Your original claim is testable: The Catholic Church made an erroneous claim about the universe, science soundly refuted it, and the Church corrected its claim. Your claim is falsified. As a lover of science you have a duty to face this squarely and accept it gracefully. Holy crap (and I pray that you don't take that as a religious term) you cannot seem to control your urge to divert a science topic off into yet another tangential religious discussion. Dicta. When religion makes a statement about the natural world, science is free to test it, and does not hesitate to do so, and scientists do not hesitate to note the theistic implications. I also gave you several examples of this as well, so, your claim that this does not occur is also falsified, the rest of your post is simply a rehashing of scientific method which we are all aware of and in full agreement with. No clue where you are going with this tangent, I have serious doubts that it's on topic, and I have no real interest in discussing it. Not just human, animals have intelligence, Crick suggested alien intelligence, I see no reason to view any of these as "God" or as impossible to detect. Difficult to detect to be sure, but so was the Higgs Boson. And yet, here we are. But, I point this out in the best of humor. Take care, Zorro.
NO problem at all. And, I do hope it wasn't me!! If I act the jerk, please call me on it. I'm human. And, I was way too sensitive in that post. My own view is that I will NEVER change someone's views about god. Ever. And, I have plenty enough pastors and devout Christians in my family who get my full respect regardless of differences. My point to Zorro on this topic has been that whatever science does, those who believe in god or have other faiths are totally free to ignore it, including having diametrically opposing views. Often, they do follow science, and there are a lot of Christians in the sciences, and there is plenty of room for cooperation. But, there is no lock.
Great! But, that doesn't mean they had to do that. It was 100% their choice, which is my point. They didn't do that for evolution! They didn't do that for the Big Bang! And, we have to look at that as their choice. They don't have to follow science on ANYTHING. Well, I absolutely don't believe that science follows Christians around looking for religious opinions to overthrow like that. Science has it's own work to do. There are real questions to answer. The Higgs particle stayed outside of science until it could be tested. That's a design feature of science. Why keep bringing that up? Scientists talk about religion, politics, society, and everything else. Crick and others can say anything any other citizen can say. They can espouse Christianity. They can believe in aliens. It's a free country. But, they don't bring that to the lab. In the lab, the rules of science are followed.
Congratulations, you just excluded theoretical physics from "science", which means you also just claimed that Albert Einstein, perhaps the finest theoretical physicist that humanity has produced is not a "scientist". Well, he is, and his field of study is science, so, yet another of your claims that you made with your characteristic confidence, is falsified. In fact this is silly enough that I suspect that you are trolling us, in which case, congrats, you got me good! But, I let you divert me, again, from the topic of this panel, and that's on me.
And I guess everybody BUT YOU, recognizes that I was not saying that my speculation had been proven. Here it is again, for your (and others') review. Please explain how I am going farther than making a prediction. I am, in fact, not even going that far; I am saying that one possible reality seems more likely to me, than the explanation of everything having come to be, due to a completely random chain of events.
So you are saying that a discussion of string theory would not be appropriate for the SCIENCE forum, here at PF? You are confusing a chatroom with a something it is not. Frankly, I don't know where someone, opining on the Heavy Gravity theory, would be told that it could not be discussed, that it was too off-subject, for the "scientific" environment of that place. But, if such a place exists, it is surely not here. Either you are the most tightly-wound person (& potential case of OCD, if I am allowed to speculate) that I have ever met, or @Zorro is right, about your having some kind of complex, involving the idea of, "God." If you are going to be so redundant on a topic, and present yourself as if you are the lawyer, acting as the official representative, on behalf of Science, one would think you could at least be less vague, be more exacting, in your wording. Firstly, I never mentioned the word, "God." I was comparing the universe, in its entirety, to a single organism, in its formation and interactivity. If we were, for the sake of argument, proven to be cells in just such a conceptual beast, it would not impel anyone to consider that whole creation, or any part of it (like the analog to its brain), to be God. Nonetheless, one certainly might think of that universe, in such a way: for that is a personal assessment. Do you not understand-- the two cannot interface. One fallacy assumption that your cognitive dissonance compels you to make, is that anything that can be proven, cannot be God. But because, at least while we wear our mortal coil, whether or not we consider something as "Divine," remains a completely subjective decision, never do the twain meet, between science and religion. Let me put it another way. Let us suppose that one of our space probes discovers a celestial being who, it is discovered, is directing energy towards Earth, which is having some measurable effects, and is suspected of great, albeit cloaked, ramifications. This is not, "unscientific." Look up any anti-depressant, in the Physician's Drug Reference, and, under method of action, the first thing it will say is that it is not known, exactly how this medication works; it will then state that it is believed to alter the balance of certain chemicals in the brain. So some speculation IS part of science, unless you do not consider Medicine to qualify as science. Hopefully, that allows me to continue my hypothetical situation, for the sake of argument, to demonstrate my point, without your blotting it out with objection. Well, in that above scenario, some would, no doubt, look at this being as God, now proven by science. You, however, could still look at this scientifically-proven entity to just be a feature of our universe, not "God." You see? No one will be able to truly prove such a thing (before they enter the afterlife). Even now, there are some who consider Nature, for example, their God. Yet, science certainly can study nature, I hope that you will agree. The same can be said of the universe. In fact, I even heard Stephen Hawking say that we were all composed of the same material as the stars and, while he was only a theoretical physicist (so hardly deserves mention, much less consideration, in this SCIENCE forum), he had been co-optively parroting the idea popularized by the real scientist, Carl Sagan, that we are all "Star stuff." Some might see in that, a tangible connection, others may see it as an essentially meaningless detail. But science DOES tell us that it is true. Whether that has any spiritual implications, for any given individual, is a separate, and private, matter. What I hypothesized, was NOT something that, by its nature, was scientifically unprovable, with sufficient scientific advancement. So, since you keep repeating that anything provable by science cannot have anything to do with God, it is a mystery as to why you continue to suggest that I was speaking about God. Can you answer that question? Is it because I mentioned that my perspective is pantheistic? If that's the case, then you are wrong: you CANNOT prohibit someone from thinking about something with spiritual reverence, just because science may someday be able to prove it exists, or detect some trace of its action. If that is what you are trying to do, then you are more religiously tyrannical, in your rigorous anti-religiosity, than the worst of the Inquisitors.
I wouldn't take it too seriously. Some folks make better sense earlier in the day. He does seem to see a LOT of stuff as "God". What you were describing, and I haven't had an opportunity to read a lot of your posts, but it struck me as more of a self-organizing principle. Well, on the one hand he did declare any and all extraterrestrials also to be "gods", but, he also effectively excluded Einstein as a scientist, which leads me to consider that he is playfully baiting us. Bummer that he voted Hawking off the island, too, but after he kicked off Einstein, I should have seen this coming. Ask him his view on UFO's especially now that US Navy has suddenly become so chatty about them, is he claiming that if they aren't terrestrial that they are operated by "gods"? So, about what existed before the big bang, what are your views?
Maybe everything is in a lab! Maybe it's all just an experiment. Maybe we are all just part of a culture in a petri dish. One day when the realization hits that the experiment is a complete failure because the desired results were not achieved we will all be washed down the drain and the petri dish sanitized for the next use. Maybe?
I have already undergone a long parrying over UFOs, w/ Mr. Readmore, which I prefer not to revive, or to relive, even just mnemonically. The funny part, in an ironic way, about what you posted is that there are top brass in our military, according to Chris Mellon, former Undersecretary of Defense, for Intelligence, who look at UFOs, not as gods, but as demons!
I am guessing that you are a fan of Sci-Fi, since I am sure I have heard this plot, before. Still, it is, of course, a possibility.
Just a question I have considered...if a believer says that god must exist because we can't prove science, how can they then say god does exist if they can't prove god? If you look as far back as you want into various gods and religions (not faiths...I deliberately said religion to indicate organised faith) they revolved around answering the fundamental questions we have tossed around in here. (BTW I never consider ancient people to be less intelligent than we are since we are still asking the same questions they did). Their answer, in the absence of science, was a god that was attributed the powers to make things happen and which created the world and what they could see...stars, comets etc. As science proved answers, we have stopped thinking god organises rain or kills our enemies. Gods have become the answer to the final question...How did it all come to be. When that is finally proven, god will be reduced to the role of ultimate parent or psychologist. I have no issue with that...we all need one sometimes. But I wouldn't put god any higher than that.
God seems to be a bit of a loaded word, and being a minimalist, I see no reason to infer a cause that exceeds what is necessary to explain the effect understudy. If you accept the Standard Big Bang Theory, and infer caused rather than uncaused, and since time, space, energy and matter all came into existence at that instant, your cause must be something able to exist and operate independently of the time, space, energy and matter of our universe, and it must be incredibly powerful, in order to cause the entire universe. I hear you. Reading through ancient writings and seeing that they wrestled with many of the same things I do, evokes empathy for them in me and seems to put perspective around whatever it is I'm wrestling with, given that humans have been struggling with these questions from their earliest communications that we can access.
Science includes theoretical physics and experimental sciences. Experimental sciences are based on observation, use scientific method, etc. Theoretical physics is modeling of possible explanations where testing isn't possible. Einstein was an amazing theoretician. The work of his that we revere today wasn't accepted until it was proven by experimentalists. He was awarded a Nobel price (not for relativity, amazingly enough), a prize that is not offered for theoretical physics, showing that other of his ground breaking work entered experimental science as well. That's a little like Higgs, a theoretical physicist who postulated a new particle. That became accepted in experimental science after Cern was built, making it possible to test. I think it is seriously important that there is a line between what people postulate and what can actually be verified.
Theoretical physics belongs here.. Solutions involving god should be discussed in the religion section.
That is a model for god doing it. Once you include god, you can propose literally anything you want, and there is no rebuttal possible from science. God isn't subservient to science!! If you move this to the religion section, you can continue using religious logic, foundational assumptions, rules of evidence, etc., to come up with a cosmology based on god. You can include science as your religious direction finds helpful or appropriate. In the religion section, you can discuss the nature, location, duration, intent, capability, limitations, etc., of this god you propose - elements that seem key in creating a god based cosmology. Science can not help you with any of that.
That is your way of seeing it, but it is not an accurate assessment of how it would have to be seen. I have tried to explain this to you, but you seem to lack the subtlety both of understanding for my arguments, as well as for expression of your own argument's judgement, in language other than very general, blanket statements. I will therefore recognize this conversation as a lost cause, fruitless to be pursued further. I hope you can join me in, at least, this recognition. Good day to you, and better luck finding worthwhile conversations.
Fully agreed. It seems like one thing we know about the beginning of our universe is that there was a stupendous amount of energy. One of the attractions of the various "cyclic universe" theories is that if this universe collapses, there would be enough energy to start another one. Dr. Penrose, the incredible Brit physicist, has proposed an idea that seems totally crazy. (But I'm not going to call Penrose crazy!!) He says that the math equations that would describe the beginning of this universe are essentially identical to the equations that would describe this universe after infinite expansion, because certain parameters would simply become meaningless (??). Maybe this comes from us living in space-time, but time becoming irrelevant? I think he is implying that a singularity could somehow arise from an infinitely expanding universe!! Yikes! What we don't know is pretty impressive.
I agree that I abstracted your idea as one of god. But, I think that is an appropriate name for some stupendously powerful, totally undetectable force that has an objective and certainly does not reside in this universe (since the issue is the beginning of our universe). How is that not god?
This is where I have a problem......atheists do this a lot. They post certain actions in the Bible, then call it a day. If one reads the scripture in it's entirety he begins to understand the purpose. Without a desire to understand the purpose of God.....scripture is worthless. Relating this to science, it would be like conducting an experiment in a contaminated Petri dish. But you did here.
I tried to be brief. I type way too much. First, if we discover something directing energy at Earth I think that is not answering any question concerning the origin of this universe - it's an action going on inside this universe. I don't have any way to comment on your idea of this universe being a cell in the belly of the beast. Next, yes, God is a personal religious concept, not one addressable by science in any way. Science is not affected by religion and religion is not affected by science. They are totally separate. Your comment on medicine is a misinterpretation. In your example, science doesn't know for sure how the drug operates. Then, it says what the best understanding is. There isn't anything unscientific in that. The fact that it is prescribed has to do with it being found to be safe and effective within guidelines set for medicine. That is a common guideline for medicine. Science fully played its role in informing decision makers. This goes on today all the time. It's a big deal in decisions concerning COVID policy, for example. It took a year for science to do the testing required to determine that vaccines met even just the emergency use guidelines. Yes, the elements in our bodies (and everywhere else) were almost all formed in stars. If you see that as religious, I'm totally fine with that, obviously. The part about provability is that it must be actually tested. Believing it could be tested at some time in the future is not good enough. The existence of the Higgs particle was known to be testable given certain engineering progress. That didn't change its status. What changed its status was actually building the largest, most complex machine the world had ever seen and doing the verification. You can think about religion in absolutely ANY way you want. There are NO limits to that. The only catch is that you can't call it science. Science has no possibility of dealing with that.
I will try one last time. The mistaken idea, in your quote, above, is that the force, or dynamic connection, which I described, "certainly does not reside in this universe." I had explained it, I thought clearly, as being analogous to whatever it is that allows stem cells in a zygote, to all differentiate and become a person, without there being any visible or, as yet, detectable lines of communication. Therefore, I think it is self-evident, that this mechanism definitely is part and parcel of the universe (provided you recognize cell organization, as well as the later biological processes, coordinated by the body, as something occurring in this universe).* Further, I recall emphasizing that this interaction was not anything that was forever a, "totally undetectable force"-- so that's 2 mistakes, in your brief summation, above, stating your understanding of my argument-- any more than you would admit this to be true of those intercellular communications, which remain mysterious. * FYI, the primary difference between my mentioned, "pantheism," and monotheism, is that it is the monotheistic view which places God as "transcendent," above the creation; for pantheists, the Divine Principle is, "in-dwelling."
