Cosmic Indifference: What do you do after you realise the Universe doesn't care?

[metis]

There seems to be an inherent bias in atheism which has proved a constant barrier to scientific progress. It always seeks the simplest quickest answer that might 'make God redundant'

Static, eternal, steady state, Big Crunch, all proposed to do so by removing the creation event: 'no creation = no creator'
The Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was mocked and rejected as 'big bang' precisely for this reason.

Similarly classical physics was held to be a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, leaving no room for mysterious unpredictable forces guiding the universe.
Again, no coincidence that Max Planck (quantum mechanics) was a staunch skeptic of atheism.

Darwinism likewise proposed a system where countless lucky accidents could replace the need for design- as long as the transitions were slow and smooth enough.
Only recently are evolutionists beginning to accept that the gaps are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record, replacing Darwinism with 'punctuated equilibrium'

It's interesting that all the theistic implications that atheists complained of in certain scientific predictions, all mysteriously vanished once those predictions were validated.

There are actually quite a few errors with the above.

1.Most cosmologists and physicists came from families with religious affiliations of some type, according to researcher and author Leonard Susskind.

2.Most cosmologists tend to feel that our universe did have a cause & effect origin prior to the BB.

3.Darwin was actually a lay-minister in the Anglican church, although it his later years he began to question his own theistic beliefs, possibly because he was so heavily demonized by so many.

4.We have always admitted that there are gaps in the fossil record, especially because its logically impossible to fill every gap no mater how small it may be. For every one fossil that's found, two smaller gaps are left.

5.God cannot be assumed in science when dealing with the creation of anything unless there's objective evidence that God exists. Or is it "Gods"?

BTW, GT never responds to my posts, which begs whether he has me on "ignore", so I give permission to anyone here to repost this.

 

[RedDragon94]

why is the universe so peaceful when mankind is so violent? Is that a consequence of our egotism or do natures conflicts simply work on different timescales?

I think ego is the cause of much if not all conflict. We try so hard to be in control of things we cannot control and we end up hurting others. Btw, I find your OP to be incredibly insightful.

Maybe in thousands of years we will have spread out across other planets or stars, and found the secret to faster than light speed travel.

It would be exciting to see that take place.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

rit

There seems to be an inherent bias in atheism which has proved a constant barrier to scientific progress. It always seeks the simplest quickest answer that might 'make God redundant'
Static, eternal, steady state, Big Crunch, all proposed to do so by removing the creation event: 'no creation = no creator'
The Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was mocked and rejected as 'big bang' precisely for this reason.

Similarly classical physics was held to be a complete 'immutable' explanation for all physical reality, leaving no room for mysterious unpredictable forces guiding the universe.
Again, no coincidence that Max Planck (quantum mechanics) was a staunch skeptic of atheism.

Darwinism likewise proposed a system where countless lucky accidents could replace the need for design- as long as the transitions were slow and smooth enough.
Only recently are evolutionists beginning to accept that the gaps are real, not artifacts of an incomplete record, replacing Darwinism with 'punctuated equilibrium'

It's interesting that all the theistic implications that atheists complained of in certain scientific predictions, all mysteriously vanished once those predictions were validated.

I am so happy to see people of like minds in this forum! I totally agree with your reply. As you pointed out the idea of gradualism ushering in new species is now being replaced by PE. In other words an important part of evolutionary theory is/was simply wrong. The 'scientific establishment' cant bear to admit ID (creation) may be an viable alternative explanation for rapid appearance of new species so they chose PE. It seems like 'Evolution' (as in the original 'Origin of the species by the means of natural selection) is being changed so much by mentioned changes and additions it is almost a new theory!
In any case, to change subject a bit, can I add another causality of good theory to your list? I believe the standard big bang theory is on its way to a fate similar to evolution. As soon as the BB's theistic implications became brutally apparent and those implications began to be used to explain how creation is a rational and equal explanation as to how the universe began, the atheist theorists began casting doubt on the parts of big bang theory that most supported ID (intelligent design). In the 'modern age' William Craig, and many other Christian PhD and other apologists with specialties ranging from cosmology to philosophy to biology were using those parts of the big bang to win debates with atheist apologist scientists and others in defending theistic explanations for the origins of the universe and other subjects. I believe their success was a catalyst and motivator to encourage atheist scientists and 'atheist friendly' skeptics to cast doubt on the validity of the standard (hot model) Big Bang theory. If not the entire theory at least parts of it. A very good article about such God is dead skullduggery is here;

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html

God be with you and this forum ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

There are actually quite a few errors with the above.

1.Most cosmologists and physicists came from families with religious affiliations of some type, according to researcher and author Leonard Susskind.

With all due respect, Karl Marx came from religious family, what does that have to do with member Guy Threepwoods post?

2.Most cosmologists tend to feel that our universe did have a cause & effect origin prior to the BB.

Hmmm' I must disagree! But man have I been wrong before! So before continuing can you list those cosmologists. In any case I was speaking of the mainstream guys like Hawking and others with admitted atheistic leanings. Also I doubt if any astronomers etc would publically admit they were offering alternative theories solely or mostly because of their distain for God. WAIT update, Dawking is an exception to the latter, lol!

3.Darwin was actually a lay-minister in the Anglican church, although it his later years he began to question his own theistic beliefs, possibly because he was so heavily demonized by so many.

Yes Darwin's religious convictions are well known and God bless him I say! But its those that came after Darwin that seek to cast doubt or even to ridicule anything God friendly.

4.We have always admitted that there are gaps in the fossil record, especially because its logically impossible to fill every gap no mater how small it may be. For every one fossil that's found, two smaller gaps are left.

That wasn't the point. I think member threepwoods claim was the scientific establishment said that the lack of transitory fossils for example would be solved in time and they would be found. Well, they were not found so for that and other reasons the theory was changed or is being changed to add PE.

5.God cannot be assumed in science when dealing with the creation of anything unless there's objective evidence that God exists. Or is it "Gods"?
BTW, GT never responds to my posts, which begs whether he has me on "ignore", so I give permission to anyone here to repost this.

That is a HUGE multi mb can of worms! There is evidence for a creator. My take on it partly centers on the KCA and other evidences. Instead of typing a couple of pages in an attempt to explain my views you can go to the web site below which will describe what version of the KCA I subscribe to and why I believe a creator is both necessary and logically valid. You will need to use the sites superb search engine for query's. My ideas of how the universe came into existence is not exactly the same as Craig's, but the KCA is a anchor for my belief's. If you are not familiar with the KCA and want an sans Craig take on it simply google bing etc The Kalam Cosmological argument .

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam



God bless this forum ...... Peace to the world ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Laika said: ↑
why is the universe so peaceful when mankind is so violent? Is that a consequence of our egotism or do natures conflicts simply work on different timescales?

I think ego is the cause of much if not all conflict. We try so hard to be in control of things we cannot control and we end up hurting others. Btw, I find your OP to be incredibly insightful.

The universe may look peaceful, especially at night, with the beautiful stars that we can see from earth. However the universe is very hostile to life, with unimaginable energies being released constantly. Only our planet with its protective fields of magnetic bands and the atmosphere shields life from the products of the universes violence ie cosmic rays comets and asteroids etc. So we are lucky little bipeds, eh?

 

[metis]

With all due respect, Karl Marx came from religious family, what does that have to do with member Guy Threepwoods post?



Hmmm' I must disagree! But man have I been wrong before! So before continuing can you list those cosmologists. In any case I was speaking of the mainstream guys like Hawking and others with admitted atheistic leanings. Also I doubt if any astronomers etc would publically admit they were offering alternative theories solely or mostly because of their distain for God. WAIT update, Dawking is an exception to the latter, lol!



Yes Darwin's religious convictions are well known and God bless him I say! But its those that came after Darwin that seek to cast doubt or even to ridicule anything God friendly.


That wasn't the point. I think member threepwoods claim was the scientific establishment said that the lack of transitory fossils for example would be solved in time and they would be found. Well, they were not found so for that and other reasons the theory was changed or is being changed to add PE.



That is a HUGE multi mb can of worms! There is evidence for a creator. My take on it partly centers on the KCA and other evidences. Instead of typing a couple of pages in an attempt to explain my views you can go to the web site below which will describe what version of the KCA I subscribe to and why I believe a creator is both necessary and logically valid. You will need to use the sites superb search engine for query's. My ideas of how the universe came into existence is not exactly the same as Craig's, but the KCA is a anchor for my belief's. If you are not familiar with the KCA and want an sans Craig take on it simply google bing etc The Kalam Cosmological argument .

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam



God bless this forum ...... Peace to the world ~

I have no desire to get into this with you. Let me just say that I came from a fundamentalist Protestant family, was very active in church, and was planning on becoming a minister when in my late teens. But that all got derailed over the nonsense I was being taught about "evilution" at my church, as some referred to it.

In my undergrad studies I started out in biology, later moved to anthropology, did my graduate work in that, taught it for 30 years, and have been retired for 13 years now. Needless to say, I left my church in my mid-20's, and I sought and eventually found another religious branch that did not distort the science. I have read numerous books on cosmology from the researchers themselves, and there are problems with what you have written above in that area, and also problems with the misrepresentation of the fossil record and what we know versus what we don't know.

I don't like sounding so condescending, but I've been through this all too many times, and I've pretty much given up on even trying to change most people's minds, although this is not a reference to you since I really don't know you.

Thanks for responding anyway.

 

[metis]

So before continuing can you list those cosmologists.

Sorry to not answer your question, so let me do that first by saying that I can do better than just giving you a list: read "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. In that book, takes the reader through various BB hypotheses, including the names of those who have come up with them. Many you would undoubtedly recognize. The book is a very technical read, however, and all too many times I found myself scratching my head trying to figure out what I just read. If yu are interested in some other cosmologists that I have read, I can supply that list with only some difficulty since I'm not at my home where my personal library is. However, I'm sure I can remember most of them at least.

There is evidence for a creator.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately you're not as there simply is no objectively-derived evidence for a God or Gods. If there was, it would be shouted from the rooftops over and over and over again with proof per se. But this is not to say that there ain't.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

t

I have no desire to get into this with you. Let me just say that I came from a fundamentalist Protestant family, was very active in church, and was planning on becoming a minister when in my late teens. But that all got derailed over the nonsense I was being taught about "evilution" at my church, as some referred to it.

Uh huh.... 'get into this' sounds so confrontational, lo., I know the feeling my friend! My upbringing was not as steeped in religion as yours, but both my mother and father believed in God, mom more than dad did the walk as well as the talk. We kids looked forward to church and Sunday school not so much to learn about God, but rather because the church served grape Kool-Aid and peanut butter sandwiches after he services! My family were among the poorest even by southern Appalachia standards. Anyway as the years passed for some reason I wasn't influenced by the well meaning southern fire and brimstone preachers despite them plying us with gallons of sugary Kool-Aid and other goodies. I suppose it was my father that convinced me to trust science as well as God. Just some background info...

In my undergrad studies I started out in biology, later moved to anthropology, did my graduate work in that, taught it for 30 years, and have been retired for 13 years now. Needless to say, I left my church in my mid-20's, and I sought and eventually found another religious branch that did not distort the science. I have read numerous books on cosmology from the researchers themselves, and there are problems with what you have written above in that area, and also problems with the misrepresentation of the fossil record and what we know versus what we don't know.

I may have made a few errors, but I will not admit to factual errors of a scientific nature because upon review I saw none. I would be happy to explain or admit mistakes if you point them out, everyone who says they don't make mistakes, make mistakes, lol.

I don't like sounding so condescending, but I've been through this all too many times, and I've pretty much given up on even trying to change most people's minds, although this is not a reference to you since I really don't know you.

You sound depressed. Do you equate no being able to change minds as a failure in your teaching ability or is it the 'quality' of the 'student' or a little of both? If it makes you feel better I have reached a similar conclusion. I think a big part of the program is attempting to debate complex issues in a limited venue like a message forum. It amazes me how much we do get accomplished, and I appreciate my fellow members for sharing their time and knowledge.

Thanks for responding anyway.

Likewise metis!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

f

Sorry to not answer your question, so let me do that first by saying that I can do better than just giving you a list: read "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. In that book, takes the reader through various BB hypotheses, including the names of those who have come up with them. Many you would undoubtedly recognize. The book is a very technical read, however, and all too many times I found myself scratching my head trying to figure out what I just read. If yu are interested in some other cosmologists that I have read, I can supply that list with only some difficulty since I'm not at my home where my personal library is. However, I'm sure I can remember most of them at least.

I will take a look at the material...,

I wish you were right, but unfortunately you're not as there simply is no objectively-derived evidence for a God or Gods. If there was, it would be shouted from the rooftops over and over and over again with proof per se. But this is not to say that there ain't.

If by 'objectively-derived evidence' you mean 'empirical evidence', you may be partly correct. Most if not all atheists I have debated refuse to accept circumstantial evidence, even though they sometimes employ it themselves. I agree there is very limited empirical evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer (God). I am sure you are familiar with the KCA, which is an cosmological argument for the existence of God. The argument uses observation and causality as well as a logical syllogism (as all CA do) to build its case. But again I too have been through this usually unproductive and fully exhausting process of debate many, many times! I will add it's far worse if our debate partner is limited in education, or general knowledge of the subject being debated. So we are in agreement there as well. I do not mean to sound conceited, but its just the facts....

I hope you have found 'enlightenment' or your version of happiness ~

 

[metis]

t
You sound depressed.

Not really, but I do tend to be very defensive towards science since it's been a major driving force in my life for well over 50 years.

Gotta go.

 

[metis]

I think member threepwoods claim was the scientific establishment said that the lack of transitory fossils for example would be solved in time and they would be found. Well, they were not found so for that and other reasons the theory was changed or is being changed to add PE.

I'm going to keep this very brief.

All life forms are "transitional forms", and that includes you and I, as evolution never stops within a species unless that species goes extinct. As the years go on, quantum leaps of various sizes in so many species are reduced in size because of new fossil finds. We know so much more about the evolution of a great many species than we did decades ago, and that includes human evolution, and what has helped immensely is the genome testing that is going on while we post.

If by 'objectively-derived evidence' you mean 'empirical evidence', you may be partly correct. Most if not all atheists I have debated refuse to accept circumstantial evidence, even though they sometimes employ it themselves. I agree there is very limited empirical evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer (God).

Circumstantial evidence in this case really only works if there are no other viable options to narrow doen the possibilities. But in the area of cosmology and quantum physics, there are other options, including the concept of "infinity", which often is successfully used in mathematical formulas, btw. According to one of the cosmologist that I have read (I can't remember which one at this time-- an age thingy, it appears), he says that most cosmologists drift in this direction.

BTW, infinity is only slightly older than I am.

Take care.

 

[Nietzsche]

There seems to be an inherent bias in atheism which has proved a constant barrier to scientific progress. It always seeks the simplest quickest answer that might 'make God redundant'

Occam's Razor serves us well, I'm not sure why you have a problem with it.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'm going to keep this very brief.

All life forms are "transitional forms", and that includes you and I, as evolution never stops within a species unless that species goes extinct. As the years go on, quantum leaps of various sizes in so many species are reduced in size because of new fossil finds. We know so much more about the evolution of a great many species than we did decades ago, and that includes human evolution, and what has helped immensely is the genome testing that is going on while we post.

Well, as you said, you are weary of debating this having done it time and time again, and you know how I would counter your reply (above) and I know how you would respond to my counter etc etc, wrist taped to forehead, etc....(lol,). I am not opposed to 90+% of evolutionary theory. If by genome testing you are speaking of mitochondrial eve and related studies yes they are very interesting and support religion neutral human evolutionary theory. However they too have theistic or pro intelligent design implications, so maybe you just need new material and new arguments to make things interesting again? I must admit I too am tired of fussing and am more eager to debate foes less and less and embrace like minded souls in discussion.

Circumstantial evidence in this case really only works if there are no other viable options to narrow doen the possibilities. But in the area of cosmology and quantum physics, there are other options, including the concept of "infinity", which often is successfully used in mathematical formulas, btw. According to one of the cosmologist that I have read (I can't remember which one at this time-- an age thingy, it appears), he says that most cosmologists drift in this direction.

I have to disagree again but only in part. I am referencing question of what caused the big bang to bang. There are very precious few viable and rational explanations for that question. As I mentioned earlier Hawking and others are attempting to remove the question claiming that the many worlds theory says that we happen to be in one of an infinite number of universes where life exist and every thing can and will happen sooner or later so to speak. However if a logician any theoretical scientist has to grasp on to a theory like that ie the MWT that has no empirical evidence, and can not be tested, and relies on "imaginary numbers" and infinities, well my friend IMO something like that takes more faith than the most fantastical religion! But if it brings said cosmologists comfort and allows them to feel their world is still valid and secure, well God bless them....~

BTW, infinity is only slightly older than I am.
Take care.

Funny, I have the same feeling! That feeling might caused by 'sumpiun' as in what one of my mentors, (Mr Natural) was referencing when he would say 'don't look back 'sumpin' might be gaining on'..... us.....!

Peace on this old planet and God bless our forum~

 

[metis]

Well, as you said, you are weary of debating this having done it time and time again, and you know how I would counter your reply (above) and I know how you would respond to my counter etc etc, wrist taped to forehead, etc....(lol,). I am not opposed to 90+% of evolutionary theory. If by genome testing you are speaking of mitochondrial eve and related studies yes they are very interesting and support religion neutral human evolutionary theory. However they too have theistic or pro intelligent design implications, so maybe you just need new material and new arguments to make things interesting again? I must admit I too am tired of fussing and am more eager to debate foes less and less and embrace like minded souls in discussion.




I have to disagree again but only in part. I am referencing question of what caused the big bang to bang. There are very precious few viable and rational explanations for that question. As I mentioned earlier Hawking and others are attempting to remove the question claiming that the many worlds theory says that we happen to be in one of an infinite number of universes where life exist and every thing can and will happen sooner or later so to speak. However if a logician any theoretical scientist has to grasp on to a theory like that ie the MWT that has no empirical evidence, and can not be tested, and relies on "imaginary numbers" and infinities, well my friend IMO something like that takes more faith than the most fantastical religion! But if it brings said cosmologists comfort and allows them to feel their world is still valid and secure, well God bless them....~



Funny, I have the same feeling! That feeling might caused by 'sumpiun' as in what one of my mentors, (Mr Natural) was referencing when he would say 'don't look back 'sumpin' might be gaining on'..... us.....!

Peace on this old planet and God bless our forum~

Thanks for responding, and take care.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With all due respect, Karl Marx came from religious family, what does that have to do with member Guy Threepwoods post?

With all due respect ...

Prior to his son's birth, and to escape the constraints of anti-semitic legislation, Herschel converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, the main Protestant denomination in Germany and Prussia at the time, taking on the German forename of Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel.

Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. Aclassical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, then governed by an absolute monarchy​

- source​

I need to leave soon, so for now I'll simply assume that the rest of your post is as well informed.

 

[Nietzsche]

With all due respect ...

Prior to his son's birth, and to escape the constraints of anti-semitic legislation, Herschel converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, the main Protestant denomination in Germany and Prussia at the time, taking on the German forename of Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel.

Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. Aclassical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, then governed by an absolute monarchy​

- source​

I need to leave soon, so for now I'll simply assume that the rest of your post is as well informed.

sssshhhh. Actual history isn't important when you have a religiously motivated point to make.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

sssshhhh. Actual history isn't important when you have a religiously motivated point to make.

Sorry. I keep forgetting that.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Thanks for responding, and take care.

You are welcome metis, and the same to you and yours ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

With all due respect ...

Prior to his son's birth, and to escape the constraints of anti-semitic legislation, Herschel converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, the main Protestant denomination in Germany and Prussia at the time, taking on the German forename of Heinrich over the Yiddish Herschel.

Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. Aclassical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, then governed by an absolute monarchy​

- source

Still, the google searches and resultant information has low or no relevance to threeps comments/conclusions' , or maybe I misunderstood threeps reply.
Your history lesson does illustrate the obvious, that personality is heavily influenced by environmental stimuli. As for the history lesson thanks, but been there done that. I came into this discussion too late it seems.

I need to leave soon, so for now I'll simply assume that the rest of your post is as well informed.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sarcasm...

God bless you, and that isn't sarcasm, lol ~

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Got to love those one line bits of sarcastic antiwisdom~

Yep its a word~