• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Curiosity on Science Channel

steve s

Philosopher
steve s
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
5,865
The new series Curiosity is just wrapping up. It's pretty good. This first episode is titled Did God Create the Universe. They've been talking about how the net energy of the universe is zero, so basically nothing came into existence, so what role is there for god (I probably did a poor job of summarizing that.) Looks like this will be a good series to watch.

There's a 30 minute discussion following the show.

Steve S
 
Last edited:
I remain annoyed that the discussions about god and science never address my shifted paradigm position. Why is the discussion always about god or no god and never about the evidence that gods are fiction people invented?
 
I caught the last 40 minutes or so. Decently handled, rational discussion. Promising.
The moderator is the fellow who handles Meet The Press now.

I think the question for this initial episode was not "does God exist", but rather "did God create the universe?".

I do agree, the evidence for "God" as an artifact of human psychology is very powerful.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I remain annoyed that the discussions about god and science never address my shifted paradigm position. Why is the discussion always about god or no god and never about the evidence that gods are fiction people invented?
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, SG.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I remain annoyed that the discussions about god and science never address my shifted paradigm position. Why is the discussion always about god or no god and never about the evidence that gods are fiction people invented?
Click to expand...

I agree. But. No theist but full on nut jobs would ever agree to appear on the show and participate in the debate.
 
Brattus said:
I agree. But. No theist but full on nut jobs would ever agree to appear on the show and participate in the debate.
Click to expand...
But I'm not sure even Hawking, not on a panel, has addressed the approach that there is evidence people made up god beliefs. Perhaps someone is aware of something Hawking has written or said which contradicts my belief? IE, it's the science side of this debate that disappoints.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But I'm not sure even Hawking, not on a panel, has addressed the approach that there is evidence people made up god beliefs. Perhaps someone is aware of something Hawking has written or said which contradicts my belief? IE, it's the science side of this debate that disappoints.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's an agreement that the God of the Bronze Age tribes are a myth and the current god they are inquiring is purely towards the Prime Mover?

Hawking only lately suggested the lack of requirement for that and to that end maybe they just don't even acknowledge YHWH's existence because the debate has passed that already and moved into "Just the Prime Mover" territory.

But I haven't watched the show so I don't know the dialogue.
 
It was telling me stuff I already know.
Didn't watch all that much of it.
 
Bikewer said:
I caught the last 40 minutes or so.
Click to expand...

Was that mostly the 30-minute discussion show, or the last 40 minutes of Curiosity?


Maybe there's an agreement that the God of the Bronze Age tribes are a myth and the current god they are inquiring is purely towards the Prime Mover?
Click to expand...

They were basically saying that there is no need for a prime mover because the cause-and-effect relationship that we're familiar with in the macro world largely falls apart in the realm of quantum mechanics. The universe could have sprung into existence without any cause and without violating any laws of nature.

Here's the schedule...
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.16531.30676.39776.0

Steve S
 
Last edited:
steve s said:
They were basically saying that there is no need for a prime mover because the cause-and-effect relationship that we're familiar with in the macro world largely falls apart in the realm of quantum mechanics. The universe could have sprung into existence without any cause and without violating any laws of nature.

Here's the schedule...
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.16531.30676.39776.0

Steve S
Click to expand...

I assumed as much; well then there doesn't seem to be much room for God at all in the program, why question theologians in the first place?
 
Lowpro said:
Maybe there's an agreement that the God of the Bronze Age tribes are a myth and the current god they are inquiring is purely towards the Prime Mover?
Click to expand...
You can claim anything you want about gods, but that doesn't make new fictional gods any less fictional than Bronze Age fictional gods. No evidence is no evidence.
 
Lowpro said:
...why question theologians in the first place?
Click to expand...
That was one of my questions. How does studying fiction qualify one for talking science?

I know, I know, the theologians fancy themselves philosophers. Their brand of philosophy is still derived from a fictional basis of study.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can claim anything you want about gods, but that doesn't make new fictional gods any less fictional than Bronze Age fictional gods. No evidence is no evidence.
Click to expand...

Agreed but you're not reading in context. The question I phrased was what attributes was the episode giving to God, if any. Generally when I imagine Hawking to invoke God, it's NOT the God of Bronze Age myth but the Prime Mover, the reason there is existence in the first place.

That's not a fictional entity until you give it particular attributes. If you want to be poetic, God-with-the-Prime-Mover-attribute is just the equation that proves QM to cause existence from nonexistence*


*This may or may not be the case, I haven't watched the dang thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom