Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[KWED]

Even then I'd be a dubious about leaping to the conclusion it was derived from a deity, not being able to explain something does not justify leaping to any conclusion we want. It is usually based on a false dichotomy fallacy. It's not a choice between an unevidenced deity or a natural explanation, so that if we don't have a natural explanation, then theists get to misrepresent this as "there is no natural explanation" and leap to the only conclusion they wanted in the first place.

We know natural phenomena exist for an objective fact, we have no such objective evidence for any deity, only personal testimonies, and then a bare appeal to the numbers of those. Both of which seem not to have noticed that different deities are validated by theists using the same claim. That's because we can validate literally anything using this claim.

Indeed. The explanation could be coincidence, or just a sparking of someone's imagination (Barnes Wallis' kids skipping stones -> bouncing bomb), but at least there would be some linear connection. At present there is absolutely nothing.

 

[KWED]

If you think any of those statements is incorrect, please provide what in your view is the correct statement and your basis for proposing it.

Good luck with that!

 

[KWED]

1. Most people hallucinate 2. I am a person 3. I am most likely to have hallucinate 4. I have hallucinated.

I experienced a hallucination/astral projection when I was 13 years old. It happened immediately after I had a fainting spell from hyperventilating and holding my breath in such a way that I forced myself to pass out. When I woke up from this fainting spell, I was floating outside and above my body. While I was floating outside and above my body, everything in the room started spinning around me and then became brightly illuminated with a blinding white light which blinded me until I descended back into my body.

In college, I hallucinated by means I'm not at liberty to discuss here on RF.

So we are agreed that an hallucination caused by natural processes in the brain is an entirely reasonable explanation for your "out of body experience".
Presumably you also agree that without any supporting evidence for the consciousness to exist independently of the physical brain, such an event is not a reasonable explanation.

 

[Suave]

So we are agreed that an hallucination caused by natural processes in the brain is an entirely reasonable explanation for your "out of body experience".
Presumably you also agree that without any supporting evidence for the consciousness to exist independently of the physical brain, such an event is not a reasonable explanation.

I concur.

 

[KWED]

No need to shout (that’s what bold text is).

No. CAPS IS SHOUTING! Bold is just added emphasis.

Hawking may have been an atheist, or he may have shifted his opinions throughout his life, as open minded people do. Most likely he veered between agnosticism, atheism and deism before deciding that the universe did not require a creator so probably didn’t have one.

With all due respect, you may require a ladder to get out of that hole.

To repeat myself for the last time; Hawking, like Einstein and Niels Bohr in their lifetime of discourse, referred frequently to God. What each of them meant by the word is open to debate, but the point is they used it, to illustrate scientific and philosophical concepts.

I frequently refer to god. An unapologetic quote-miner could even find passages that appear to show me accepting the existence of god.
So I guess you will now insist that I, like Hawking, am not an avowed atheist and similarly dismissive of philosophy.

I don’t claim to be the intellectual equal of any of these great minds btw. One doesn’t have to be, to have an interest in what they discovered, and in the significance of their ideas.

So, Hawking was a great mind whose ideas are significant - except when he dismisses god and philosophy. Then he is ignorant and prejudiced.
Seems reasonable.

 

[Suave]

No need to shout (that’s what bold text is).

Hawking may have been an atheist, or he may have shifted his opinions throughout his life, as open minded people do. Most likely he veered between agnosticism, atheism and deism before deciding that the universe did not require a creator so probably didn’t have one.

He didn’t just publish esoteric academic papers, he wrote essays and a best selling book aimed at the layperson. You could perhaps read some of those yourself, before making assumptions about how hypothetical conversations involving him might go.

To repeat myself for the last time; Hawking, like Einstein and Niels Bohr in their lifetime of discourse, referred frequently to God. What each of them meant by the word is open to debate, but the point is they used it, to illustrate scientific and philosophical concepts.

I don’t claim to be the intellectual equal of any of these great minds btw. One doesn’t have to be, to have an interest in what they discovered, and in the significance of their ideas.

And most expert translations say "rolled like a scroll".

I would make a subjective interpretation of heaven rolled up like a scroll as describing curved space around like that might be found around a wormhole. I suppose such an interpretation would not have been held by an ancient Nomadic tribesman like Muhammad.

 

[Clara Tea]

No. People back their scientific theories scientific evidence, not science.

Not like those who make claims about Brahman existing, and is energy, but there is no scientific evidence to it, but eternally ask for scientific evidence from others for everything.

Try some logic and a standard. Try to be consistent and not be in contradiction. Maybe it makes you feel good to think in your mind that by asking for scientific evidence for a metaphysical discourse you have done a great job. But anyone who is trained won't do that. It is not even abiding by scientific axioms. Repeating what other atheists say on the internet with out analyzing if its valid is absolutely invalid.

Theists skew results to fit their religion and don't understand science well enough to apply it. Scientists accept what must be, whether they thought it was valid or not. For example, initially, Einstein had the opinion that "God didn't play dice with the universe" because he felt that everything was deterministic and boiled down to simple equations. But, in time, Einstein came around to accept quantum mechanics, and even added to it (Bose-Einstein statistics dealing with heavy subatomic particles called bosons). So, even when science and facts reveal unexpected (and sometimes unwanted) results, scientists are duty-bound to accept them.

 

[KWED]

I would make a subjective interpretation of heaven rolled up like a scroll as describing curved space around like that might be found around a wormhole. I suppose such an interpretation would not have been held by an ancient Nomadic tribesman like Muhammad.

But the Quran doesn't say "and we have rolled up bits of the heavens like scrolls". It says "On the day when We will roll up heaven like the rolling up of the scroll". And it is part of an extended passage describing the Day of Judgement.
Therefore claiming it is referring to wormholes is simply untenable. It is clearly a metaphor for the end of something, a final event.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know where you got that idea from. In this context it's right on the point.

From you. It was your claim. And so far you didnt answer it and now you are asking something else.

Since this is obviously going nowhere, ciao.

 

[KWED]

Theists skew results to fit their religion and don't understand science well enough to apply it. Scientists accept what must be, whether they thought it was valid or not. For example, initially, Einstein had the opinion that "God didn't play dice with the universe" because he felt that everything was deterministic and boiled down to simple equations. But, in time, Einstein came around to accept quantum mechanics, and even added to it (Bose-Einstein statistics dealing with heavy subatomic particles called bosons). So, even when science and facts reveal unexpected (and sometimes unwanted) results, scientists are duty-bound to accept them.

And of course, religionists would cite this as an example of "science being wrong".

 

[firedragon]

Theists skew results to fit their religion and don't understand science well enough to apply it.

Sorry Clara Tea. Thats just bigotry so cant engage with that kind of uneducated bigotry. Thanks.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. CAPS IS SHOUTING! Bold is just added emphasis.

With all due respect, you may require a ladder to get out of that hole.

I frequently refer to god. An unapologetic quote-miner could even find passages that appear to show me accepting the existence of god.
So I guess you will now insist that I, like Hawking, am not an avowed atheist and similarly dismissive of philosophy.

So, Hawking was a great mind whose ideas are significant - except when he dismisses god and philosophy. Then he is ignorant and prejudiced.
Seems reasonable.

I'll consider quoting you when you say something original or thought provoking.

Ignorance and prejudice are not words I'd ever associate with Stephen Hawking, so I have no idea why you put those words in my mouth in that context.

 

[blü 2]

From you. It was your claim.

I've set out some claims that if correct show that there's no coherent concept of a real god.

A proposition you don't wish to engage with.

So by all means flee the arena ─ I'm inclined to agree that's your best tactic.

 

[firedragon]

I've set out some claims that if correct show that there's no coherent concept of a real god.

A proposition you don't wish to engage with.

So by all means flee the arena ─ I'm inclined to agree that's your best tactic.

Thats not relevant to your claim. So obviously since you cannot substantiate any of your claims, I expect some kind of ad hominem as the last say which is very important to you it seems.

 

[KWED]

I'll consider quoting you when you say something original or thought provoking.

No one is making you engage in debate. It you are finding it a struggle, feel free to bow out. There's no shame attached.

Ignorance and prejudice are not words I'd ever associate with Stephen Hawking, so I have no idea why you put those words in my mouth in that context.

You accused people coming to the conclusion that there is no god, afterlife, etc of being "hidebound by prejudice or wilful ignorance". You also made a similar accusation of my dismissive attitude to philosophy, which Hawking also took.
Am I to take it that you are now invoking the special pleading fallacy in the case of Hawking?

 

[KWED]

Sorry Clara Tea. Thats just bigotry so cant engage with that kind of uneducated bigotry. Thanks.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Theists skew results to fit their religion and don't understand science well enough to apply it. Scientists accept what must be, whether they thought it was valid or not. For example, initially, Einstein had the opinion that "God didn't play dice with the universe" because he felt that everything was deterministic and boiled down to simple equations. But, in time, Einstein came around to accept quantum mechanics, and even added to it (Bose-Einstein statistics dealing with heavy subatomic particles called bosons). So, even when science and facts reveal unexpected (and sometimes unwanted) results, scientists are duty-bound to accept them.

Not sure that interpretation of the Einstein vs Copenhagenist debate on QM is strictly accurate. Einstein never rejected Quantum Theory, he argued along with Podolsky and Rosen, that either QM was incomplete, or that nature was non local. The Bell Theorem and Bell's Inequality can be said to have vindicated EPR.

As for determinism vs random behaviour in QM, that's an as yet unresolved paradox.

Superdeterminism - Wikipedia

 

[RestlessSoul]

No one is making you engage in debate. It you are finding it a struggle, feel free to bow out. There's no shame attached.

You accused people coming to the conclusion that there is no god, afterlife, etc of being "hidebound by prejudice or wilful ignorance".
Am I to take it that you are now invoking the special pleading fallacy in the case of Hawking?

It is indeed a struggle, and a futile one, playing chess with pigeons. In truth I should have bowed out of this conversation ages ago. So I wish you good day.

 

[Clara Tea]

No. CAPS IS SHOUTING! Bold is just added emphasis.

With all due respect, you may require a ladder to get out of that hole.

I frequently refer to god. An unapologetic quote-miner could even find passages that appear to show me accepting the existence of god.
So I guess you will now insist that I, like Hawking, am not an avowed atheist and similarly dismissive of philosophy.

So, Hawking was a great mind whose ideas are significant - except when he dismisses god and philosophy. Then he is ignorant and prejudiced.
Seems reasonable.

Even great minds have a right to choose and adhere to a religion (or religions). I don't think that their greater intellect sways me to believe as they do. Some of the greatest scientists of all time are theists.

Scientists sometimes have leaps of faith, as well, though often this leap of faith has nothing at all to do with God. For example, scientists can't explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, so they assume (based on Friedmann Equations) that there is some unseen and hitherto (at the time) undetected dark energy that somehow repels matter (rather than attracting it with gravity as normal matter does). I understand that dark energy has been detected now, but does it have the property to repel matter? Scientists make the leap of faith that it does (until a better theory comes along).

 

[KWED]

It is indeed a struggle, and a futile one, playing chess with pigeons.