Modern Science And The Establishment Clause.

What is that?

I've already refered you to the experimental results of Ilya Prigogine. And chaos theory. It's all down to how you philosophically interpret things. As Neil Tyson says quite correctly, the universe is not at liberty to make sense to us. There may be a point where classical science can no longer offer proof or clarity.

The idea that the universe just came into being, from nowhere, for no reason and caused by nothing, it just happened is as absurd as the idea there was an intelligent creative force behind it.

So which it is. It can be both, or can it? Is it possible we can only ever confuse ourselves trying to answer this question, that it is instrinsically unanswerable?

For you to say there can't be/have been an intelligent creative force behind the universe is equally absurd and unproveable by classical scientific standards as it is for someone to say there must have been.

 

What makes a superior being that just popped into existance from nothing more believable than a universe just popping into existence from nothing?
Maybe we all all a speck of this intelligent being broken apart...even into multi universes. i cannot believe it would be a separate entity. I don't have a slave mentality.

 

One issue with MeAgain's proposed steps above is step #3.
Requiring that the "intelligent agent" be outside of and unrelated to the known universe automatically negates any attempts by humans to understand, be conscious of, or experiment concerning it.
Nor do any religious teachings claim that the creator is outside of and unrelated to the known universe, actually the opposite is most often found.

 

This is kind of an old article...I remember reading about this when it first came out. A couple of physicists claim that by combining elements of quantum theory with general relativity the big bang singularity disappears. Another effect is that the universe has no beginning or ending, but is instead eternal. I'm not a physicist so I can't say if this is true or not, but I do like it because it seems to make cosmological models simpler, i.e., no need to resort to a "creator". (And no need to wonder who created the creator.) If this is eventually shown to be the case I wonder how long it would take for the general public to accept it.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

The issue with this and many other TOE theories in Theoretical Physics is that they usually rely on phenomena that hasn't been, and for all intents and purposes is impossible to verify in any reasonable capacity given the current technology and any foreseeable technology. So in regards to the general public accepting it, assuming it were accurate, we're probably looking likely at least several millienia from now. Although, perhaps some indirect evidence could potentially expedite that process but I think many in the general public would be reluctant to trust such inferences wholeheartedly and if it's not causal or a very strict correlation, I think it opens up the floodgates for a lot of other suspect alternative theories, like what (imo) has plagued Quantum Physics over the past couple decades.

I've read some of this stuff in my spare time, so by no means am I an expert on it as well but I'll copy an assertion from the article followed by an inherent issue with the assertion for taking the info at face value.

 

Agreed. I would go farther and say that even direct evidence wouldn't be accepted; The Big Bang and Evolutionary theories, for example, have been resisted for several generations by now. I guess my question was more rhetorical.

 

In a similar sense as Arthur C Clarke's quote about the existence/non-existence of ET life-

The idea that the universe has a beginning, and therefore by logical assumption possibly an end (or time is forever repeating itself such as with the closed universe models).. or conversely that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore must have existed in some form trillions upon quadrillions upon zeptillian, gazillian, McGoogleplex to the power of a million googeplexesazillion years ago, basically an unfathomably long time ago and that the atoms in our bodies/minds may have been a part of it then, or even if you consider the possibility that reincarnation is real, or that our collective consciousness now may have formed a part of it then in some way, and may form a part of a new universal incarnation in an equally long time into the future (assuming cosmological time is linear)...

...apologies for the discombobulation, but the point is both scenarios are equally terrifying in different ways.

It's a very depressing thought to consider that one day the sun will expand and engulf our planet and that it will no longer exist, nor everything that was ever created, everything will burn and be returned to the cosmos as a nebula of gases to eventually collapse into a new solar system. It's comforting to consider that life may go on for all eternity, yet at the same time frightening to consider that there may have been a universe so long ago, and may be a very different one so long in to the future.

What sort of lives/existences may we have led, and may lead in the distant future?

Maybe ultimately the reality of the cosmos is much like Dave Bowman's trip at the end of 2001:A Space Odyssey and the universe is just continually morphing into new forms and recreating itself, like an ever unfolding Mandlebrot set but even more complex. Maybe this is the universe being forced into existence, because ultimately the concept of non-existence creates a paradox, so therefore something has to exist and what we are experiencing now is the the universal mind bringing forth reality. Not intentionally by design, but uncontrollably. Just as we are unable to exist without constantly thinking something, or experiencing something, or breathing.

Shit, I wrote all that without even a cup of tea...

 

The logic in this thread makes me wanna cry ...

 

I didn't say "the theory of emergence proves the existence of God"

What is it with you and this constant twisting what I say and putting words in my mouth?

 

The theory of emergence helps to explain both evolution and creationism, it offers a new hypothesis based on the current emerging, holistic scientific paradigm whereby qualitative reflection and process are the bedrocks of logical formation. Matter is viewed as an emergent experience brought forth by mind, rather than opposite, classical view that holds to the theory that matter is an absolute entity that gives rise to consciousness through complex physical and chemical interactions.

 

Did I say there was more than one type of emergence theory? Was I being specific towards one in particular?

It's a while since I studied all this so it's not fresh in my mind. I suggest you read some books about it if you want to know more, I recommend The Web Of Life by Fritjof Capra as a good starting point, or maybe even start with The Tao Of Physics and The Turning Point.

 

Only to the extent that any person is free to arbitrarily redefine words whenever they want. Cement is edible, tomatoes are a type of nut, the process by which I make coffee is a religion. All true statements according the new definitions I just assigned to those words, but all utterly meaningless in the face of the established and practical definitions of those words. "If I want to consider X to be Y, then X is Y" can only be true by definition. It is only meaningful to say that X is Y if X has properties that make it an instance of Y. Otherwise the language has no practical application.

 

Yes, but to be fair I was hardly drastically redefining the meaning of the word science. In fact, I wasn't actually redefining it at all.

If someone wishes to dismiss a hypothesis or a logical discourse as rubbish, or invalid then they are free to do so. Whether or not it's right or wrong, unquestionably correct or complete balderdash, the process of attempting to answer questions about the universe and existence through observation and introspection is by any definition of the word "science"

To draw upon another analogy, someone might go to a football match to follow their team and they happen to play badly one day and they explete something of the likes- You call that fucking football?! Or a music snob who doesn't like a certain band might say something along the lines of "that's not music!"

At the end of the day though, they are both still football and music, regardless of how good or bad someone may choose to percieve them to be.

 

http://youtu.be/cFwLico3UmQ

 

Yes it is very common, and almost always wrong, to claim that anyone that does not hold the same opinion or have the same reaction is missing something and somehow impoverished. And yes I am sure that your logic and understanding is far superior to that of the majority of scientists in the world. And finally yes, I am sure that your sense of wonderment surpasses that of anyone here that disagrees with you, because of course rainbows are only beautiful if you believe that Intelligent Design is science.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in our philosophies. It is possible to believe that and hold a strict, meaningful, definition of science. I certainly do.

 

I hope everyone realizes that we have the capability to ask questions that there is possibly no answer to, or that the answer to the question is impossible to ever know. I will, however, say that we've probably answered lots of questions that were in the past thought to be beyond our reach.

We can't just make up something every time we have a question that can't be answered. There are things that we don't know, and we have to realize that.