Where Does Matter and Energy Come From?

Jewish school redacted exam papers

http://www.bbc.com

A Jewish girls’ school in Hackney has been redacting questions on evolution on science exam papers because they do not fit in with their beliefs.

Itskosher Authority

don’t see why the position relating to evolution which clearly is but a theory and has some very serious unresolved problems MUST be accepted as a required component of children’s education, when it is not explained with all its deficiencies and an equally vigorous presentation, by recognised scientists, is not included in the syllabus.

 

From this perspective it is a repressive and disingenuous application of power which is entirely incompatible with our democratic and enlightened values

 

MB

I think you’d be hard pressed to find a credible scientist who questions the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

As for “evolution which clearly is but a theory”, one could say the same about gravity, electricty, etc. They’re theories too. It’s not so easy to dismiss evolution just because it’s called a “theory”. It’s actually a theory that has held up pretty well and fits beautifully into the world of science.

 

But if you’re going to challenge the credibility of evolution in the context of science, then I’d ask you to prove using scientific methods the existence of your god.

 

DL

Itskosher Authority, Gravity is a theory as well, where would you be without it?

 

RS

Itskosher Authority is sounding a little like Putin’s excuse for sending in his troops (sorry… they’re NOT his, he says!!)

And my wife says… what happened to the democratic way of letting people — including school children — choose for themselves.

 

Itskosher Authority

Listen guys, you know there are plenty of scientists who essentially ask a simple Q – where did all the energy and matter come from? And reach a conclusion which disappoints you.

 

Scientific process can never PROVE anything, when scientists speak of proof they mean a mathematical equation that accurately describes the observed phenomena.

Science can only disprove things – we perform an experiment that demonstrates that light is not a wave, and another experiment that demonstrates that light is not a particle.

 

Gravity, my friends can just as convincingly [other than the revulsion to concede that Gd MAY exist and that we may have some other concerns to occupy our minds and consciousness with] be explained as an angel. That’s right angels don’t [have to] wear halos.

 

And so, when considering all the options to explain some observed phenomena, we cannot PROVE what is correct; we therefore apply Ockham’s Razor, and choose that which best explains, most elegantly explains those observations. Accordingly, the scientific method leads us to assert that Gd is the most elegant and best explains our observations.

 

There is no democratic discussion in an emotionally charged debate. I simply posit that even if schools are compelled to teach a theory, they ought to also teach the weaknesses of that theory and the alternatives, it is part of an honest unbiased unemotional process of education, it is in fact the scientific way.

 

MB

You’re using Ockhams Razor to explain the existence of a god? That’s a joke. What created that god then? Hardly a simple explanation.

 

What you have written amounts to one of the biggest abuses of science I think i have ever read.

 

TA

Yes, it is just as plausible to assume that angels are pushing us all down, and keeping satellites in orbit. Which handily means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as plausible as any other god. But tastier.

Itskosher Authority

Gentlemen, please keep your tone civil.

 

Yes I am suggesting that Ockhams Razor directs us to arrive at the most elegant and simple of the postulates, in this case Gd. If one must already accept that matter and energy always existed, then it is easiest and most elegant to describe that as Gd.

 

Gravity is an experience that I describe as an angel simply because it is an expression of “Nature” that governs the world. This is a broader view of angel, but once you give it a little thought it is quite simple and I am confident you will find it, enlightening.

 

Do not demean the conversation and attempt to emotianlise it with crude humour – such behaviour displays an inability to deal rationally with the arguments and ideas forwarded for consideration.

 

MB

“If one must already accept that matter and energy always existed, then it is easiest and most elegant to describe that as Gd.”

 

Ah, but one doesn’t, if you refer to Lawrence Krauss.

Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from “nothing”, as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a “plausible hypothesis”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss…

Lawrence M. Krauss – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist…See More

 

GW

If this happens here in Australia I WILL be organising very loud very obvious protests. Not teaching a well established fact (because that’s why it’s redacted, so they don’t reach a question and go “what’s this?”) just because it makes an unprovable 4000 year old fairy story look embarrassing is not a basis for education policy.

 

Itskosher Authority

a “plausible hypothesis” that is light years away from the most elegant and simple

 

Grant, I have already stated that your feeble attempts to ridicule that which you prefer not to accept, only highlights the inadequacies of your arguments. As does distorting their perspective, is the fairy tale of spontaneous generation of matter and energy a more elegant hypothesis?

 

MB

There is no scientifically plausible explanation for any force you wish to call “god”. However, the theoretical science behind the formation of whatever exists in our universe, and the universe itself, is particularly elegant, much like most things in nature, such as DNA, the way spiders build webs, birds sing, and humans make believe.

 

GW

It is, perhaps, most elegant and simple to say some god brought all matter and energy into existence at some point 14 or so billion years ago, with a particular set of physical laws that we don’t yet perfectly understand. Then these laws stayed in place and led quite spontaneously to the universe we see today, with no further evidence of this creator’s influence. Which leaves us where exactly? Matter and energy came from somewhere – maybe via some mechanism we haven’t yet explained, maybe at some external being’s bidding. That origin point is fairly moot though, given that there are good and ever clearer non-mystical explanations for pretty much everything that happened since. The ever present niggle for creation believers of course remains unanswered: where did god come from? Regardless of your answer to that question, I’m fairly confident I could apply it to “all matter and energy”, thereby arriving at an explanation requiring one fewer step than yours and thus, by applying your much loved Occam’s razor, produce a simpler and more elegant theory than yours.

 

Itskosher Authority

GW, You don’t even read what you write to see if it makes any sense.

You say, it is most elegant and simple to say that god created all matter and energy, and the respective physical laws which led quite spontaneously to the universe we see today.

 

then you ask: Which leaves us where exactly?

 

So since your Q leaves you disabled, unable to proceed in a simple and elegant fashion – then proceed to postulate – as science directs us to – with a postulate that is simple and elegant, life has a purpose and Gd is part of that purpose.

 

And how elegant and honest is it to suggest that the Q of where it all came from is not relevant – you were too scared to say clearly that it is not relevant? camouflaging it in the word moot; and by suggesting that it happened such a long time ago so why should it matter anyway? That’s V scientific.

 

“Good and ever clearer non-mystical explanations for pretty much everything that happened since” does not make it the most elegant postulate.

 

It is not just an ever present niggle for creation believers, it ought to bother all true scientists.

 

But you have determined the foundations of your scientific enquiry to disqualify Gd, so you see the problem not as a problem for science but only for creationists; how sad for you.

 

Less steps make for more elegant iff the postulate addresses all the Qs. GW you just suggest that the Q of where it all came from does not bother you. That may be so, but it only proves that you do not have a scientific mind, nor the rigour of a the scientific process.

 

MB

What are your scientific qualitications Itskosher Authority?

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, There is every scientific process to indicate the force I refer to as “god”, mainly the Q – where did it all come from. Science cannot explain it but science is firstly about asking questions, recording, and suggesting testable hypotheses, not about explaining things.

 

My scientific qualifications are the ability to ask questions and suggest reasonable elegant answers.

 

MB

Your answers lack scientific credibility

 

Itskosher Authority

Sure, now you have the opportunity to explain in simple words – so everyone here can see plainly – why that is so.

 

MB

You have no reproducible evidence.

 

Itskosher Authority

reproducible evidence? that’s what you require to show spontaneous generation

 

Itskosher Authority

I am proposing a postulate that addresses a Q that you do not want to answer. In science, as we first explained, the science can only disprove, reproducible just verifies observations

 

MB

I don’t need to show anything. I am not making any outrageous claims.

 

However you are making a claim that scientific processes support your notion that there is a force you wish to call god. And yet you have no evidence.

 

From Wikipedia, under Evidence – Evidence in Science:

 

“In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

 

One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.”

 

So I ask you again, where is your evidence?

 

Itskosher Authority

my claim is not outrageous – it just defies what you prefer to not answer, what you prefer to ignore. My postulate simply offers the most simple and elegant option to where did all matter and energy come from.

 

postulates do not require evidence. asking for proof is not scientific, science can only disprove

 

MB

As GW asked, where did god come from? That is the question you refuse to answer.

 

The real answer is that humans imagined it into existence.

 

Itskosher Authority

Well, now you have come to appreciate the simplicity of this postulate – Gd is defined as that which always existed. Matter and energy, as you have already admitted, although it was by default, need to be explained – where did they come from? But Gd, as we postulate so elegantly, is by definition beyond the limitations of this universe

 

And your imagination tries its best to defy and deny the scientific truth of the scientific method that leads to Gd being the most elegant postulate to explain this

 

MB

That’s the most preposterous crap I think I have ever heard. And yet you have no way to formally substantiate this load of utter nonsense.

 

SSh

I can’t resist not jumping into this conversation!

 

Itskosher, you seem to be misunderstanding what Okham’s Razor is about. It is not “the simplest and most elegant” explanation. Okham’s Razor suggest that when all things are equal, the explanation with the fewest complexities is most often the correct explanation.

 

What is meant by “fewest complexities” is steps that need no further explanations.

 

In your “postulate” you have proposed a final step of “god.” However, this step is an incredibly complex step that requires an explanation. What is this god? How did it come to be? How does it perform the acts that you claim?

 

Can you see how this is an incredibly complex problem in your “postulate” that needs to be explained?

 

LFP

I increasingly tend to think that people who choose a religious lifestyle, are actually suffering from a form of mental illness. Especially when it leads them to believe that their “religion” comes with an imagined entitlement to harm, oppress, judge and hurt others who don’t conform to their beliefs. Very strange, and sad behaviour.

 

MB

Of course, itskosher authority has a commercial interest in the existence of a god. If he were to concede that there was a possibility god didn’t exist then he would be out of business. Much like a snake oil salesman, only there’s more evidence of snake oil than there is of god.

 

Itskosher Authority

As I have mentioned – your frustration, irritation and rude attempts at put-downs, is just a window into your confused mind, a state of confusion prompted because you cannot deal with simple questions – the equivalent of the angry teacher stomping on the kid who asks a Q that the teacher cannot answer.

 

It is not preposterous cr*p, I have offered you the opportunity to use simple words to show that my presentation is not scientific, … but you have risen to the challenge MB.

 

Anyone, Luke, who imagines an entitlement to harm, oppress, judge and hurt others who don’t conform to their beliefs, are very strange and sad. And you think this is more commonly found amongst religious fanatics? Not those who “agitate” for animal rights? or for anti whaling? or anti Govt protests? etc.

 

MB

Oh please, I am so not confused here, and I can smell this crap a mile away. Additionally, I am not rude. I just call nonsense for what it is. And this, dear Mr Anonymous, is complete and unadulterated nonsense.

 

Itskosher Authority

SSh, thank you for your thoughts, clearly and simply expressed.

 

Indeed, when all things are equal, the explanation with the fewest complexities is most often the correct explanation.

 

“fewest complexities” means least steps to explain – another way of saying most elegant.

 

My “postulate” proposes “god” to explain how matter and energy came about, because we accept that matter and energy could not have always existed.

 

So I say, we obviously need to say that SOMETHING was always there, may as well call it Gd and ascribe to it the properties of always existing.

 

Now you SSh, say this step is an incredibly complex step that requires an explanation.

And I say that all the questions you have are simply the paradigm that defines Gd, this force that always existed and will exist forever, and is unlimited in its power

 

In a sense it is exactly what Einstein did re the constant velocity of light. Whilst the world struggled to make sense of the Michalson and Morely experiment, and went into a tailspin – why don’t the vectors add like in all physics – Eistein went ahead and changed the parameters, he did an Okham’s Razor.

 

He did not force the round peg into the sq hole, he just went looking and postulated that there must be a round hole.

 

MB

God is simply a figment of human imagination.

 

GW

Gosh, I waited two days for that? You babble quite professionally, “Itskosher”. Unfortunately your ability to form coherent arguments and speak actual English is not so well developed. That entire reply to me was practically incoherent. I can see hints of straw men in “your Q leaves you disabled” and in “the Q of where it all came from does not bother you”, which are both false assertions regarding my POV, and which you then use as starting points for counter-arguments. Straw men are rather out of date. You’ve also leaned quite heavily on the ‘God did it’ line of thinking, which really is begging the question. It presumes the existence of a god, and then says his acts prove his existence. Occam’s razor is sharp, but even it can’t cut corners like that!

 

To put it simply, you make a claim, so the burden of proof lies with you. Science cautiously produces theories for others to test, and in time they either get supported or contraindicated. Knowledge gradually becomes more refined. When science puts forward a postulate, the burden of proof belongs to it. When you put one forward, it belongs to you. Science does not “only disprove”. It works by providing theories, making testable predictions based on those theories, and then testing the crap out of them. The old creationist favourite of abiogenesis (which you lean on) is one that is constantly a fascination of scientists. Science keeps searching, but creationists rely on the “there’s no other explanation, so therefore god did it”, thereby both begging the question and denying the antecedent. For example, one might make the following statement:

 

“If the Miller–Urey experiment leads to self replicating molecules, abiogenesis is possible. The experiment did not, therefore abiogenesis is not possible.”

 

… but it would be incorrect. There are other candidates for the basis of abiogenesis – ‘god’ being one of them – all of which require testing. Sadly, the god hypothesis is not testable, so it fails to convince – spectacularly.

 

You say that “god” is the scientific answer to “where did it all come from”. That is a badly worded theory and certainly doesn’t lead to any testable predictions. You claim god exists AS AN EXPLANATION of a number of observations. You cannot then rely on those observations as elements of your proof, or you are begging the question. You ask where matter came from, and claim that “god” is the answer, but are unable to provide even a theory of where your god came from. I know the answer – it was created by an invisible pink unicorn, a creature vastly more complex than our universe, and significantly more complex than your god. If you find that explanation does not satisfy you, then you understand why your explanation does not satisfy me.

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, you have said this before, I hope that at least saying it again makes you feel better, because at this point you refuse to use your mind and so what is left to say?

whenever you are ready to explain, in simple words without being aggressive why I am a fool and not scientific, please do so

 

GW

I’ll save him the work, since I’m awake:

 

You are skipping a step in the scientific process. It is not up to him (or anyone) to disprove your theory. It is up to him to attempt to invalidate testable predictions that your theory makes. Your theory is incapable of making testable predictions, thereby making it unscientific. Hence, you are not being scientific. That is a non-aggressive explanation in simple words.

 

ps: the ‘fool’ appellation is entirely your own, not an accusation made by either MB or me.

 

Itskosher Authority

Now that is correct – and I have been waiting to hear that, there is no test I can offer that can be reproduced to prove Gd, so there is no smoking gun and not even a non smoking gun.

 

I apologise for the suggestion limited to the word “fool”

 

and I am pleased that in your minds you can be whatever you want to be pink or blue

 

Anyway back to testable postulates, eventually Einstien did think of some experiments to test some of his postulates, but before that his postulates were still considered as legitimate by the scientific community.

 

But in fact most of his theorizing was done with thought experiments. Am I proposing notions that are that much different?

 

SSh

Itskosher, your argument is that your position is correct because it fits Okham’s Razor. Yet you ignore that your position introduces a complexity that requires further elaboration and explanation concerning how it operates.

 

Simply saying “it just does this” is the anti-thesis to being scientific.

 

A scientific mindset, that grants your position that “this force that always existed and will exist forever, and is unlimited in its power” is necessary for the universe to exist seeks to then investigate it. How does this “god” create a universe? You’ve said it has unlimited power, but it still must engage in an act of creation. What is involved in that act? This is ignoring all the other claims that there are about “god” where it has intervened directly in human affairs. These interventions in this universe should certainly leave evidence that can be investigated.

 

But you are arguing that it “just is” and doesn’t need to be explored further; an incredibly unscientific position to take.

 

Current scientific hypotheses about the origins of this universe make predictions about what we might find. We are getting closer and closer to being able to test them. Yes, even the multiverse hypothesis makes predictions that we can investigate and test. That is the scientific method.Testing something that makes predictions and seeing if the predictions hold true.

 

Your position either make no predicitions, or the predictions it makes are untestable, or have been demonstrated not to hold up to investigation.

 

Lastly, to compare your “postulate” to the work of Einstein, smacks of arrogance and a complete lack of understanding of what he actually did! To correct your analogy; where the round peg was the then accepted view of physics and the square hole is reality, Einstein took the round peg and turned it into a square one to fit reality.

 

GW

The predictions from Einstein’s work have been so numerous, and are so well tested and engineered-from (everything from the atomic bomb to GPS systems to the LHC) that your attempt to compare yourself to him is ludicrous. His thought experiments led quickly to mathematical rigour, which led quickly to thousands of tests. Your thought experiment amounts to regurgitating the beliefs of a 4000 year old tribe who hadn’t yet thought of electricity. Please don’t flatter yourself so.

 

Thank you however for your frank admission that you cannot produce a testable prediction, and therefore by implication that your thoughts have no place in a scientific realm. I’m disappointed that you’ve failed to address the comments regarding:

 

– burden of proof

 

– straw men

 

– denying the antecedent

 

– begging the question

 

– where god came from (aka invisible pink unicorns)

 

… but I fear you will be unable to construct a reply supportive of your ambitions, so I expect we’re unlikely to hear one.

Itskosher Authority

No, I don’t say I am correct, I said I am offering a postulate that addresses the Q that you do not, and that my postulate follows scientific methodology.

 

And I added that what I postulate is elegant and simple, it satisfies Okham’s Razor.

 

I do not ignore, I deny that my position introduces a complexity that requires further elaboration and explanation concerning how it operates.

 

Simply saying “it just does this” is the same as saying this is what the DNA does, what a prion does, what gravity does.

 

A scientific mindset seeks to investigate everything. But there are some things that appear at least for the time being to be beyond us.

 

I would indeed like to know how does something came about from nothing, how does space exist from where there was no space which is at least to my mind – an entirely unintelligible and un-graspable notion. But the postulate presents this notion and it is elegant in its simplicity.

 

I am sure you are familiar with the person born blind who begs us to describe colour, what are we to say?

 

That whatever they may imagine it is – that is most certainly what it is not. Colour is entirely beyond their experience.

 

And we are in a similar position here when attempting to understand even the commonly used notion of infinite.

 

I do not say that it need not be explored further but that it cannot be; indeed a position that is unique in the realms of science that presupposes that we can understand everything provided we have enough time and energy. Yes, the word atom means indivisible; we were positive that once we unravel the parts of the atom then we will have accomplished the final and crossed the ultimate point and pursuit of understanding this universe will be accomplished. And now we have hundreds if not thousands of sub-atomic particles.

 

Remind me – which particle physicist said that the miracle of smashing atoms together is like crashing two alarm clocks and seeing not springs cogs and shrapnel flying about but seeing tiny little alarm clocks jumping out of the crash scene – existing for a couple of micro seconds and then disappearing. I agree its a terribly unscientific explanation, but there you have it.

 

You say, “current scientific hypotheses about the origins of this universe make predictions about what we might find. We are getting closer and closer to being able to test them.” Yes, I agree, but none of them are as elegant as Gd. And I don’t think that any of them are or are even near being deemed scientific postulates.

 

You know the many worlds interpretation of quantam mechanics is a better proposal – and I mean from a scientific perspective – than the multiverse hypothesis.

 

You are right, my position makes no predictions and is untestable. But there are documented demonstrations to substantiate it.

 

I am not suggesting I am as clever or handsome as Einstein. If I fail to understand what Einstein did would you please use simple words to explain to me what it is and how it is that I fail to understand or what I misrepresented.

 

I am happy to use your analogy; where the round peg was the then accepted view of physics and the square hole is reality, Einstein took the round peg and turned it into a square one to fit reality. It still works to illustrate my point; that you see the peg as round when in fact it is square – and that is why you cant fit it into the hole.

 

His thought experiments led quickly to mathematical rigour, which science calls proofs. Unfortunately, mathematics – as far as I know – cannot cope with the theories and calculations required to draft formula to describe making something from nothing. So we dont have the mathematical tools to describe something coming from nothing. That does not make this postulate not elegant. nor breach Ockham’s Razor.

 

MB

Two points.

 

1. You have stated you are incapable of either proving or disproving the existence of a god.

 

2. You have a commercial interest in not establishing there is no god, so you are compromised from the outset.

 

So on that basis, why should I believe anything you claim about there being a god?

 

SS

To quote you:

 

“I do not say that it need not be explored further but that it cannot be; indeed a position that is unique in the realms of science that presupposes that we can understand everything provided we have enough time and energy. Yes, the word atom means indivisible; we were positive that once we unravel the parts of the atom then we will have accomplished the final and crossed the ultimate point and pursuit of understanding this universe will be accomplished. And now we have hundreds if not thousands of sub-atomic particles.”

 

There is one simple response to this. Every time we have thought we were at the most basic level of the universe, that THIS must be what “god” created, we discover that it breaks down further.

 

You are currently saying that “we cannot go further back than when this universe came into existence” so therefore “god.” Yet you ignore the different hypotheses that are becoming testable.

 

If the history of science has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that our human minds have always been mistaken when it comes to a point when we think we have the universe completely understood. The same will hold out for your postulate of “god did it.” Though I suspect that if/when the multi-verse hypothesis holds up under scrutiny, you’ll just move your god explanation to before the multi-verse.

 

We have gone from believing that gods granted us favours and controlling the weather and natural events and disasters, to thinking that a god created everything as is, to god set the wheels in motion a the time of the Big Bang. Where will you move your god to next?

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, You should follow the scientific process of accepting the postulate that is the simplest, most elegant, and offers the least complexities – Gd.

 

If you would re-evaluate your terms of reference to permit Gd as a possible option you would be compelled to follow my logical process

 

Itskosher Authority

SSh

Sorry, but I don’t follow what you identify as your simple response, “Every time we have thought we were at the most basic level of the universe, that THIS must be what “god” created, we discover that it breaks down further.” Please explain yourself.

 

No one is capable of testing various hypotheses that are becoming testable, “becoming” means they are not yet testable.

 

And I agree completely with you, that “if the history of science has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that our human minds have always been mistaken when it comes to a point when we think we have the universe completely understood.”

 

And you may be right. But PERHAPS being right is not a scientifically valid process. All you should be saying at this point is, “I accept that at this point Gd is the most elegant and simple perspective to explain the existence of matter and energy, and I therefore accept it since I accept the reasoning and guidelines of science, although we hope to prove it wrong some day.”

 

When you say, “We have gone from believing that gods granted us favours …..” who is the we you refer to?

 

MB

I reiterate my earlier comment. You have a financial interest in claiming that a god exists, so you are compromised from the outset. Sorry, your arguments have no credibility.

 

SSh

To respond to your post in order:

 

Every time we think we’re at the most fundamental level of understanding, we have discovered something beneath it. We initially though the atom was indivisible, then discovered protons, neutrons and electrons. Then we discovered quarks. and on it has gone. I said it in three different ways; this does not bode well for your comprehension skills.

 

When I say they are “becoming testable” I mean we are building/discovering the means of testing them. They have always made predictions, we just have not had the means of testing them.

 

You are still insisting that your particular god is a simple and elegant scientific explanation. It demonstrates that you are beyond reason in this regard. You have it backwards. In science, we do not accept something and then hope to “prove it wrong.” We only accept something after it has withstood testing, and challenges. The god hypothesis resists testing by its very nature of construction. And when a god hypothesis does provide predictions that can be tested, it fails in every single regard.

 

So until a god hypothesis provides an explanation that makes predictions, and those predictions – when tested – bare out to investigation, then and only then will it be considered a viable explanation.

 

The “we” I refer to, is quite clearly a collective we. That is society and cultures at large and throughout history.

 

DL

Wow – such a long thread, and I admit that I haven’t read it thoroughly. But it seems that the proposition is that we just call inanimate energy god. I guess we could – but I don’t see how that gets us anywhere. Certainly most faiths would rebel against this idea – inherent in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, is the acceptance of an intelligence that directs the organization of the universe, and can bend the rules when he feels like it (miracles). So the concept that god is just a bunch of energy that has been organized by physical laws to create the universe is antithetical to the concept of faith, and doesn’t help the scientific process at all. This still leads to a conclusion that the universe is a structure based on physical laws, not one designed by a hyper intelligent being. We could just as easily call the energy SugarLips – it wouldn’t change the fact there there is no evidence for any kind of omnipotence associated with the origins of the universe.

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, I have more than a financial interest, I am emotionally engaged, as is true of almost every human being on the planet; do you know about the N Rays discovered by the French so soon after the German discovered X Rays?

 

If this is adequate to put your mind at ease, so be it. But a scientific postulate although coloured by such distortions remains valid and legitimate. It is not necessarily discredited until one has dealt with the postulate in a scientific fashion.

 

MB

What about N-Rays? I note:

“N-rays (or N rays) were a hypothesized form of radiation, described by French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot in 1903, and initially confirmed by others, but subsequently found to be illusory.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_rays)

N ray – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

N-rays (or N rays) were a hypothesized form of radiation, described by French ph…See More

 

Itskosher Authority SSh,

I agree that Every time we think we’ve gotten to understand some aspect of the physics of this world thoroughly, we are humbled by the discovery that the more we know – the more we realise that we know even less of the big picture.

 

and I do appreciate your patience in explaining this again to me. But we say similar things, yet apprehend them quite differently. I’m sure you know what I mean.

 

I know what you said and I know what you mean about “becoming testable” -“we just have not had the means of testing them” – that’s what I said – there is no test YET to invalidate to disprove; so where does that leave us. Well, it leaves you hoping and believing that a test will disprove, and it leaves me with a Q – why don’t the scientists I am discussing this with admit, at least for the time being, that Gd is the most elegant …..

 

Science, as we first posited, proposes any number of postulates and then works with the most elegant. It “proves” it by formulating mathematical equations that accurately predict and describe the phenomena we observe and it disproves it with various conflicting observations.

 

Who cares if we dont know what light actually is, if it is a particle or a wave? Technology has used light and R&D proceeds. But as a science it is really most disappointing.

 

Science DOES accept postulates and then hopes to verify it or “prove it wrong.”

 

You may present the terms of reference as you please to suit your fancies – but what remains is the Q that you have not answered and which is best and most elegantly explained with the postulate of GD.

 

So much of scientific speculation and research is upon matters that we understand so little of that we are literally grasping at straws – but that does not stop us, nor should it stop us from grasping.

 

And many if not most of these have no explanation, make no predictions, and are as yet un-testable.

 

The “we” you refer to, is quite clearly the collective we who do not wish to entertain the postulate that answers the Q.

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, N Rays illustrates how all people – even those who are measuring palpable concrete observations can fall under the influence of their imaginations – that they are compromised. So I am compromised – and so are you. I admit to it, do you?

 

MB

How might I be compromised? I am not claiming something unprovable exists that I have a vested interest in.

 

Itskosher Authority

D, I welcome your observations and participation.

 

You say, “The proposition is that we just call the stuff that was always there [why do you call it “inanimate energy”] god.” or Sugar Lips.

 

No, I must disagree, a scientist could never concede this. In our physical experience and perception of the world, there is no such thing as something that just always exists and always will and always did – exist.

 

Now you can see how such a concession makes some V considerable progress in a direction that some people are V uncomfortable with.

 

And that is the general direction taken by most faiths.

 

So Gd is not just a bunch of energy that has been organized by physical laws to create the universe, Gd is the universal force that arranged the physical laws to create the universe.

 

The universe IS a structure based on physical laws, which in turn are designed and operated by Gd.

 

I agree, there is nothing that satisfies the scientific process, that we could describe as evidence for any kind of omnipotence.

But we do have a postulate, that most elegantly explains the BIG Q

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, The French scientists also claimed, “How might I be compromised? I am not claiming something unprovable exists that I have a vested interest in.”

 

MB

You have stated you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the god you have a stated financial interest it. I am making no claims to which I have a vested interest. So tell me, how am I compromised?

 

SSh

Itskosher, you clearly have an incomplete understanding of what science is and how it operates.

 

The god hypothesis does not fit this at all. It does not make any predictions that can be tested. If you think it does, please elaborate.

 

Lastly, cut the ridiculous notion that “the elegant solution must be the correct solution.” It does not fly in a truly scientific discussion as you would like to think you’re having.

 

An elegant explanation for thunder and lightning is that Zeus sends it in a fit of rage. How? He’s a god of course!That’s all the explanation needed apparently. However, due to the scientific method, we know what exactly causes thunder and lightning (the latter causes the former).

 

DL

I find the consistent use of gd instead of god in this thread interesting. Christians and Jews have for centuries refused to write the full name of god because they believe in a vengeful being – they assume that some all-powerful god is actually watching everything they do and say. Yet the argument here seems to be that god is much more of an abstract concept – not sentient at all. I’ve never understood the reasoning that if god existed, he would be vengeful against his own creation, nor that he would be interested on a daily basis in the minutiae of the lives of relatively uninteresting creatures in one tiny (REALLY tiny) pocket of the universe. This odd contraction seems pointless if we’re simply talking about naming the natural forces that existed at the start of the universe.

 

I think in all this it is important to notice that the scientific community produce a hypothesis, then try and test it, and abandon it when proven wrong. I’ve never heard of any religion doing that. Instead they cling strongly to their belief in a higher power, and then try to work around the evidence that their worldview is wrong. The Roman Catholic church are masters of this approach. In actuality, Rome is interested only in political power and money. They easily ignore the contradictions in their religion, amassing an estimated $56 billion in assets while admonishing their poorest contributors to ‘give to the poor’.

 

Religions have been used for centuries as a means of control. They started from ignorance of the world with myth stories of creation, but they rapidly developed into a justification to tax and torture. It is a very human invention, not something mystical.

 

Itskosher Authority

“An elegant explanation for thunder and lightning is that Zeus sends it in a fit of rage.”

Well it does not answer any problem and we have better options, unlike the big Q for which I am offering a postulate and for which you are offering hope and belief – you believe that science will soon have something to address this with

 

DL, I’d be happy to discuss with you these issues but they really belong on a different thread, they are a red herring

 

SSh

I’ll say this one last time before I write off this discussion due to your inability to engage with it honestly.

 

“Itskosher, you clearly have an incomplete understanding of what science is and how it operates.

 

The god hypothesis does not fit this at all. It does not make any predictions that can be tested. If you think it does, please elaborate.”

 

For something to be considered scientific, like you think your god hypothesis is, it needs to make predictions. If it does not make predictions, then it is by definition non-scientific.

 

Itskosher Authority

SSh,  I’m glad you’ve said that for the last time on this thread; now you can address your scientific method to postulating how matter and energy always existed or just spontaneously came into existence.

 

MB

I don’t get why people who believe in a god take advantage of science’s current inability to explain the where the universe came from as justification for the existence of said god. Is that the only thing that clinches it? Is there *nothing* else? Because if that’s all it is, then it’s a very tenuous justification.

 

SSh

Indeed, instead of Itskosher engaging with the criticisms raised by either explaining how their hypothesis does fit the definition of a scientific explanation and makes predictions or by challenging the definition they instead respond with “I’m right because you can’t yet demonstrate why yours is correct.” It’s truly madness!

 

Itskosher is trying to claim their hypothesis is scientific, but is unwilling to engage in the scientific method which involves actively defending your hypothesis from criticisms and expanding on its detail when deficiencies in the original hypothesis are revealed.

 

Itskosher, there are already currently a number of different competing scientific hypotheses competing to describe how this current universe came into existence. If the god hyopthesis had any scientific value, it would be among those theories vying to be tested. In case you didn’t know though, it’s not.

 

Itskosher Authority

Gentlemen, proposing a postulate and pointing out that it is the most elegant, and that such simplicity is at the very foundations of scientific thinking, is a far cry from suggesting that this justifies the existence of Gd.

 

Now you may be pre-empting where I come from and where I am going – but that is not a legitimate form of debate. We need to restrict ourselves to what is put up for discussion. We can successfully take one step at a time. Including these other considerations is just a subconscious diversionary tactic.

 

Neither have I suggested that I am correct.

 

I have only been asking – and I must now acknowledge your admitting – that you and the scientific world that you speak of in the “we” that you suggest you represent, are “currently unable to explain the where the universe came from”

 

Now this enables us to proceed further with a discussion – if you wish.

 

It has already been conceded that my postulate is not [yet] testable, but we have demonstrated that there is a great deal in the scientific world which is not yet testable – and yet it is still “scientific”

 

When scientists concede that there are probably things out there that are beyond the reach of science to analyse and understand, they are by that recognition taking a quantum leap and creating a bridgehead by which they permit themselves a much broader vista.

 

And this is a pretty circular self-fulfilling argument, but one must admire the temerity required to suggest it – “there are already currently a number of different competing scientific hypotheses attempting to describe how this current universe came into existence. If the god hyopthesis had any scientific value, it would be among those theories vying to be tested.”

MB

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how I am compromised.

 

SSh

For f***s sake! Ockham’s Razor is NOT “at the very foundations of scientific thinking.” It’s a general rule of thumb guide to assess whether or not something is reasonable.

 

Zeus being the cause of lightning is a more “simple” explanation than the build up of electrical charge in particles in clouds, which leads to an imbalance of electrical charge between the cloud and the ground, which leads to a rapid discharge of electricity between the two locations to balance the electrical charges. The process of which, super heats the air that it passes through, causing the air to expand rapidly creating a sonic bomb that we call thunder. Zeus caused it is much simpler and much more elegant if Ockham’s Razor is a must pass test in science. But it’s not correct.

 

The foundation of scientific thinking is “observe, hypothesise, test the predictions.” When the tests/experiements consistently reveal what is predicted, and does not reveal any other phenomena that either weren’t predicted or were predicted to not exist, then we take it that the hypotheses is a good explanation for what we observe.

 

Einstein’s theory of spacetime predicted gravity waves. We’ve only just recently developed the technology to detect them. However, there were other predictions of his hypotheses that we were able to detect earlier.

 

In summation, the very foundation of science is PREDICTION. If a hypotheses predicts nothing, it is useless! The god hypotheses makes no predictions, it simply says: “whatever exists, god did it.” No predictive capability there at all!

 

If I’m wrong, and you think the god hypotheses does have predictive qualities, DESCRIBE THEM!

 

The current scientific hypotheses about the origins of this universe all make predictions, some are closer to being tested than others. 11 dimensional string theory being one of them (the multi-verse is a consequence of this one, I believe).

 

So either demonstrate how your god hypothesis fits the scientific method as you have repeatedly claimed it does or admit that it is not scientific at all.

 

MB

Orthodox Jews, especially those who have a rabbinical certification, are not prepared to entertain the possibility that god is a crock of nonsense. Their entire existence hinges around the reality of god and that everything in their world revolves around god. Everything, from the moment they wake to the moment they sleep. It’s the ultimate in brain washing. These people are so convinced god is real that there is nothing you can ever do or say that will convince them otherwise. Don’t waste your energy on this guy. It’s a waste of your time. But I must say, it’s been fun watching him unravel himself bit by bit.

 

SSh

Yeah, I wasn’t really ever entertaining the idea that this person might actually be intellectually honest and admit they were wrong in their understanding about the foundations of science. I just needed to vent my frustrations one final time

 

SSh

If this person starts engaging in an honest and intellectual manner, I’ll re-engage with the discussion. However, until then, that was my final word on the subject in this thread.

 

Itskosher Authority

MB, I wonder which part of – “The French scientists also claimed as do you Michael, “How might I be compromised? I am not claiming something unprovable exists that I have a vested interest in.”” – you don’t understand

 

SSh, Ockham’s Razor IS “at the very foundations of scientific thinking.”

You say, “It’s a general rule of thumb guide to assess whether or not something is reasonable.”

Very well said, Scott. So do you not agree that science is at its very foundations seeking to determine if a postulate is reasonable?

And when you respond, if you respond, please vent all your frustrations on the cat or by banging your head against the wall – I have already requested that you keep a civil tongue for this discussion.

 

You may also wish to see this – Some argue that what scientists do is not inductive reasoning at all but rather abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation. In this account, science is not about generalizing specific instances but rather about hypothesizing explanations for what is observed. As discussed in the previous section, it is not always clear what is meant by the “best explanation.” Ockham’s razor, which counsels choosing the simplest available explanation, thus plays an important role in some versions of this approach. To return to the example of the chicken, would it be simpler to suppose that the farmer cares about it and will continue taking care of it indefinitely or that the farmer is fattening it up for slaughter? Philosophers have tried to make this heuristic principle more precise in terms of theoretical parsimony or other measures. Yet, although various measures of simplicity have been brought forward as potential candidates, it is generally accepted that there is no such thing as a theory-independent measure of simplicity. In other words, there appear to be as many different measures of simplicity as there are theories themselves, and the task of choosing between measures of simplicity appears to be every bit as problematic as the job of choosing between theories.[12] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

Zeus being the cause of lightning is not a more “simple” explanation than the build up imbalance of electrical charge ….. rapid discharge of electricity …… super heats the air …. sonic bomb that we call thunder. Neither does it pass Ockham’s Razor test.

Simply because we do have tangible evidence and do reproduce in laboratory conditions these observations.

I don’t believe that you said any of this other than in a heated moment and in a desperate attempt to ridicule that which you are fearful of recognising.

 

I have already mentioned – and you certainly know without my mentioning, that there exist within the realms of science many postulates that are not yet testable i.e. they do not make testable predictions.

 

I will better enunciate what you are trying to say – science can prove nothing – it can only disprove things. Predictions that are verified are not proofs, they just verify the present theory. However, there always remains the possibility that an observation will be made that disproves the long-held framework that we accepted as truth and fact.

 

Does the postulate of Gd, which you have now acknowledged is the only elegant contender that deals with matter and energy always being there or being brought into existence, fit into the scientific system of being something that can be disproved?

 

I think the answer is yes.

When science develops an understanding and verifies that matter and energy can be spontaneously created from nothing, then we will have that proof; we will finally be able to say “We don’t require Zeus or a power by any other name”

 

but until that time, Gd remains the only viable contender and the scientific system that you have pledged allegiance to compels you to accept this as the most elegant postulate.

 

You say that “If a hypotheses predicts nothing, it is useless!” and I say that what science really means, and what you ought to be saying, is that it cannot be disproved.

 

The Gd hypotheses does make predictions, but that is not the essence of our discussion. If you wish we can pursue that on another thread.

 

You admit that that current science has no testable i.e. disprovable hypothesis, “The current scientific hypotheses about the origins of this universe all make predictions, some are closer to being tested than others. 11 dimensional string theory being one of them (the multi-verse is a consequence of this one, I believe)”

 

We’ve been through this before, I can’t understand why you would, from a rational perspective, repeat that which you have already conceded.

You are in fact a believer and have faith, your faith and belief is that soon there will testable and measurable observations for these fanciful suggestions. As I said, there is nothing wrong with that, but to use such considerations to disqualify that which is most elegant and simple is just self-delusion.

 

As for your closing comments, Scott, I might reasonably say the same – “I wasn’t really ever entertaining the idea that this person might actually be intellectually honest and admit they were wrong” and “If this person starts engaging in an honest and intellectual manner, I’ll re-engage with the discussion”

 

so there is really not much value contributed by your saying so other than giving yourself what you consider to be a honourable way out of this discussion in which you do not need to answer the simple Q i have consistently put to you – other than Gd there is no other meaningful explanation that deals with the existence or the creation of matter and energy

and MB, I don’t know which Orthodox Jews you know, but the discussion here is not about convincing me – its about convincing yourselves.

You are the ones who embrace the scientific ideal. I just said that accordingly you should by your own admission embrace the postulate that so far, Gd is the simplest and most elegant explanation to deal with the eternal existence of matter and energy.

I am surprised that you are so confused by this discussion that you could make such an error.

Unless of course you are not confused but seeking escape

Advertisements