each new mystery finds its answer in science.” On the contrary, each new mystery that is solved by science is making the existence of God more and more necessary and the naturalistic view more and more improbable. Flew recognizes this, and your referenced book makes this point as well.
He [Lee Smolin] takes a philosophical approach to describing physical theories. Is what he proposes science or not? If so, does that mean that the discussion about science necessarily requires philosophical and theological dialogue? What makes his philosophical worldview valid science and not the philosophical worldviews others hold?
Smolin starts by showing that the universe we live in appears to be vastly improbable.
Therefore since the scientific evidence points to the necessity of intelligent design, rather than reject his FAITH in atheism he decides to establish a whole new way of thinking. He adopts the irrational postmodern view of relativism. I have already discussed this “Escape from Reason” in my post titled “A Nonrational Fantasy World of Experience” Permalink: http://deathrowbodine.blogspot.com/2005/11/nonrational-fantasy-world-of.html
[quote]
Of course, as stridently as many modern scientists claim to hold fast to that shifting sand, they know, and all of society unconsciously knows, that they have lost their logical moorings. The only escape is an escape from reason and that is what they have done. Francis Schaeffer explains this best in the book Escape from Reason.
[/quote]
Smolin makes the same logical error that Dawkins makes, as Flew pointed out, and fails to deal with the logical necessity for a FIRST CAUSE. He does this by pushing the causaility back into what seems to be the logical absurdity of an eternal progression of universes.
Smolin seems to be vaguely aware of the absurdity of his position and attempts to circumvent the problem by pointing out that two of the mainstays of classical physics, reductionism and atomism, are simply incompatible: reductionism works by describing the whole in terms of its parts, whereas the fundamental "atoms" have no parts. Instead, he takes Leibniz' ideas of relative descriptions, and the principle of sufficient reason, very seriously.
Interestingly, he must have not taken Leibniz seriously enough. Otherwise, he should have realized that once he was back upon a logical philosophical course, he was heading directly back to the necessity of God demonstrated by Intelligent Design.
From Wikipedia:
[quote]
As to Leibniz 's system on philosophy, he regarded the ultimate elements of the universe as individual percipient beings whom he called monads. According to Leibniz, monads are centres of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal; finally, the existence of God is inferred from the existing harmony among the monads.
The Théodicée tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by a perfect God.
[/quote]
Smolin and others of this athiestic mindset are like fish in a tank. They bump into the glass, then swim furiously in the other direction only to bump into more glass. The only way out is madness, to jump out of the tank to dry up and rot on the floor.
DRB,
I get the impression that no abundance of words from myself or anyone else will ever sway you from your views, but I do dislike the way you and others here twist words to your own agenda in order to bolster such baseless beliefs.
I've never claimed a logical and evidential basis for the existence of the universe. I've claimed that hypothesis exist for it. Nothing more. It is YOU who have twisted my words, presumably to attempt to discredit my own views. LeeC, on other blogs, has been using the same cheap trick.
Anthony Flew's apparent conversion to theistic views was more politically motivated than anything else. Either way, if it's to be the professionals' opinions alone upon which we all rely, Flew is massively outnumbered by specialists of equal standing who don't simply tag the word God onto everything and call it 'evidence'. The keep it real.
Lee Smolin's ideas are just that -ideas (hypothesis). They are not yet tested, but they present one possibility. They are proven neither right, nor wrong, except in the mind of the fundamentalist who refuses to even entertain them.
Evolution is everywhere, so why shouldn't universes evolve or even 'reproduce.' It's an interesting hypothesis which demands research. There's nothing illogical about such a concept whatsoever, unless you're afraid of its possible consequences and another blow for religiously motivated beliefs. And if you choose to rely upon a specialist over a blog-troll, then why shouldn't I do the same?
I've heard nothing but CLAIMS for your BELIEFS made without a shred of evidence to support them, nothing more than attacks upon gaps in current knowledge. That's not searching for new information, it's dogma. You've got, in total, precisely nothing to support your beliefs.
You have asked people here to be civil in their blogs, yet you have suddenly become quite aggressive and sarcastic towards my own, writing as though I'm some kind of idiot. If you don't want me blogging here because my points of view disturb your comfortable illusion, then say so. That's what Jason Dollar did over at ARC, because he could match my arguments and didn't like his super-natural fantasy world being challenged.
Decide.
DC
George said:
I do dislike the way you and others here twist words to your own agenda in order to bolster such baseless beliefs.
That is not what I did, if so, I am sorry and will make corrections if you cite specific examples. And if I accidentally did so, I will say this, "It's not very fun when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?"
George said:
Evolution is everywhere, so why shouldn't universes evolve or even 'reproduce.'
While I don't see how "evolving/reproducing universes" are remotely possible, I am at least willing to discuss their possibility. I don't fear the topic in the slightest, primarily because the hypothesis has no LOGICAL basis for explaining original causality. That is illogical.
Furthermore, your assertion that evolution is omnipresent (an attribute of God, by the way) is intriguing. You should tell me more about that. So far, you have seemed to concede, sometimes even assert, that “Whatever Did It” must have been eternal, infinite, and now omnipresent. At this rate, it will not be long before my God and your “Whatever It Is” will have a majority of the same attributes.
George said:
I've heard nothing but CLAIMS for your BELIEFS made without a shred of evidence to support them, nothing more than attacks upon gaps in current knowledge.
First, you are confusing scientific and logical criticisms of Darwinian Evolution with Intelligent Design. What is so unscientific about questioning obvious failings in current theory? Isn’t this THE way that sciences is supposed to be done. Isn’t it fact true that attempting to squelch such inquiry really what is detrimental to the progress of science? Keep in mind that criticisms of Darwinism is only a complementary topic rather than a part of the essence of Intelligent Design.
Second, your continued assertions that there is not a “shred of evidence to support” ID are preposterous. You make the CLAIM that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the areas of science listed below use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer in them is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of a supernatural Intelligent Designer, although Intelligent Design Theory, in and of itself, does not even attempt that but rather predicts that there is some kind of intelligence behind the order that we observe.
The following areas of science currently use intelligent design theory regularly:
1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks (arrow heads) occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
Obviously from applications of intelligent design theory above the concept is not new and has been applied countless times. It predicted a beginning to the universe rather than eternality of the universe, the “Big Bang” if you will. It has also repeatedly predicted the impossibility of spontaneous generation throughout history and will likely prevail this time.
George said:
You have asked people here to be civil in their blogs, yet you have suddenly become quite aggressive and sarcastic towards my own, writing as though I'm some kind of idiot. If you don't want me blogging here because my points of view disturb your comfortable illusion, then say so.
I do not believe that aggressiveness is necessarily contraindicative of civility. Furthermore, you have to understand that you are NOT my primary audience and rhetorical devices such as sarcasm are valid and effective communication tools if properly implemented within the logical and rational framework of the debate. Nonetheless, I realize that my American aggressiveness may somewhat offend your British sensibilities. All I can say about that is to “buck up”; you guys were tough enough to practically take on the Germans alone for years and no nation that loves rugby as much as you all do can possibly have people that are pansy enough to not to enjoy a bit of full contact blogging.
As far as my “comfortable illusion” goes, let me remind you that I intentionally invited you here with the purpose of making the viewpoint of Darwinists look foolish with the full knowledge of the risk that you would be doing the inverse. So far, I am quite satisfied with the results. Thank you for hanging around, you have presented some good challenges and presented me with the opportunity to refine my ideas.
Then I sit corrected. Apologies if I sounded 'pansy' - just wasn't sure how far I could go on the wit and sarcasm front without breaking the rules, and hadn't noticed anything similar from yourself until your "...coordinate it all to music"... comment. It made me laugh, but also caught me off guard.
DC
DRB,
In essence you're quite right in stating that no existing forms of hypothesis deal with a "first cause". But then, how can we? The first cause of our own universe can be explained *hypothetically* by Lee Smolin's work, but that of course demands a "first cause of many first causes" - if you catch my drift.
I can't explain that, because I personally don't have such knowledge. What I *can* explain is that, due both to observation and to Relativity, much of our own realm (for want of a better word) is counter-intuitive in its nature and thus difficult to comprehend. For instance, space needs no 'edge' - it can loop over upon itself. Thus, you can't travel to the edge of our universe, because it doesn't exist. Likewise, very large objects (super-massive stars) can give rise to very small and dense objects (black holes). In reverse, very small dense objects like black hole singularities, can hypothetically give rise to very large objects (universes).
The maths exists to show how this is possible. Stephen Hawkins showed how, if you reverse the direction of *time* in calculations that describe collapsing black holes, you have an equation that perfectly describes our own expanding universe. There's genuinely something fundamental about time and gravity to finding a "first cause" - we just don't have the technology yet to investigate phenomena as powerful, dangerous and distant as black holes.
We see our universe as immense, but it could conceivably be but a sub-atomic speck in some larger space-time. Size (space) and time are relative only to our own, human, senses. Lee Smolin's work suggests that black holes might each simply *contain* a universe, each with differing properties of time (the objects are dense enough!). Likewise, our universe would be within one. The event horizon of a black hole from which light cannot escape, and our own inability to see light from beyond a certain distance in our own universe demonstrate possible examples of this relationship...
Anyway, enough heavy stuff. I just wanted to add the above in lay-person's terms to describe what Lee Smolin is getting at, and why it's hard to understand, but not physically impossible.
DC
"Federal Judge rules in favour of eleven parents in Dover, Pennsylvania..."
Oops. Looks like ID's fallen flat on its backside once again.
"In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief. He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door. The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
Anything to say DRB? Any gems of wonder and insight to cast upon this ruling of common sense over 'God did it' dogma?
DC
Post a Comment