Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI cannot be bothered with the rest of your post today. I'll tackle it tonight or tomorrow, when I'm more rested.
[b]The anthropic principle has been debunked on many occassions. I'll do it again if you'd like?
The anthropic principle simply tries to scientifically explain the points that I brought up. The critics say that it’s false, the proponents say that it’s true. Both sides have notable scientists. Assuming that it is false, science still has to ...[text shortened]... and it’s like that is a bit of a cop out. Some scientists try to search for a better answer.[/b]
The anthropic principle is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, people trying to dress up creationism in sciencey looking garb. It is not the search for 'higher truth' and ANY scientist who claims it is the logical conclusion to the data is just plain wrong. The data can only tell you what it tells you. The existance of humans, for example, tells you only that the conditions exist for human existance, nothing more or less. In scientific terms the anthropic principle is not a 'better answer' because it is not the most parsimonious answer that explains the data (google 'Occam's razor'😉.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou can be a skeptic if you want, but your still left with the problem of scientifically explaining the arguments in my post. Until you come up with a better theory it is just arrogant to say that the notable scientists who support the anthropic principle are wrong, and you know any better than they do.
I cannot be bothered with the rest of your post today. I'll tackle it tonight or tomorrow, when I'm more rested.
The anthropic principle is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, people trying to dress up creationism in sciencey looking garb. It is not the search for 'higher truth' and ANY scientist who claims it is the logical conclusion to the data ...[text shortened]... it is not the most parsimonious answer that explains the data (google 'Occam's razor'😉.
Originally posted by scottishinnzRead up on it:
I cannot be bothered with the rest of your post today. I'll tackle it tonight or tomorrow, when I'm more rested.
The anthropic principle is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, people trying to dress up creationism in sciencey looking garb. It is not the search for 'higher truth' and ANY scientist who claims it is the logical conclusion to the data ...[text shortened]... it is not the most parsimonious answer that explains the data (google 'Occam's razor'😉.
In cosmology, the anthropic principle in its most basic form states the truism that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, "If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist; then it is true simply because we exist." Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Originally posted by scottishinnzI believe that you’re a good man and it’s easy for good people to say that there should be no hell. What that means though is that all the truly evil people in this world should be sent to Heaven when they die. Hitler should have gone to Heaven right after he committed suicide. Evil has consequences.
And apparently sends millions to hell every day who do not believe in him.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou’re assuming that God has to abide by the laws of science. If God created the physical universe and the natural laws of science, you may be assuming too much when you say that he has to abide by those same laws.
Science only asserts that there was a beginning of this universe;
whether there was a universe preceding this one that collapsed and
then reexpanded is a matter of conjecture. It is possible that the
universe has always existed.
If you ask, 'How did the universe always exist? What brought matter
into being?,' one could easily turn around and say, 'H ...[text shortened]... od into being?'
Any answer you provide can be equally applied to the universe.
Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI think he's saying the a scientist can no more prove how (or if) the universe got started, than a Christian can prove the existence of God. And this is true on both accounts.
You’re assuming that God has to abide by the laws of science. If God created the physical universe and the natural laws of science, you may be assuming too much when you say that he has to abide by those same laws.
3 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI'm thinking metaphysically, not scientifically.
You’re assuming that God has to abide by the laws of science. If God created the physical universe and the natural laws of science, you may be assuming too much when you say that he has to abide by those same laws.
As I undertand it, E=mc^2 indicates that the amount of matter/energy
in the universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed,
only converted back into and forth from energy.
So, according to science, the matter that composes the universe has
always existed. To say that there was a time when matter (or its
corresponding energy units) didn't exist is to go beyond science.
And so, when you say the material in the universe had a discrete
beginning -- and thereby depart from science -- you enter into
metaphysics and questions like 'Who created God' become just as
valid.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI'm thinking metaphysically, not scientifically.
I'm thinking metaphysically, not scientifically.
As I undertand it, E=mc^2 indicates that the amount of matter/energy
in the universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed,
only converted back into and forth from energy.
So, according to science, the matter that composes the universe has
always existed. To say that there was a tim enter into
metaphysics and questions like 'Who created God' become just as
valid.
Nemesio
As I undertand it, E=mc^2 indicates that the amount of matter/energy
in the universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed,
only converted back into and forth from energy.
E=mc^2 is more scientific than metaphysic. Again, to assume that God has to abide by the laws of science that he created may be assuming too much.
So, according to science, the matter that composes the universe has
always existed. To say that there was a time when matter didn't
exist is to go beyond science.
And so, when you say the material in the universe had a discrete
beginning -- and thereby depart from science -- you enter into
metaphysics and questions like 'Who created God' become just as
valid.
As I have shown in my post there is more scientific evidence than just a single equation to suggest that there was a beginning.
Originally posted by ColettiAt this point in time you are correct. That's why I called this thread an argument and not proof. The idea is just to get people to look at both sides.
I think he's saying the a scientist can no more prove how (or if) the universe got started, than a Christian can prove the existence of God. And this is true on both accounts.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess Express
E=mc^2 is scientific, not metaphysic. Again, to assume that God has to abide by the laws of science that he created may be assuming too much.
You have misunderstood.
E=mc^2 is a scientific principle which indicates that the universe
has always existed. It says nothing about God.
But what it does say is that matter-energy cannot be created
nor destroyed.
The second we talk about the moment that matter comes into
existence, we have departed science. We then may ask metaphysical
questions.
If you ask, 'Where did the matter that composes the universe come
from,' then I may equally ask, 'Where did God come from?'
Both questions have equally unsatisfactory answers; that is, the
proposed solution is no more an argument for God then it is for a
spontaneous generation of matter.
Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressCE, you cannot prove the existance of god, and without that, the hypothesis that you present that god has or can transcend physical laws is moot. A scientist would never even come up with such a hypothesis as god without proof that the laws of physics had been transcended. You are arguing god as a fact without evidence. In debates, we build our arguments out of facts, or the debate has no meaning.
[b]I'm thinking metaphysically, not scientifically.
As I undertand it, E=mc^2 indicates that the amount of matter/energy
in the universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed,
only converted back into and forth from energy.
E=mc^2 is more scientific than metaphysic. Again, to assume that God has to abide by the laws of sci ...[text shortened]... more scientific evidence than just a single equation to suggest that there was a beginning.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzCE, you cannot prove the existance of god, and without that, the hypothesis that you present that god has or can transcend physical laws is moot.
CE, you cannot prove the existance of god, and without that, the hypothesis that you present that god has or can transcend physical laws is moot. A scientist would never even come up with such a hypothesis as god without proof that the laws of physics had been transcended. You are arguing god as a fact without evidence. In debates, we build our arguments out of facts, or the debate has no meaning.
So far science has given us mostly theories. They’re called theories because they haven’t been proven yet.
A scientist would never even come up with such a hypothesis as god without proof that the laws of physics had been transcended.
There are many scientists who are also theists. Are they not scientists because of their belief?
In debates, we build our arguments out of facts, or the debate has no meaning.
Usually facts don’t become facts until they are hypothesized. Automobiles were not facts before somebody thought up a way to build them. If all we have are facts then their is nothing left to debate. 🙂