Why science and religion are not compatible

[westprog]

I was under the impression that progress can only be made by disregarding the supernatural altogether.

Irregardless?

 

[FattyCatty]

What makes you think theology is a real subject to start with? And philosophy not informed by science is a fool's errand.

If I hadn't read your other posts I would have assumed this was a joke. So I assume this post is serious, and, thus, I find it impossible to take you seriously.

Theology has been around since even before the word was used.

Theology as an academic discipline

The history of the study of theology in institutions of higher education is as old as the history of such institutions themselves. For example, Taxila was an early centre of Vedic learning, possible from the 6th century BC or earlier;^[34] the Platonic Academy founded in Athens in the 4th century BC seems to have included theological themes in its subject matter;^[35] the Chinese Taixue delivered Confucian teaching from the 2nd century BC;^[36] the School of Nisibis was a centre of Christian learning from the 4th century AD;^[37] Nalanda in India was a site of Buddhist higher learning from at least the 5th or 6th century AD;^[38] and the Moroccan University of Al-Karaouine was a centre of Islamic learning from the 10th century,^[39] as was Al-Azhar University in Cairo.^[40]

And philosophy^WP was around long before science was.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.^[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.^[3] The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".^[4][5][6]<snip>
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.

So in theology and metaphysics (highly dubious fields of study to start with), Iron Age tribes knew better than modern humans?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that science didn't deal with theology and metaphysics, which, as pointed out above, are hardly "highly dubious fields of study." I am using metaphysics^WP, a branch of philosophy, in the following sense:

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.^[6]

Science doesn't and can't know. This question is outside the realm of science. Also, the article you referenced is merely opinion, with only as much validity as any other opinion (even mine). And the opinion in the reference is contrary to many other opinions on what science is (see my previous posts). In fact, it might be interpreted as incompatible with science.

Huh? He wrote that if we look at the world through a scientific perspective, materialism is more likely than theism. Can you point out what's wrong with it, instead of invoking NOMA as the end of the matter?

Basic materialism says there is nothing more than matter. This is an opinion, imposed on science, not a hypothesis proved by science. And as described in the quote below (from the paper you referenced), it is a presumptuous opinion when it states it can obtain a "complete description of reality."

The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.'' From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions.

I'll also repeat a sentence from a legal opinion on what science is (see the quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision in this post): "While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Thus the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Therefore, the question "Is there a God?" is not answered by science, and your answer, "No," which linked to the above article, is incorrect.

Because they did. What kind of answer do you want? Religion isn't immune to that sort of questions either. If someone said that "God has a special purpose with your life", one could go on asking "Why?".

That's where theology comes into its own.

You didn't respond to my request for evidence for your statement that "you cease to exist" after you die. Did you just forget?

I don't see any lack of logic. He is simply look at the idea of an afterlife from a scientific perspective and concludes that it is unlikely, given what we know about the universe.

He writes about it from the view of physics, but also adds that there is a biological perspective to it:

He negates everything science has ever learned by claiming that: "Until you have actually examined every single cubic centimeter of the Moon’s interior, you don’t really have experimentally verifiable information, do you?" And you don't find this illogical?

 

[FattyCatty]

I can understand how you can believe in a realm outside of current scientific understanding, but I don't understand how you can believe in a realm permanently and totally outside all possible future scientific understanding.

And I don't understand how you cannot.

It seems to me that throughout human history, when the supernatural is understood, that it fits in the natural realm. It's only our inability to understand it in the first place that relegated it to the realm of supernatural.

So I'm inclined to believe that you're still making the same mistake that humans have made in the past. Can you explain why you believe that you're not?

I don't agree that when something previously considered supernatural is understood it becomes part of the natural world. Why couldn't someone understand the nature of God (at least in part)? Or the nature of the soul? These are not scientific questions and the understanding wouldn't come from science.

I was unclear before about this, and hope to have corrected myself in the following post:

<snip>
I think this is where I wasn't started being unclear. I'll give it another try. To address the first sentence:

• There is a natural world; about it we can make observations (and measure/quantify them) and base on them ideas that we can test, verify, falsify, or modify.
  
• There is a supernatural world; about it we cannot make observations (so there is nothing to measure/quantify) and the ideas we have about it cannot be tested, verified, falsified, or modified.
  
• We decide what belongs in each category, using our ability to make observations and form testable ideas as criteria.

<snip>
To address the second sentence:

Originally, given an entity "A":

• Based on our inability to make observations about "A"
• Believing that this inability would not change
• We categorize "A" as a supernatural entity.

Then, given a change in the tools available to science:

• We now have the ability to make observations about "A"
• These observations can be measured/quantified
• We can now form ideas about "A" that can be tested, verified, falsified, or modified
• "A" belongs in the category we call the "natural world" and turns out to have been incorrectly put in the category "supernatural world."

I would guess that you have a problem with the "Believing that this inability would not change" part. I don't. I do not believe that science can answer all questions, only certain kinds of questions.

 

[FattyCatty]

I don't see anything orderly or symetrical about supposing the existence of some invisible realm where impossible things happen.

Well, the creation of the universe clearly was not an impossible thing. And it seems quite orderly to say the universe was created. How else did it come to be?

Regarding symmetry^WP, the balance aspect is probably most important to me; a creation paired with a creator just seems right. Random happenings with incredible coincidences constantly occurring doesn't seem right.

Symmetry (from Greek συμμετρεῖν symmetría "measure together") generally conveys two primary meanings. The first is an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance;[1][2] such that it reflects beauty or perfection. The second meaning is a precise and well-defined concept of balance or "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated or proved according to the rules of a formal system: by geometry, through physics or otherwise.
<snip>
...The innate appeal of symmetry can be found in our reactions to happening across highly symmetrical natural objects, such as precisely formed crystals or beautifully spiraled seashells. Our first reaction in finding such an object often is to wonder whether we have found an object created by a fellow human, followed quickly by surprise that the symmetries that caught our attention are derived from nature itself. In both reactions we give away our inclination to view symmetries both as beautiful and, in some fashion, informative of the world around us.^{[citation needed]}

I've heard of people who think that a giant lizard lives inside the Earth and when it moves around we get earth-quakes. That certainly seems more simple than all that nonsense about Plate-Techtonics...

Well, you know interesting people. I've never encountered anyone who believed that. And, looking at simple explanations for a non-scientist, plate-tectonics seems nice and simple - plates ride on fluid-like stuff; plates move; plates run into or under other plates; the interaction causes earthquakes, volcanoes, mountains, trenches. Much simpler than trying to figure out the Giant Lizard's motivations, nature, relationship to God, etc.

If we can see them, that means photons are bouncing off them. If photons are bouncing off them, science can detect them.

That's basically what I said. If, however, they are supernatural, we can't see them. Well I'm not sure about if we consider that they are projecting directly to our optic nerves; no photons are involved, but I'm not sure if that would still be supernatural.

They can also make a mathematical model of it, not so much with God.

I guess models for God would be theological or philosophical models. But neither your multiple universes nor my God are believed by everyone and neither one is proved.

You can believe that if you want, but I think you will find that most people seriously studying the brain and how it works will disagree with you.

And yet there seems to be a wide divergence of opinion on consciousness and whether it is all physically based.

I agree. It could also be halucination, pareidolia, optical illusion, hoax... any number of things really. Nothing supernatural at all.

I include supernatural as an option.

So just the Father and the Son then? No Holy Ghost for you?

Because I wasn't a church-goer (or Bible-reader), I've never really known what the Holy Ghost is. Apparently, it's God.

You don't think it is irrational to believe in the folk mythology of one little middle eastern tribe? A mythology invented in a time when they believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a dome covered in water?

Well, I obviously don't think it's irrational to believe in a God who created the universe. And gave the universe systems and processes with an ability to form an Earth that allowed life to develop and evolve and produce human beings who could wonder about how and why it all happened.

"subnatural" was meant as a joke. Sorry.

Oops. I guess I'm humor-impaired. And it seemed to fit so nicely with my bullets.

 

[FattyCatty]

Can't say that I find it to be particularly symmetric, but then, I favor the geometric use of the term over the vague sense, greatly. Can't say that I see how "order" applies, really, either.

I'm using the "vague sense" of harmonious and balanced. It's balanced, it makes sense to me, it seems to fit - order.

"A wizard did it" is a far simpler explanation than any scientific theory. Quite useless, though, beyond use as a way to dismiss the matter.

Not really. The scientific theory will only explain some things (the "how"). The why and where from and what else need another explanation, and I think God provides it.

Go ahead. Believe it if you want. I'm certainly not going to try to stop you.

That's big of you. Thanks for your permission.

Yes, to all. No, I'm not going to provide links to the appropriate bits of neurology out of laziness and the sheer number of questions there.

In the absence of evidence, I will feel free to disbelieve your "Yes, to all."

Sure, believe that if you want. Be aware that it is, by your very description, unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, no one else has any objective reason to agree.

I think I may be expressing myself poorly and not understanding some terms correctly. Isn't consciousness subjective and unexplained by physical means? Isn't the mind (in the sense of mind vs. brain) the same as consciousness?

It's not. It's one of the likelier ones, though. That and being tricked/jumping to conclusions, both because of others and oneself.

Certainly something not limited to those who believe in God(s).

Actually, the statement you're responding to is very true. It has no bearing on whether the supernatural either is or can be real, though, just how people use the concept.

The fact that someone both believes in God and believes that science does not deal with the supernatural does not mean they consider that "The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational." In my case, I believed science had limits before I believed in God. I also don't consider my beliefs irrational.

 

[FattyCatty]

And you would be completely wrong to view that as simpler. There is a hidden assumption in the simplicity of Goddidit -- positing a supernatural realm in addition to a natural realm as opposed to a natural realm alone indicates reliance on substance dualism. Any answer that requires two fundamental substances is infinitely more complex than an explanation based on a single fundamental substance.

I'll have to take your word for it because I don't know enough about philosophy to know if you're right or not. But I'd like you to tell me how the idea of just two realms - natural and supernatural - is less simple than the idea of multiple universes, some of which might contain those same two realms.

The answer Goddidit could theoretically be correct, but saying that answer is more parsimonious than a 'natural' explanation is just wrong.

What is the "natural" explanation for the creation of the universe? And why is the idea of God creating the universe and its processes less simple than believing in the continuing series of coincidences necessary to arrive where we are?

 

[Brainache]

I don't see anything orderly or symetrical about supposing the existence of some invisible realm where impossible things happen.

Well, the creation of the universe clearly was not an impossible thing. And it seems quite orderly to say the universe was created. How else did it come to be?

How did the Creator come to be?

Why the extra question, if the Creator doesn't interact with His Creation?

What you are proposing is more complex than the Natural assumption. Surely God is more complex than his Creation, so we have to ask where did he come from? Another God? Blah blah blah...

Regarding symmetry^WP, the balance aspect is probably most important to me; a creation paired with a creator just seems right. Random happenings with incredible coincidences constantly occurring doesn't seem right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)

Physics has a bit to say about it too. Nothing supernatural there...

Well, you know interesting people. I've never encountered anyone who believed that. And, looking at simple explanations for a non-scientist, plate-tectonics seems nice and simple - plates ride on fluid-like stuff; plates move; plates run into or under other plates; the interaction causes earthquakes, volcanoes, mountains, trenches. Much simpler than trying to figure out the Giant Lizard's motivations, nature,

All perfectectly reasonable and scientific so far, then:

relationship to God, etc.

What does that mean? If you are talking about a sense of awe and wonder of the natural world, then I agree. Science deepens our understanding of things, the Supernatural obscures them in myths.

That's basically what I said. If, however, they are supernatural, we can't see them. Well I'm not sure about if we consider that they are projecting directly to our optic nerves; no photons are involved, but I'm not sure if that would still be supernatural.

So, every ghost story ever told was totally made up, but: the disembodied spirits of tortured human souls do haunt the earth howling their endless miseries to the stars?

How does that work?

I guess models for God would be theological or philosophical models. But neither your multiple universes nor my God are believed by everyone and neither one is proved.

So they just make it up then?

And yet there seems to be a wide divergence of opinion on consciousness and whether it is all physically based.

There seems to be a wide divergence of opinion on just about everything.

I include supernatural as an option.

I don't.

Because I wasn't a church-goer (or Bible-reader), I've never really known what the Holy Ghost is. Apparently, it's God.

OK. But it is a pretty big leap to suggest that because you feel a great love for nature, and call it GOD, that it means It loves you back.

Well, I obviously don't think it's irrational to believe in a God who created the universe. And gave the universe systems and processes with an ability to form an Earth that allowed life to develop and evolve and produce human beings who could wonder about how and why it all happened.

I see no need need for one. He is more complex than the problem He purports to solve.

Oops. I guess I'm humor-impaired. And it seemed to fit so nicely with my bullets.

1. It Wasn't very funny.
2. You weren't the only one who missed it.
3. Planet X

 

[Aridas]

I'm using the "vague sense" of harmonious and balanced. It's balanced, it makes sense to me, it seems to fit - order.

I realized this, which is why I included mention of the vague sense. For me, though, I simply don't see much balance or order that can't simply be classified as "arbitrary" or "contrived."

Not really. The scientific theory will only explain some things (the "how"). The why and where from and what else need another explanation, and I think God provides it.

I'll agree that science will and can only explain some things, however, I do not see reason to jump to the conclusion that "Why are things the way they are?" (in the sense that you seem to be using it) and "Where did existence come from?" are either necessarily valid, nor that, if they are, that "God" (assuming a Christian God, given how commonly those forms of a deity are often called God) is even likely the answer. Most versions of the Christian God and surrounding theology, for example, seem to have very real conceptual flaws.

That's big of you. Thanks for your permission.

It's not my permission. It's simply an attempt to keep my position on the matter clear.

In the absence of evidence, I will feel free to disbelieve your "Yes, to all."

Given the amount of work it would be for me to answer each of the barrage of questions, with no likely direct reward, and that you could easily just keep asking more? I can't say that I'm bothered enough by your disbelief to motivate me to try to, likely fruitlessly, change your mind, even if I am rather certain that your attempt to assert that these things either have no basis in the physical workings of the brain or simply don't need the physical workings of the brain is, quite simply, false. Still, to ask a couple basic questions that I recently asked elsewhere in lieu of links to each of the questions you posed...

1) If one had no neurons, could one still feel or show emotion?

2) Can emotions, actions, responses, etc, be manipulated by means of applied stimulation of the brain?

3) Does loss of large sections of neurons, such as say, the entire frontal lobe, lead to changes in personality or emotions?

4) Can emotions be altered or produced by means of adding chemical substances to the body?

If no to 1 and/or yes to 2, 3, and/or 4, then the safe assumption is that the material aspects very much do play a part.

I think I may be expressing myself poorly and not understanding some terms correctly. Isn't consciousness subjective and unexplained by physical means? Isn't the mind (in the sense of mind vs. brain) the same as consciousness?

Unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. Given that the concept of "consciousness" itself didn't seem to be particularly well defined, last I checked, though, I can't say that I'm surprised that misunderstandings occur. That said, I was responding specifically to your postulation that the mind has undetectable aspects that are not based in physical reality. Do you disagree that this postulation is untestable and unverifiable, in the manner that you stated it?

Certainly something not limited to those who believe in God(s).

Not limited, no. More likely? Yes.

The fact that someone both believes in God and believes that science does not deal with the supernatural does not mean they consider that "The supernatural is some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card that people play when their beliefs turn out to be irrational."

That actually suggests willful ignorance, then, given that the supernatural actually is used in that manner. It is not only used in that manner, certainly, but that doesn't negate the statement. What that does show is that the statement is only addressing one facet of the issue at hand. Granted, it does it in a biased manner. Again, that it is used that way is irrelevant to whether the supernatural or particular aspects of it are either real or not real.

In my case, I believed science had limits before I believed in God. I also don't consider my beliefs irrational.

Science does have limits. That's completely separate from any beliefs regarding the supernatural or anything else that science does or doesn't deal with. As for your beliefs being irrational? If you look at it honestly, I strongly suspect that you'll find that they are irrational. That said, again, something believed for irrational reasons is not automatically true or false. I can say that I believe in gravity because there's a planet likely made largely of diamond in our galactic neighborhood. Does this automatically make the concept of gravity true or false? Obviously, it doesn't. The same concept applies with supernatural claims.

That said, would you accept the concept of gravity as particularly likely, if the only arguments and evidence for it were on that level of irrelevancy?

What is the "natural" explanation for the creation of the universe?

First, see if you can present a sound argument why existence couldn't always have existed. Until you can, demanding a "natural" explanation for the existence of existence, as I suspect your actual question to be, is rather presumptuous, on multiple levels.

And why is the idea of God creating the universe and its processes less simple than believing in the continuing series of coincidences necessary to arrive where we are?

That depends on the nature of the "God" that you're proposing and whether you actually mean our universe or existence, itself. The versions desirable to much of Christianity, for example, specifically, the uncreated creator postulations, tend to rest on both questionable assumptions and violate the very assumptions that are used to try to justify the necessity of an uncreated creator, among other problems.

Also, "continuing series of coincidences" is language that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding and bias on the matter.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Only if you start with materialism as your base assumption. There's no need for dualism if you start with the supernatural and proceed from there.

She is positing a supernatural and natural realm -- that is substance dualism.


My objection has nothing to do with materialism but with the contrast between monism and substance dualism. If we are speaking of a monism and want to include God, then God is all that there is and you and I are merely thoughts in the mind of God. Any monism amounts to the exact same outcome. I don't see what ultimate difference it makes to say that the world is vibrating strings of energy or God thinking. We are exactly the same in both ontologies.

Christianity, in all its forms, is based in substance dualism. Almost all religions are, with the possible exception of some forms of Buddhism.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'll have to take your word for it because I don't know enough about philosophy to know if you're right or not. But I'd like you to tell me how the idea of just two realms - natural and supernatural - is less simple than the idea of multiple universes, some of which might contain those same two realms.

What is the "natural" explanation for the creation of the universe? And why is the idea of God creating the universe and its processes less simple than believing in the continuing series of coincidences necessary to arrive where we are?

A multiverse, in the way that it is conceptualized, simply moves the issue of 'all that is' back a step. The word universe is supposed to mean one realm (everything) just as 'atom' is supposed to mean indivisible. What we call atoms are divisible, so they are not 'atom' just as what we call 'universe' in a multiverse model is not a universe. The multiverse is the universe.

With that said, to get to your actual question, the idea is that everything is composed of a single substance. We can never know what that substance is, but we can model it. It might be that everything is thought in the mind of God or vibrating strings of energy, or whatever. The simplest possibility is that -- monism -- one substance.

If there are two substances -- think the old mind-body problem where we posit two completely different fundamental kinds of substance, mind and matter (body) -- then there is a serious problem. How do entirely incommensurate substances interact? Discussing this can take days and days, but no one to my knowledge has ever gotten close to solving that issue (the interaction of two entirely different fundamental substances). Spinoza argued, I think quite effectively, that it is not possible for them to interact.

The only solution to this type of interaction is 'magic', which basically amounts to saying there is no possible way of explaining the interaction.

So, explaining things naturalistically, however many entities are involved in the explanation, actually provides an explanation, a mechanism by which something is possible. It is not possible to provide an explanation involving two entirely different fundamental substances, so any scenario that uses that tact is infinitely more 'complex'. It may look simple -- just say Goddidit and be done with it -- but that is not an explanation; it only brushes away the issue. It is not more parsimonious because it is not an explanation and parsimony only deals with actual explanations, mechanisms. If Goddidit was the most parsimonious explanation for anything, then it is most parsimonious explanation for everything, dismantling science and human thought.

As to how the universe came to 'be'? I don't know. I do know that any 'explanation' leads to eternal presence, whatever that means.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In any case, even if Sean Carroll wants to extend the definition of science to include philosophical naturalism, I think that he lacks the authority to do so, unless he's been appointed science's infallible philosopher in chief.

Indeed, the idea that a particular philosophical position should be imposed on science is profoundly unscientific, and when it's been tried in the past, it has had very bad consequences.

Authority to do so? What are you talking about? This is an opinion piece.

 

[citizenzen]

What is the "natural" explanation for the creation of the universe? And why is the idea of God creating the universe and its processes less simple than believing in the continuing series of coincidences necessary to arrive where we are?

No one yet knows the "natural" explanation for the beginning of the universe. They don't know exactly how it happened. But that doesn't mean we need to fill in that lack of understanding with God.

We all know that gravity exists, yet scientists still have not observed the carrier of that force. They theorize that gravitons exist, but no one can say for sure. They don't know exactly what it is.

Do you believe that God holds you to the ground?

Scientists have long noticed that structures in the universe act as if they have more mass than we can detect. They've termed this "missing mass" Dark Matter. It constitutes over 80% of the matter in the universe, but no one has yet detected it and don't know exactly what it is.

Do you believe that God holds the galaxies together?

The universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating faster than expected. Scientists have theorized there is a component of the universe called Dark Energy which is forcing this acceleration. But they have never detected Dark Energy and don't know exactly what is is.

Do you believe that God is pushing apart the cosmos?

 

[westprog]

She is positing a supernatural and natural realm -- that is substance dualism.

I don't claim that there aren't people who have a view which is dualistic - just that it's not an essential element of the supernatural.

My objection has nothing to do with materialism but with the contrast between monism and substance dualism. If we are speaking of a monism and want to include God, then God is all that there is and you and I are merely thoughts in the mind of God. Any monism amounts to the exact same outcome. I don't see what ultimate difference it makes to say that the world is vibrating strings of energy or God thinking. We are exactly the same in both ontologies.

Then I think we are in basic agreement.

Christianity, in all its forms, is based in substance dualism. Almost all religions are, with the possible exception of some forms of Buddhism.

Then I'll leave that debate to a theologian.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't claim that there aren't people who have a view which is dualistic - just that it's not an essential element of the supernatural.

If you mean that as applies to monism, then we've only switched the label natural for supernatural which does us no good. Supernatural makes no sense except as opposed to natural; and, the supernatural is, by definition, not natural and so a different fundamental substance. If we use that word, we've already committed to substance dualism.

 

[westprog]

Authority to do so? What are you talking about? This is an opinion piece.

Exactly so. It's proposing a change in the nature of what science is that would involve a paradigm shift for the entire field.

 

[citizenzen]

Supernatural makes no sense except as opposed to natural;

And we've seen scientific theories that include multiple universes, numerous dimensions beyond the normally sensed four, a majority of the universes mass and energy that's as yet undetectable. And we've just begun to explore issues of the mind, consciousness, and awareness.

There's plenty in our natural world that is beyond.

We don't need to invent another realm that is beyond beyond.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And we've seen scientific theories that include multiple universes, numerous dimensions beyond the normally sensed four, a majority of the universes mass and energy that's as yet undetectable. And we've just begun to explore issues of the mind, consciousness, and awareness.

There's plenty in our natural world that is beyond.

We don't need to invent another realm that is beyond beyond.

Yes, indeed. Magic is silly. We have enough problems understanding what we've got in front of our faces.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Exactly so. It's proposing a change in the nature of what science is that would involve a paradigm shift for the entire field.

I'm afraid I can't agree. It's not a paradigm shift, only a difference of opinion about what methodological naturalism means in an expanded sense. And most of what he wrote wasn't even that -- just his opinion about what science means for typical claims about the natural world from a religious perspective.

 

[Leumas]

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est

No one yet knows the "natural" explanation for the beginning of the universe. They don't know exactly how it happened. But that doesn't mean we need to fill in that lack of understanding with God.

The whole train of thought about the BEGINNING of the universe, in my opinion is fallacious….a PARADOX.

If the pursuit is to find out what started our CORNER of the HYPERVERSE (which we call the universe) then that is fine....that is like trying to understand how the sun or our galaxy started.

However, if the pursuit is to find out how the Hyperverse started then it is a fruitless quest; as fruitless and meaningless as trying to find a god….it is like trying to calculate the result of n divided by 0.

How can there be a beginning for the universe? If there is then what was there before? WHERE was there before?

For anything to exist there has to be SOMEWHERE for it to exist. This somewhere is the universe even if there is NOTHING in it. Even if there is absolutely nothing in the universe it is still the universe. No beginning and no end and no limits; infinite in time and space.

If the pursuit is to comprehend how matter started then fine, but the universe did not start with matter. The universe contains matter but matter is NOT the universe. The universe is everything, everywhere and everytime even if there is nothing or no time in it.

Whether there are multiverses or one big hyperverse, it is immaterial. The universe is the container in time and space of ALL "universes" and all time and space….everything that was, is, or will ever be….everything in this dimension or other dimensions…EVERYTHING.

So there cannot be a beginning or an end to the universe (or hyperverse if you prefer) and a quest for the beginning is a PARADOX.


For theists reading this...think of it as your god....you are more than able to fathom no beginning or end or limits to something you call god. The problem is then you attribute intelligence and intent to this thing. So why are you not able to comprehend the same for a lower level of existence. Why can't you envision a no start or end or limit to a THING that does not have any purpose or conscience? If god can exist out of nothing without limits then why cannot the universe which is infinitely less complicated? It is WHERE your god exists.

For the atheists reading this.... why do we need to have a beginning or end or limits. If the universe is limited in any way then what lies beyond the limits? You can see that this pursuit is a PARADOX and thus meaningless. The only reason we can think of a limited universe is because of our inability to comprehend infinity. We just do not have the mental or linguistic tools to describe or fathom infinity.

Now herein lies a little catch for theists. If a god does exist then s/he/it exists in the universe. That is the hyperverse which contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define. Regardless of what you may contrive or envision… multiverses…multi-dimensions… outside space-time or whatever you may contort….it is CONTAINED WITHIN the hyperverse (extended universe).

So if a god does exist then s/he/it is nothing but a BEING. This god is just another thing in the universe. Therefore s/he/it is not the creator of the universe. Even if s/he/it created the matter from which we exist or manipulated matter to create us….s/he/it is PART of the universe and is not anything more special than the atoms from which we are made. EVEN IF s/he/it is not made out of the same atoms from which we are made s/he/it STILL SHARES SPACE in the universe with the matter from which we are made.

Thus this god becomes no more special in relationship to us than we are in relationship to the bacteria in our lower intestines. You may argue that the bacteria and us are of the same matter and we did not make them. Regardless, even if this god made us from different matter just like we would make an android say, s/he/it is still not anything more than we are when we make an android.

Whichever way you would like to think about it this god is just a being within the universe and thus as far as we are concerned is AN ALIEN.

If anything exists…..it is automatically not outside the universe and the universe contains it….thus it is not a god.

So by existing or thinking any “god” becomes just an Alien….. no more worthy of worship than John Frum.

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est.
It thinks therefore it is in the universe and not a god.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The whole train of thought about the BEGINNING of the universe, in my opinion is fallacious….a PARADOX.

If the pursuit is to find out what started our CORNER of the HYPERVERSE (which we call the universe) then that is fine....that is like trying to understand how the sun or our galaxy started.

However, if the pursuit is to find out how the Hyperverse started then it is a fruitless quest; as fruitless and meaningless as trying to find a god….it is like trying to calculate the result of n divided by 0.

How can there be a beginning for the universe? If there is then what was there before? WHERE was there before?

For anything to exist there has to be SOMEWHERE for it to exist. This somewhere is the universe even if there is NOTHING in it. Even if there is absolutely nothing in the universe it is still the universe. No beginning and no end and no limits; infinite in time and space.

If the pursuit is to comprehend how matter started then fine, but the universe did not start with matter. The universe contains matter but matter is NOT the universe. The universe is everything, everywhere and everytime even if there is nothing or no time in it.

Whether there are multiverses or one big hyperverse, it is immaterial. The universe is the container in time and space of ALL "universes" and all time and space….everything that was, is, or will ever be….everything in this dimension or other dimensions…EVERYTHING.

So there cannot be a beginning or an end to the universe (or hyperverse if you prefer) and a quest for the beginning is a PARADOX.

Yes.

For theists reading this...think of it as your god....you are more than able to fathom no beginning or end or limits to something you call god. The problem is then you attribute intelligence and intent to this thing. So why are you not able to comprehend the same for a lower level of existence. Why can't you envision a no start or end or limit to a THING that does not have any purpose or conscience? If god can exist out of nothing without limits then why cannot the universe which is infinitely less complicated? It is WHERE your god exists.

Yes, quite.

For the atheists reading this.... why do we need to have a beginning or end or limits. If the universe is limited in any way then what lies beyond the limits? You can see that this pursuit is a PARADOX and thus meaningless. The only reason we can think of a limited universe is because of our inability to comprehend infinity. We just do not have the mental or linguistic tools to describe or fathom infinity.

Now herein lies a little catch for theists. If a god does exist then s/he/it exists in the universe. That is the hyperverse which contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define. Regardless of what you may contrive or envision… multiverses…multi-dimensions… outside space-time or whatever you may contort….it is CONTAINED WITHIN the hyperverse (extended universe).

So if a god does exist then s/he/it is nothing but a BEING. This god is just another thing in the universe. Therefore s/he/it is not the creator of the universe. Even if s/he/it created the matter from which we exist or manipulated matter to create us….s/he/it is PART of the universe and is not anything more special than the atoms from which we are made. EVEN IF s/he/it is not made out of the same atoms from which we are made s/he/it STILL SHARES SPACE in the universe with the matter from which we are made.

Thus this god becomes no more special in relationship to us than we are in relationship to the bacteria in our lower intestines. You may argue that the bacteria and us are of the same matter and we did not make them. Regardless, even if this god made us from different matter just like we would make an android say, s/he/it is still not anything more than we are when we make an android.

Whichever way you would like to think about it this god is just a being within the universe and thus as far as we are concerned is AN ALIEN.

If anything exists…..it is automatically not outside the universe and the universe contains it….thus it is not a god.

So by existing or thinking any “god” becomes just an Alien….. no more worthy of worship than John Frum.

Cogitat ergo in universum est et non deus est.
It thinks therefore it is in the universe and not a god.

Yes, except.........

God, to theists is not a being, but Being itself. This should open the issue of when and where this concept is used. Being *is*. It is fundamental, so there is no possibility of explaining it in more fundamental terms. Some people affix God to this fundamental substance and some do not. There really shouldn't be a problem with this, but for some reason some folks think God or vibrating strings of energy are completely different. The issue, as you point out, generally revolves around intention, which is an entirely human way of thinking. The problem arises, I think, when folks think of this entity as separate from the rest of 'creation' instead of all 'creation' following from it/him/her and constituting an entirely different type of substance.