Life is the product of physics and chemistry - Sorry

[Deleted member 733170]

I don't deny anything that isn't yet empirically proven. But I think it's absolutely disingenuous to prefer an unsupported belief over something that is supported. I think it's wrong to make leaping inferences not based on rationality in discussions like these. That's something completely different.

As for different scientific theories, of course i'm open for things that aren't yet proven.

What's more is that a lot of claims are simply logically incoherent, and when that's the case, I don't see any reason to hold it as a respectable theory.




No. I'm open to realistic and rational theories. For instance, I don't have the answer to the exact mechanisms involved in how certain psychiatric medications work in the brain, and I'm open to a lot of different possibilities here. However, the notion of it having something to do with pink fairies is not something that I'm willing to entertain.



This is a poor argument.

You can't disprove my theory that there is a teapot orbiting the sun in this very moment, so small that it can't be viewed by our telescopes.

Just because some postulate by definition can't be falsified, it doesn't mean that it's a rational theory with any good reason to be believed in.



Yes, scientific verification is always about various degrees of probability, and nothing ever reaches absolute certainty in the strong sense. However, a lot of theories are so thoroughly backed that they are as good as certain, yes.

I did eventually respond to the rest of your post btw.

You and I both know that the orbiting teapot example is both a poor and patronising counter to the aged and universal human construct of God or higher consciousness.

Perversely what is apparent is that the intransigence of the modern scientific mind is similar to the dogma of religious fundamentalism. (Not you in particular, but in general) They are both doctrinaire in the sense that they are uncompromising.

 

[sureshs]

You and I both know that the orbiting teapot example is both a poor and patronising counter to the aged and universal human construct of God or higher consciousness.

Perversely what is apparent is that the intransigence of the modern scientific mind is similar to the dogma of religious fundamentalism. (Not you in particular, but in general) They are both doctrinaire in the sense that they are uncompromising.

No it is not apparent at all. Not a single supernatural phenomenon has been shown to be true. There is nothing to compromise with falsehoods. It is an argument made by stupid people, of the same nature as "All political parties are the same." Religion is incorrect, and so cannot be compatible with the truth. Its methods are not the methods of true enquiry as the possibilities of contradictory answers has been eliminated. Science does not need to yield one bit to religion.

 

[Sysyphus]

You and I both know that the orbiting teapot example is both a poor and patronising counter to the aged and universal human construct of God or higher consciousness.

Why exactly?

It's an example that serves perfectly to show a faulty principle of reasoning. No need to find that patronizing.

Perversely what is apparent is that the intransigence of the modern scientific mind is similar to the dogma of religious fundamentalism. (Not you in particular, but in general) They are both doctrinaire in the sense that they are uncompromising.

Well, science self-corrects through new evidence, and not on mere authority. I think this is a very disingenuous comparison.

Again, you'd need to be much more specific with such a criticism.

I don't see why we can't stick to considering arguments on their own merits instead of labeling.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Why exactly?

It's an example that serves perfectly to show a faulty principle of reasoning. No need to find that patronizing.


Well, science self-corrects through new evidence, and not on mere authority. I think this is a very disingenuous comparison.

Again, you'd need to be much more specific with such a criticism.

I don't see why we can't stick to considering arguments on their own merits instead of labeling.

It is patronising because it's only you up against the billions of others who do believe and have believed before you, of an entity which may have given you your chance of life. So even though you may not agree with its existence, it does not deserve to be trivialised. If billions of people believed in orbiting teapots that point of view would carry some weight rather than being a quip.

Haha at least with the second point you acknowledge that science can be profoundly wrong until new evidence comes along. This of course should serve to make you less dogmatic in your views. A recent example of this is scientists changing their mind that there now could be life on Mars. Or early twentieth century scientists believing smoking tobacco was good for you. I agree that fundamentalists are far worse as the message has been so twisted and corrupted over time.

The real point of all this however is that we just don't know the answer to many of these questions and so surely the only moral point of view to take is to acknowledge we don't know, rather than to assume we know because the contrary has not been proved.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

No it is not apparent at all. Not a single supernatural phenomenon has been shown to be true. There is nothing to compromise with falsehoods. It is an argument made by stupid people, of the same nature as "All political parties are the same." Religion is incorrect, and so cannot be compatible with the truth. Its methods are not the methods of true enquiry as the possibilities of contradictory answers has been eliminated. Science does not need to yield one bit to religion.

Let's not confuse religion and spirituality Guruji.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

People say life couldn't likely have formed out of chance because the chance is so small.
Not so.
I'm not sure why no-one ever bothers to articulate this.

Life formed because, on some level, it was energetically favourable for it to do so.

We consist solely of chemical compounds and the energy these possess (both the nuclear energy in the atoms themselves, the chemical potential energy (CPE) in the bonds between the atoms, and in the kinetic energy the molecules have as they're vibrating and moving around).
If you disagree, dissect a living organism, find something else, and tell us about it (before then claiming your rightful Nobel Prize).

Some chemical interactions between compounds will occur spontaneously, that is, they will occur all on their own when the two compounds are next to each other. This occurs because the result of them interacting will result in a product which has a lower chemical potential energy that the sum of the energies of the reactants (the extra energy is released, usually as kinetic energy).
An example would be placing a piece of metallic sodium in water - the metallic sodium has a very high amount of chemical potential energy, and it "wants" to lose some of that, so when it touches water a reaction will spontaneously occur where the sodium goes from a metal (Na) to being sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
This process releases an enormous amount of energy and the reaction is quite violent, but it illustrates the point well that compounds always want to exist in lowest possible energetic state, like how a ball will always roll down a hill if you place it at the top of the hill (it "wants" to lose its gravitational potential energy).
Note that a certain amount of "activation energy" is required for most reactions to occur (this can be imparted from places like sunlight, heating the solution, shaking the solution, electrical current etc.)
Read here for more on activation energy, this post is long enough as it is.

So how does this relate to the formation of life?
Same principle.
If you take many basic compounds containing carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, they will undergo spontaneous or near-spontaneous reactions with each other to reach a state of lower energy (the compounds having been originally made by an energetic process - perhaps the addition of sunlight or a volcano's heat).
And guess what - if these compounds meet each other (yes, by chance, but they're not especially rare and they tend to occur in similar places so it's not impossibly unlikely), they naturally react such that some of the building blocks of life (as we know it) form as the activation energy for these reactions is often low enough that simple natural forces can provide it (such as a lightning strike - how many think life first appeared).
Amino acids can form like this.

From there, these more complex molecules further interact with each other (which occurs better in solution, and guess what again - life is thought to have first appeared in water), and they arrange themselves such that they have lower overall chemical potential energy.
They don't self-replicate because they consciously want to, or because some god-like force is giving them a push - it's because that's how chemistry works.
Crystals grow over time, they add more units to their structure - because it's energetically favourable for them to do so, they release energy as they assume the solid state and pack into a lattice.

Phosphate and deoxyribose release energy when they combine, so if they at some point met under the right conditions to overcome the small amount of activation energy (warm water, kinetic energy imparted from waves, sunlight, perhaps electrical current), they would combine.
DNA.

The processes which occur in our body are largely energetically favourable, and the ones which aren't have energy added to them, so that they may occur, allowing the system overall to still lose chemical potential energy.
We breath in - the oxygen (O2) binds to the heme in hemoglobin, this process releases a small amount of energy, which is why it occurs at all.
The oxygen is then used to oxidize carbohydrates in the mitochondria of our cells, this releases a fair bit of energy, which is then used for physical movement and operation (this is your "energy").
It's created because energy is released from the reaction. Not because God pokes your cells.

Where life becomes sufficiently advanced that it gains a desire to continue living (semi-consciousness?), it can then supplement this basic physics and chemistry with its own actions.

Sorry for bursting your bubble folks, but life, as with everything, is the simple product of physics and chemistry.
That doesn't mean it isn't amazing, I think that the above is so amazing I have long wished to dedicate my life to understanding it more.
Far more incredible and intricate than creationist "theories".

I absolutely agree. God definitely knew what he was doing when he created a Universe so complex and capable of forming life through these chemical reactions.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Flesh out what exactly with an example?

The part about electrically stimulating the brain? Sure, one such finding is the fact that placing electrodes between the left claustrum and the anterior-dorsal insula will reversibly disrupt consciousness.

If, as you suggested, consciousness was merely some mystical force driving the physical processes in our brains, and not the result of these physical processes, then consciousness shouldn't so predictably be altered and even wiped out by altering the physical processes.

But seriously. Within the relevant sciences this is not even in dispute. The whole body of research in neurobiology tells us that the mind is something arising from the physical processes in our brains.

If you want a concise treatment of these questions, I recommend the second chapter of John Searle's Mind, Language and Society. He tackles the philosophical questions regarding how consciousness arises as a feature of neurobiological processes.

I don't think the question is as much what physiological mechanisms underlie our mental processes, but how the whole thing came to be.

I do not think life took place by chance (I'm sure you are not surprised by this assertion either).

Then again, I haven't seen proof that life can be manufactured from inert matter. It has been attempted in the lab, by replicating the conditions we think the "primordial soup" had, but all such attempts have been a failure.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

That's possible, although it does still require the right conditions, and for the right compounds to be present and available to react.

Why would that be the case, though? All life doesn't need to be supported by the exact same compounds, and should be able to appear in very wide ranges of conditions, as long as the overall idea of chemical reactions favoring lower energetic states remains the same. It would just be different compounds, but the principle would be the same.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Why would that be the case, though? All life doesn't need to be supported by the exact same compounds, and should be able to appear in very wide ranges of conditions, as long as the overall idea of chemical reactions favoring lower energetic states remains the same. It would just be different compounds, but the principle would be the same.

Perhaps.
We are yet to find other examples, though, so we can't be certain that any other combination would work.

 

[Sysyphus]

I don't think the question is as much what physiological mechanisms underlie our mental processes, but how the whole thing came to be.

I do not think life took place by chance (I'm sure you are not surprised by this assertion either).

Then again, I haven't seen proof that life can be manufactured from inert matter. It has been attempted in the lab, by replicating the conditions we think the "primordial soup" had, but all such attempts have been a failure.

See my quote from Campbell biology (last page), as I think that succinctly answers these points.

As for how consciousness came to be, well, we know that it is a product of evolution, and evolution is a fairly logical and necessary process once one starts with the existence of life.

As for how life came into existence in the first place, that's a bigger mystery than how evolution works, but it still fairly reasonable to presume that it happened through chemical reactions allowed by the physical laws, like FSM has I believe eloquently explained. It seems a bit like a "god of the gaps" thinking to want to presume divine entities wherever there are currently tough questions in science. These god-gaps have conveniently moved parallel to the progress in science.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

See my quote from Campbell biology (last page), as I think that succinctly answers these points.

As for how consciousness came to be, well, we know that it is a product of evolution, and evolution is a fairly logical and necessary process once one starts with the existence of life.

As for how life came into existence in the first place, that's a bigger mystery than how evolution works, but it still fairly reasonable to presume that it happened through chemical reactions allowed by the physical laws, like FSM has I believe eloquently explained. It seems a bit like a "god of the gaps" thinking to want to presume divine entities wherever there are currently tough questions in science. These god-gaps have conveniently moved parallel to the progress in science.

I understand where you are coming from. You look at reality, and you see potential mechanisms that could explain how the Universe came to be, how life appeared, etc. I can appreciate that.

Still, I am unconvinced. Regarding life, even if you could explain the mechanisms that caused life to appear, you would still have to explain how those mechanisms were put in place to begin with. Sure, you can declare it's all a just big casino game and we got a lucky draw. But I don't feel satisfied by this sort of mentality.

As for the existence of the Universe itself, it's a similar matter. I suppose you can construct a theory after-the-fact to make observable data concordant with your theory, but to me the possibilities of all this arising from chance are, quite literally, astronomical.

But hey, it's just me.

 

[sureshs]

The opportunities are astronomical so nothing is surprising. And that is even assuming life is good to have. I see only suffering and painful deaths and poverty, which is consistent with an unplanned random accident followed by brutal competition to survive. Nothing divine at all.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

The opportunities are astronomical so nothing is surprising. And that is even assuming life is good to have. I see only suffering and painful deaths and poverty, which is consistent with an unplanned random accident followed by brutal competition to survive. Nothing divine at all.

That's because you have a very narrow field of view that prevents you from seeing the big picture.

As for the opportunities of the Universe being created from nothing being astronomical, I don't agree. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[sureshs]

There is no big picture which can be comprehensible to humans. They will just live and die like pathetic creatures.
For other matters, you need to read up the books yourself. The Great Question by Nick Lane is a good starting point. You should also read up a high school AP biology book. Then you are on your way. It will take effort. I embarked on this journey 20 years ago to get rid of my brainwashing.

 

[KineticChain]

Regarding life, even if you could explain the mechanisms that caused life to appear, you would still have to explain how those mechanisms were put in place to begin with. Sure, you can declare it's all a just big casino game and we got a lucky draw. But I don't feel satisfied by this sort of mentality.

As for the existence of the Universe itself, it's a similar matter. I suppose you can construct a theory after-the-fact to make observable data concordant with your theory, but to me the possibilities of all this arising from chance are, quite literally, astronomical.

But hey, it's just me.

"Sure, you can declare it's all a just big casino game and we got a lucky draw. But I don't feel satisfied by this sort of mentality." - How would you feel if we found life outside of Earth? Specifically, the the implications of rarity and chance? Would you be more inclined to see it as an inevitable chemical process or would it still fall within the "too complex to be chance" category. The question isn't loaded, I'm genuinely curious to understand this line of thinking.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

"Sure, you can declare it's all a just big casino game and we got a lucky draw. But I don't feel satisfied by this sort of mentality." - How would you feel if we found life outside of Earth? Specifically, the the implications of rarity and chance? Would you be more inclined to see it as an inevitable chemical process or would it still fall within the "too complex to be chance" category. The question isn't loaded, I'm genuinely curious to understand this line of thinking.

I understand your question. To be honest, I don't know. You could always argue there is no reason for life (even if it was created by God) to be exclusive to Earth, but I suppose some people might feel threatened by such a discovery, as it would mean that we are not God's "only son".

I know that Pope Francis (if I remember correctly) has said that the Vatican is open to the existence of life outside Earth, so go figure.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

There is no big picture which can be comprehensible to humans. They will just live and die like pathetic creatures.
For other matters, you need to read up the books yourself. The Great Question by Nick Lane is a good starting point. You should also read up a high school AP biology book. Then you are on your way. It will take effort. I embarked on this journey 20 years ago to get rid of my brainwashing.

I don't need to learn about biology. Surprisingly enough, I understand (at least at a superficial level) the mechanisms that FSM was talking about, although I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that life will appear spontaneously. I know the mechanisms of Natural Evolution, and I have long accepted that. It really doesn't contradict my conception of the Universe and God.

I never was brainwashed, because I've always have many doubts about things and never took anything at face value, even when I was young (or maybe I'm romanticizing my past LOL).

Now, I don't claim to know anything. I'm mostly content with what I know, and I try to fit everything into a coherent whole.

 

[GBplayer]

Before time began there was nothingness, until a thought occurred. Then an idea came and all was created . When the idea fades , so will everything .

 

[Sirius Black]

Nature favors disorder, randomness, and spontaneity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[Sirius Black]

Why would that be the case, though? All life doesn't need to be supported by the exact same compounds, and should be able to appear in very wide ranges of conditions, as long as the overall idea of chemical reactions favoring lower energetic states remains the same. It would just be different compounds, but the principle would be the same.

I don't know if someone previously stated this, but there would be no life without anabolic, energy consuming reactions as well. If I recall correctly, Gibbs free energy predicts whether or not a reaction occurs spontaneously, factoring into account both the enthalpy and entropy changes of a system.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I don't know if someone previously stated this, but there would be no life without anabolic, energy consuming reactions as well. If I recall correctly, Gibbs free energy predicts whether or not a reaction occurs spontaneously, factoring into account both the enthalpy and entropy changes of a system.

Indeed, Gibbs free energy (or more specifically, delta G) is the appropriate concept here.
I thought the OP was intense enough though for Odds and Ends.

 

[GBplayer]

These are all ideas , in fact thoughts are indeed chemistry .

 

[Sirius Black]

Indeed, Gibbs free energy (or more specifically, delta G) is the appropriate concept here.
I thought the OP was intense enough though for Odds and Ends.

I just recognized that people seemed to dwell upon energy releasing reactions while ignoring the fact that some important biochemical processes involve endergonic reactions.

 

[dlk]

Many posters don't get Odds & Ends (of course this is a tennis site), but you all on this thread are very intelligent. Further supporting my hypothesis that tennis fans/players are the smartest fans/athletes of any sport. And I'm being serious.

 

[Sentinel]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe statement.

Tomorrow, if the (same) scientists "prove" that something could not come out of nothing, and they were in error earlier, these same posters/laypersons will start parroting that, and claim that anyone who thinks something can come out of nothing is naive and a fool.

Maybe there are a few scientists who do understand this "something out of nothing" stuff, and QVF, but the rest of us here seem to just be mouthing these as though we understand, while making fun of someone else who thinks that an intelligent being could have created this.



Personally, I understand neither stands. I am not sure if anyone here does.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe statement.

Tomorrow, if the (same) scientists "prove" that something could not come out of nothing, and they were in error earlier, these same posters/laypersons will start parroting that, and claim that anyone who thinks something can come out of nothing is naive and a fool.

Maybe there are a few scientists who do understand this "something out of nothing" stuff, and QVF, but the rest of us here seem to just be mouthing these as though we understand, while making fun of someone else who thinks that an intelligent being could have created this.



Personally, I understand neither stands. I am not sure if anyone here does.

Firstly, I don't think it's possible to get something from nothing, I think that phrase (which is frequently used) is a misunderstanding of what scientists are actually saying.
All that matter and energy had to come from somewhere before it was compressed into the nucleus of the big bang, but we just don't know where yet.

We have a hypothesis for what happened in the first instant of the universe as we know it (the big bang), and this is supported by the evidence thus far.
The origin of the matter in the big bang is a separate issue, in need of a hypothesis and supporting evidence to go with it.
The scientific position is that we don't know.

This stands in stark contrast to the notion of an intelligent creator, which isn't even a hypothesis (as I explained above) and certainly doesn't have any proper evidence to support it.

As far as I'm concerned there is no double standard here as science is not in fact arguing anything unfalsifiable and unsupported at all.
That's just not what science does.

Saying we don't know is a reasonable position.
I do take issue with the idea that we should give some beliefs (such as creationism) equal footing in these arguments though, as they are clearly being held to a much lower standard of rigour than the scientific theories.

And here a double standard does exist - scientific theories are expected to offer up mountains of proof to these debates, yet the religious side is allowed to continue on zero evidence.

 

[GBplayer]

Theories are just ideas someone had , in science they are normally expressed in a mathematical way . In a few years someone else will have a different idea and express it as a different formula . People express their veiws in different ways , the best they can . Poets do it with words . Mathematics is a language like any other , you should not ridicule a person who does not understand your form of expression or language.Unless it makes you feel superior?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Theories are just ideas someone had , in science they are normally expressed in a mathematical way . In a few years someone else will have a different idea and express it as a different formula . People express their veiws in different ways , the best they can . Poets do it with words . Mathematics is a language like any other , you should not ridicule a person who does not understand your form of expression or language.Unless it makes you feel superior?

A scientific theory is far more than just an idea.
It is comprised of a large body of research and evidence.

You're thinking of a hypothesis, and even that, in its proper form, is definitely more than just an idea.

This is just it - scientific processes are all about rigour, fact-checking, double-fact-checking, and verification.
There is no throwing our hands up and just blurting out any old thing and then calling it a theory.

Science actually has standards of proof and evidence.

 

[KineticChain]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe statement.

Tomorrow, if the (same) scientists "prove" that something could not come out of nothing, and they were in error earlier, these same posters/laypersons will start parroting that, and claim that anyone who thinks something can come out of nothing is naive and a fool.

Maybe there are a few scientists who do understand this "something out of nothing" stuff, and QVF, but the rest of us here seem to just be mouthing these as though we understand, while making fun of someone else who thinks that an intelligent being could have created this.



Personally, I understand neither stands. I am not sure if anyone here does.

I'm in the same boat as this. I tend to stay away from these types of discussions (even though they interest me) because generally nothing good comes of it. Sometimes I can't help myself though, especially when the smugness is coming from the other side. I cringe at smugness coming from my side. Everyone needs to be taken down a peg sometimes.

 

[GBplayer]

A scientific theory is far more than just an idea.
It is comprised of a large body of research and evidence.

You're thinking of a hypothesis, and even that, in its proper form, is definitely more than just an idea.

This is just it - scientific processes are all about rigour, fact-checking, double-fact-checking, and verification.
There is no throwing our hands up and just blurting out any old thing and then calling it a theory.

Science actually has standards of proof and evidence.

Then you articulate yourself in the best way you know in a language you know , mathematics! You then explain how you got to that point ,and all of the rigour you went through to get there and endless experiments . So this proves your theory . If someone wants to prove you wrong they must have an idea , gand then go through the same diligent procedure as you to prove you wrong . They then express themselves mathematically. As it should be. What is the problem .

 

[Mr.Lob]

....I embarked on this journey 20 years ago to get rid of my brainwashing.

Ahh, so you went cherry picking data to prove a preconceived theory? How unscientific. What happened in your life to motivate you to go on your anti religion/God reverse brainwashing crusade?

 

[GBplayer]

A scientific theory is far more than just an idea.
It is comprised of a large body of research and evidence.

You're thinking of a hypothesis, and even that, in its proper form, is definitely more than just an idea.

This is just it - scientific processes are all about rigour, fact-checking, double-fact-checking, and verification.
There is no throwing our hands up and just blurting out any old thing and then calling it a theory.

Science actually has standards of proof and evidence.

You are wrong , they are ideas expressed in the best way we currently know how , with evidence of how we came to our conclusions .

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You are wrong , they are ideas expressed in the best way we currently know how , with evidence of how we came to our conclusions .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
First sentence.

Also http://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory
If you're going to get picky about Wikipedia.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

A scientific theory is far more than just an idea.
It is comprised of a large body of research and evidence.

You're thinking of a hypothesis, and even that, in its proper form, is definitely more than just an idea.

This is just it - scientific processes are all about rigour, fact-checking, double-fact-checking, and verification.
There is no throwing our hands up and just blurting out any old thing and then calling it a theory.

Science actually has standards of proof and evidence.

I think you are misunderstanding the use of "theory" and "hypothesis" in the context of discussing the existence of God. Those terms are used very frequently outside of their strict scientific meaning, and I see no problem with that as long as it is understood what is meant.

I see a problem if there is room for misunderstanding (referring to a "theory" in some scientific field when in reality what is meant is a "hypothesis", or even just an "idea"). But there is no room for confusion when using those terms in the discussion of God. BTW, the word "theory" existed long before the scientific method was even invented. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I am aware that science requires rigor. Fortunately, there are multiple fields of human endeavor where rigor is not required. And, there are scientific fields where what is understood of as "rigor" has nothing to do with the scientific method. If you limited human experience to scientific experimentation you would have to write off about 90% of Philosophical thought, including Mathematics.

I'd like to also point out that the greatest advances of human kind, and the ones that paved the way for modern science, took place before the scientific method was even conceptualized. The concept of scientific method was unknown of in old civilizations, including Ancient Greece. That didn't stop seminal developments in Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematics, in particular, as a discipline created mainly through internal mental processes in abstract ways independent of external observation, could be considered very "unscientific" in very peculiar ways. Yet, it's hard to argue with the fact that without Math there would have been no serious development in any other scientific field

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
First sentence.

Also http://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory
If you're going to get picky about Wikipedia.

You are misunderstanding what "theory" really means. The word "theory" existed before the scientific method. Scientific Theory is not Theory, in the same way that Trolley Car is not Car.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe statement.

Tomorrow, if the (same) scientists "prove" that something could not come out of nothing, and they were in error earlier, these same posters/laypersons will start parroting that, and claim that anyone who thinks something can come out of nothing is naive and a fool.

Maybe there are a few scientists who do understand this "something out of nothing" stuff, and QVF, but the rest of us here seem to just be mouthing these as though we understand, while making fun of someone else who thinks that an intelligent being could have created this.



Personally, I understand neither stands. I am not sure if anyone here does.

I tend to agree.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe s.

I actually had that conversation with my son a couple weeks ago. Personally, my thinking is, what theory is more logical... that God created the Universe OR the universe created itself? Did God always exist, or has the universe always existed? If only one of these can exist without being "created", which makes more sense?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Firstly, I don't think it's possible to get something from nothing, I think that phrase (which is frequently used) is a misunderstanding of what scientists are actually saying.
All that matter and energy had to come from somewhere before it was compressed into the nucleus of the big bang, but we just don't know where yet.

So you are saying that something existed before this Universe?

We have a hypothesis for what happened in the first instant of the universe as we know it (the big bang), and this is supported by the evidence thus far.
The origin of the matter in the big bang is a separate issue, in need of a hypothesis and supporting evidence to go with it.
The scientific position is that we don't know.

What do you mean by "hypothesis"? And by that, I mean, is it falsifiable? Because when I was in college, I was told that we could only account up to a given number of nanoseconds after the Big Bang, but what happened before was a mystery. Maybe knowledge has advanced since then, has it?

The point being is that if you argue that even the Laws of Physics didn't apply beyond that point (x number of nanoseconds), then how can Science provide a falsifiable hypothesis beyond that point? My understanding of falsifiability is that you would need to create an experiment with the same conditions (providing for acceptable scalability, I suppose). But then, how can you measure events where the laws of physics don't apply from the perspective of our reality, where the laws of physics apply?

Hopefully this makes sense.

This stands in stark contrast to the notion of an intelligent creator, which isn't even a hypothesis (as I explained above) and certainly doesn't have any proper evidence to support it.

As far as I'm concerned there is no double standard here as science is not in fact arguing anything unfalsifiable and unsupported at all.
That's just not what science does.

Like I said, I'm not sure there can be a falsifiable hypothesis for what happened at the very instant of the Big Bang. Do you have any references to contradict this?

Saying we don't know is a reasonable position.
I do take issue with the idea that we should give some beliefs (such as creationism) equal footing in these arguments though, as they are clearly being held to a much lower standard of rigour than the scientific theories.

Why is the Multiverse a better explanation than an intelligent Creator? Honest question.

And here a double standard does exist - scientific theories are expected to offer up mountains of proof to these debates, yet the religious side is allowed to continue on zero evidence.

But you are missing the point that the "religious" or "philosophical" side is not claiming to have scientific proof of anything. If the word "hypothesis" or "theory" bothers you so much, maybe you could use the term "conjecture" or "idea".

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of "theory" and "hypothesis" in the context of discussing the existence of God. Those terms are used very frequently outside of their strict scientific meaning, and I see no problem with that as long as it is understood what is meant.

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced they should be.
The central position of science is an unemotional and unbiased search for the truth.
Surely an important part of that is to hold everything to exactly the same standard, no?
It isn't fair to hold things to different standards, and what does it say about a belief if it cannot hold up to the inquiry of science?
Science works off a really simple idea - if we want to see if X is the case, we see if X works or holds true in practice. We then write it down.
What better way of understanding the universe (which we mainly do so that we can put things into practice) could there be for humans?

I see a problem if there is room for misunderstanding (referring to a "theory" in some scientific field when in reality what is meant is a "hypothesis", or even just an "idea"). But there is no room for confusion when using those terms in the discussion of God. BTW, the word "theory" existed long before the scientific method was even invented. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I am aware that science requires rigor. Fortunately, there are multiple fields of human endeavor where rigor is not required. And, there are scientific fields where what is understood of as "rigor" has nothing to do with the scientific method. If you limited human experience to scientific experimentation you would have to write off about 90% of Philosophical thought, including Mathematics.

Mathematics is a human invention, this is acknowledged by all.
It's a completely unbiased and even-handed method of describing things though, because it works without fear or favour.
That's why science (and the mathematics which underpins much of it) is such a powerful way to determine the truth.

I'd like to also point out that the greatest advances of human kind, and the ones that paved the way for modern science, took place before the scientific method was even conceptualized. The concept of scientific method was unknown of in old civilizations, including Ancient Greece. That didn't stop seminal developments in Mathematics and Philosophy. Mathematics, in particular, as a discipline created mainly through internal mental processes in abstract ways independent of external observation, could be considered very "unscientific" in very peculiar ways. Yet, it's hard to argue with the fact that without Math there would have been no serious development in any other scientific field

But how did those advances occur?
That's right, either by complete accident, or by observation and experiment.
ie. people saw what worked in practice, and then repeated it, or they stumbled upon something new.
Combined, those two possibilities comprise 99.9% of scientific progress.
The only difference was that they didn't necessarily write it down or wear a coat and glasses.

No tangible advances of human kind have ever arisen from making assertions about what folks would like to work (such as creationsim) instead of what actually works.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I actually had that conversation with my son a couple weeks ago. Personally, my thinking is, what theory is more logical... that God created the Universe OR the universe created itself? Did God always exist, or has the universe always existed? If only one of these can exist without being "created", which makes more sense?

It would seem to me that existence without creation would require existence outside time, which is not the case of the Universe.

Of course, you can always argue that some kind of supra-Universe has always existed, and that the physical Universe we are in at the moment is just its most recent incarnation, or a mere part of a bigger structure. But then, how does that make more sense than an intelligent, eternal Creator?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So you are saying that something existed before this Universe?

I reckon it has to have.
Conservation of matter and energy, like all of science and reasonable, logical thought, must be applied evenly or the exception proven based on evidence.
The honest scientific answer is that we don't know, but the way I see it something can't come from nothing, so yes.

What do you mean by "hypothesis"? And by that, I mean, is it falsifiable? Because when I was in college, I was told that we could only account up to a given number of nanoseconds after the Big Bang, but what happened before was a mystery. Maybe knowledge has advanced since then, has it?

The point being is that if you argue that even the Laws of Physics didn't apply beyond that point (x number of nanoseconds), then how can Science provide a falsifiable hypothesis beyond that point? My understanding of falsifiability is that you would need to create an experiment with the same conditions (providing for acceptable scalability, I suppose). But then, how can you measure events where the laws of physics don't apply from the perspective of our reality, where the laws of physics apply?

Hopefully this makes sense.

Again the answer here is that we don't know, or actually, maybe it's just that I don't know.
I personally much prefer the idea that the laws of physics remain constant, but here I must cede to the Hawkings of this world who know far more than I could hope to know about this subject.
Sorry I can't give a better answer there.

Like I said, I'm not sure there can be a falsifiable hypothesis for what happened at the very instant of the Big Bang. Do you have any references to contradict this?

A hypothesis is created based on observation and some kind of evidence.
If these can be obtained, I believe that a falsifiable hypothesis could be formed.
I'm not sure they can, though.

Why is the Multiverse a better explanation than an intelligent Creator? Honest question.

The multiverse theory (although I don't think I mentioned it anyway) is backed by a certain amount of evidence and mathematics.
It doesn't require huge changes in our understanding of the laws of physics (also proven by experiment) to be possible, unlike the latter.

But you are missing the point that the "religious" or "philosophical" side is not claiming to have scientific proof of anything. If the word "hypothesis" or "theory" bothers you so much, maybe you could use the term "conjecture" or "idea".

If they don't have any scientific evidence (don't like the word "proof" as it implies absolute certainty), then that's not a good look I'd say.
Surely something which is so strongly purported to be the case by so many should have some kind of "scientific" (that is, empirical and reliable) evidence to its name?
The Bible is littered with things which could be tested and verified, and all which have been have been found to be baseless.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced they should be.
The central position of science is an unemotional and unbiased search for the truth.
Surely an important part of that is to hold everything to exactly the same standard, no?
It isn't fair to hold things to different standards, and what does it say about a belief if it cannot hold up to the inquiry of science?
Science works off a really simple idea - if we want to see if X is the case, we see if X works or holds true in practice. We then write it down.
What better way of understanding the universe (which we mainly do so that we can put things into practice) could there be for humans?

The point is that "theory" and "hypothesis" are words that existed before the scientific method existed. You should be able to discern how those words are being used depending on the context. It's unfair for you to castigate your interlocutor based on your own bias, when in reality they are using perfectly acceptable words to describe a concept or an idea. Now, I don't think I've ever said that God is a "scientific theory". If I had, then I would see a reason for your objection, obviously.

Mathematics is a human invention, this is acknowledged by all.
It's a completely unbiased and even-handed method of describing things though, because it works without fear or favour.
That's why science (and the mathematics which underpins much of it) is such a powerful way to determine the truth.

Fear of what? Does philosophy also work without fear of favour? As far as I understand Math and Philosophy, they are both disciplines that construct systems of thought based chiefly on internal mental processes and abstraction (vs the "dirty" sciences, that merely consist on tinkering with things and taking a look to see what happens).

But how did those advances occur?
That's right, either by complete accident, or by observation and experiment.
ie. people saw what worked in practice, and then repeated it, or they stumbled upon something new.
Combined, those two possibilities comprise 99.9% of scientific progress.
The only difference was that they didn't necessarily write it down or wear a coat and glasses.

No tangible advances of human kind have ever arisen from making assertions about what folks would like to work (such as creationsim) instead of what actually works.

The point I was making was that without Math (which is for the most part a field that deals with mental constructs and internal conceptualizations), the "dirty" sciences would probably not even exist. Sure, the "scientific method" is useful, but I think way too many people forget that Math has very little to do with the "scientific method". I suppose that's why I've heard of Mathematics referred to as a "pure science".

To make my position more clear through an illustration, let's say that civilizations in the distant past had discovered the "scientific method", and subsequently outlawed any sort of thinking outside of it. How much progress in Mathematics and Philosophy do you think would have been made? Not much, probably. Not to mention Literary achievements, or achievements in any of the arts Thus, my point that the "scientific method" is glorified beyond its actual utility, while "pure science" like Math and Philosophy that requires in essence purely internal mental processes without actual experimentation has suffered a relative loss of "status" vs the "scientific method" disciplines like Physics, Chemistry, etc.

Yet, "dirty" sciences owe everything to Mathematics and Philosophy. In particular, Chemistry (for example) would still be reduced to a discipline closer to Alchemy without the abstract infrastructure afforded to it by Mathematics.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It would seem to me that existence without creation would require existence outside time, which is not the case of the Universe.

Of course, you can always argue that some kind of supra-Universe has always existed, and that the physical Universe we are in at the moment is just its most recent incarnation, or a mere part of a bigger structure. But then, how does that make more sense than an intelligent, eternal Creator?

It could be hypothesized that sureshs is in fact a form of physical universe within which our supra-universe would be able to fit (a "poobahverse", if you will).
Judging by his backhand, it should have adequate energy so as not to collapse in on itself spontaneously.
This could answer the question of mass conservation.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

The point is that "theory" and "hypothesis" are words that existed before the scientific method existed. You should be able to discern how those words are being used depending on the context. It's unfair for you to castigate your interlocutor based on your own bias, when in reality they are using perfectly acceptable words to describe a concept or an idea. Now, I don't think I've ever said that God is a "scientific theory". If I had, then I would see a reason for your objection, obviously.

That's fair enough, and I know they aren't exclusively used in the scientific sense.
But I think that for us to have a meaningful discussion, it needs to be framed scientifically, or at least logically.
I do not believe that science, when properly conducted, is biased at all.
That may be wishful thinking, as humans are fallible, and I recognize that also.

Essentially, the reason for why I pulled up the other poster over their use of the word was a force of habit.
I see it misused so often (I do some tutoring work at my uni) that it annoys me when people trivialize what a "theory" means in science.
Some folks would do well to remember that gravity is a "theory" as well.

Fear of what? Does philosophy also work without fear of favour? As far as I understand Math and Philosophy, they are both disciplines that construct systems of thought based chiefly on internal mental processes and abstraction (vs the "dirty" sciences, that merely consist on tinkering with things and taking a look to see what happens).

Some kinds of philosophy do, I think.
Philosophy is very broad church though, and science itself is a philosophy.
So is maths I reckon.
As far as I'm concerned, the natural sciences, combined with Mathematics as they are, are one of the only practically useful and reliable ways to know about the universe and everything in it.
Feel free to disagree there, that's just my opinion.

The point I was making was that without Math (which is for the most part a field that deals with mental constructs and internal conceptualizations), the "dirty" sciences would probably not even exist. Sure, the "scientific method" is useful, but I think way too many people forget that Math has very little to do with the "scientific method". I suppose that's why I've heard of Mathematics referred to as a "pure science".

To make my position more clear through an illustration, let's say that civilizations in the distant past had discovered the "scientific method", and subsequently outlawed any sort of thinking outside of it. How much progress in Mathematics and Philosophy do you think would have been made? Not much, probably. Not to mention Literary achievements, or achievements in any of the arts Thus, my point that the "scientific method" is glorified beyond its actual utility, while "pure science" like Math and Philosophy that requires in essence purely internal mental processes without actual experimentation has suffered a relative loss of "status" vs the "scientific method" disciplines like Physics, Chemistry, etc.

Yet, "dirty" sciences owe everything to Mathematics and Philosophy. In particular, Chemistry (for example) would still be reduced to a discipline closer to Alchemy without the abstract infrastructure afforded to it by Mathematics.

Those other ways of knowing you mention, such as arts and philosophy, are extremely useful to humans in gaining a more meaningful, satisfying, and well-rounded understanding of the world around us, that I definitely agree with.
When it comes to the serious business though, such as determining the origin of life and the universe, science - with its rigour and unbiased, verification-based nature - doesn't really have a substitute IMO.

Besides, in none of this am I suggesting that science is perfect.
I am simply trying to say that the findings made and hypotheses supported by science are, due to the nature of science, far more believable than a supernatural alternative.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

That's fair enough, and I know they aren't exclusively used in the scientific sense.
But I think that for us to have a meaningful discussion, it needs to be framed scientifically, or at least logically.
I do not believe that science, when properly conducted, is biased at all.
That may be wishful thinking, as humans are fallible, and I recognize that also.

Essentially, the reason for why I pulled up the other poster over their use of the word was a force of habit.
I see it misused so often (I do some tutoring work at my uni) that it annoys me when people trivialize what a "theory" means in science.
Some folks would do well to remember that gravity is a "theory" as well.


Some kinds of philosophy do, I think.
Philosophy is very broad church though, and science itself is a philosophy.
So is maths I reckon.
As far as I'm concerned, the natural sciences, combined with Mathematics as they are, are one of the only practically useful and reliable ways to know about the universe and everything in it.
Feel free to disagree there, that's just my opinion.


Those other ways of knowing you mention, such as arts and philosophy, are extremely useful to humans in gaining a more meaningful, satisfying, and well-rounded understanding of the world around us, that I definitely agree with.
When it comes to the serious business though, such as determining the origin of life and the universe, science - with its rigour and unbiased, verification-based nature - doesn't really have a substitute IMO.

Besides, in none of this am I suggesting that science is perfect.
I am simply trying to say that the findings made and hypotheses supported by science are, due to the nature of science, far more believable than a supernatural alternative.

You sound like a pretty intelligent guy. Also, you sound like you are young (correct me if I'm wrong), and maybe suffer from the overconfident optimism of someone who has come to find a new formidable tool and is yet to get a handle on its full implications and limitations. I say this without animosity, BTW. I think most of us have felt that way in our youth.

I think Science is very powerful, but it is also extremely limited. I'm talking in particular about scientific disciplines constrained by the "scientific method". I don't consider Mathematics, Metaphysics, and Philosophy in general to be a part of those disciplines. I think the human mind in its own is capable of creating constructs that stand apart from the mere acquisition of knowledge and verification of theories attained by the "scientific method". Then again, abstract ideas have always attracted me quite a bit, which is why I find Mathematics a more appealing subject than, say, Physics. Not that there is anything wrong with Physics, mind you. It's just that to me all that kind of feels like a "hack" of sorts.

Not sure if I'm making myself understood, but I tried anyway.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You sound like a pretty intelligent guy. Also, you sound like you are young (correct me if I'm wrong), and maybe suffer from the overconfident optimism of someone who has come to find a new formidable tool and is yet to get a handle on its full implications and limitations. I say this without animosity, BTW. I think most of us have felt that way in our youth.

I think Science is very powerful, but it is also extremely limited. I'm talking in particular about scientific disciplines constrained by the "scientific method". I don't consider Mathematics, Metaphysics, and Philosophy in general to be a part of those disciplines. I think the human mind in its own is capable of creating constructs that stand apart from the mere acquisition of knowledge and verification of theories attained by the "scientific method". Then again, abstract ideas have always attracted me quite a bit, which is why I find Mathematics a more appealing subject than, say, Physics. Not that there is anything wrong with Physics, mind you. It's just that to me all that kind of feels like a "hack" of sorts.

Not sure if I'm making myself understood, but I tried anyway.

I'm definitely young, and, based on the comments of my peers and superiors, probably intelligent.
And probably overconfident too.

It's nice to see someone else with an interest in knowledge and such on these forums, there are several folks in Odds and Ends who I'd very much like to meet and talk to in real life.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sirius Black]

You are misunderstanding what "theory" really means. The word "theory" existed before the scientific method. Scientific Theory is not Theory, in the same way that Trolley Car is not Car.

The difference is that people here are undermining scientific theories by saying that they're just conjectures/hunches/ideas when in fact they are derived from facts, laws, and confirmed hypotheses.

 

[GBplayer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
First sentence.

Also http://www.britannica.com/scienc
[es/ideas when in fact they are derived from facts, laws, and confirmed hypotheses.

e/scientific-theory
If you're going to get picky about Wikipedia.[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I am saying, but you cannot be picky and take one sentance from an explanation, niether rigorous or thorough

 

[Sysyphus]

Even though I have always been an atheist, and never been religious, I would like to say that I see a lot of double standards in discussions like this here and elsewhere.

When some believer says that God created the universe, we smugly ask him who created God and think we have won since he has no answer. We do not accept any answer such as "God always existed", or no one created God etc.

OTOH, we hear some scientist saying that the universe came out of nothing, and we parrot it without understanding. If anyone asks "How could something come out of nothing" we behave like he is a fool, and give answers like "quantum fluctuations" or whatever.
We say that space and time were created in/by the Big Bang, so you cannot ask what is before the Big Bang. So we have cut off anyone from questioning us, but still pose the same question to the God created Universe statement.

Tomorrow, if the (same) scientists "prove" that something could not come out of nothing, and they were in error earlier, these same posters/laypersons will start parroting that, and claim that anyone who thinks something can come out of nothing is naive and a fool.

Maybe there are a few scientists who do understand this "something out of nothing" stuff, and QVF, but the rest of us here seem to just be mouthing these as though we understand, while making fun of someone else who thinks that an intelligent being could have created this.



Personally, I understand neither stands. I am not sure if anyone here does.

Well, obviously we can't personally understand every theory in science, and no, I don't have expert knowledge of quantum physics.

That said, we accept some things by virtue of social fact, and that's the way it has to be. I haven't written out and double-checked every one of Newtons formulas, but there is pretty good reason to trust it nonetheless—it works, and it has given pretty palpable results. No one built a successful aeroplane on the basis of metaphysical speculation.

Now, as for the double standards between how atheists respond to theories coming from the scientists and from religious/metaphysical theories, sure, there is some double standards, and many of us are automatically more willing to believe when something is proposed by the scientific community.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is a fundamental difference between the scientific theories as compared to the metaphysical ones: they make testable predictions. Even though I can't and won't carry out the calculations and testing myself, scientific theories can in principle be tested as to how much they do in fact confirm to reality. So however much there is an element of authority in science too, the theories can be tested and actually proven wrong, in principle by anyone, and this is a hugely important difference.

 

[GBplayer]

The difference is that people here are undermining scientific theories by saying that they're just conjectures/hunches/ideas when in fact they are derived from facts, laws, and confirmed hypotheses.

No one is undermining anything, scientific theory is someones idea of how things work explained in the best way they know how at this moment in time with evidence of how their conclusions came about . You are brave to say they are set in stone ,or will you claim you knew all along when a theory or law is shown to be flawed ?