Why is this such a bad thing to say? It seems to me that this is just another way in which theists are protected from reality. There is no evidence for the existence of such a creature.
Yes, the universe exists and yes, life exists and yes, we do not know the exact mechanisms that caused these two things.
But, so what? That doesn’t mean that there might be a super intelligent, if somewhat insane and sadistic, alien out there that did either.
Why in hell should any of us have to tip toe around their baseless assertion that such a creature exists to begin with?
It’s like they’re children and we want to avoid a tantrum. It’s not that we doubt ourselves. It’s that we don’t believe them. What’s the problem in bluntly rejecting their story?
Besides, they’re not children. They’re grown adults and many of these grown adults rake in millions, if not more, peddling the absurd idea of a creator alien that’s personally concerned with the trials and tribulations of a bunch of hairless apes on a pale blue dot.
Maybe it’s time we quit coddling them and let them have as big of a tantrum as they want.
{ 83 comments }
← Previous Comments
Absolutely – except that I agree with one of your past people. Not God, but a creator. Then it becomes a scientific question. Was the universe created or did it create itself. I doubt we can ever come up with an answer -but to have an opinion without some relevant scientific knowledge is ridiculous. On what other basis are you going to form an opinion? I found the Dawkins interview that a past contributor talks about. He does talk about maybe there is a superintelligence in another dimension. He absolutely does not believe in God – but he also speculates about a creator. So, I guess all you folks don´t agree with Dawkins.
(Why do you write God without a capital letter? Even fictional characters are written with a capital. Harry Potter, not harry potter, Robinson Crusoe, Superman, Dracula etc. It seems sort of childish to write “god”. Making a point – look at me, the Che Guevara of the fight against religion. Oh, what revolutionary souls we all are. We don´t know anything but we have VERY STRONG OPINIONS. While we´re about it, Shakespeare was actually written by Marlowe and the Loch Ness Monster doesn´t exist.)
I agree. However, I’ll clarify that there is no scientific evidence that the universe isn’t eternal. Given that it does exist, I personally find the thought that it is eternal simpler than other options which require something from nothing and/or reaction before action.
Regarding Dawkins, he speaks for himself. I personally find the idea that men claim to speak for, and be an agent of, their God to be revolting in the extreme. Meaning Dawkins does not speak for me. However, Dawkin’s philosophical speculations does not equate to a statement of belief. So I see nothing here to agree or disagree on.
To be more clear … regarding super-intelligence, there is no evidence of that. Nor is there evidence for “another dimension”. Its one thing to speculate (without relevant scientific knowledge), and another to form an opinion regarding the existence of such things. I do not find it in error to reject the possibility of such claims. The claimant bears the burden providing evidence. There are an infinite number of speculations which consistently explain any given phenomena. I don’t have sufficient resources to entertain such things. So I reject them all, even if I must hedge my bet and admit I do not *know* such things are not true.
I do my best to apply proper english usage. Meaning that if I use the work “god” is it lower case, but if I use the proper name “Yahweh” it is capitalized. Thus, when used in the context of a proper name I do try to use capitals … However, I admit I do error in this more often than I’d like … generally because it is difficult to determine or communicate the intended context.
Is my use of the word “god”, as a qualification of an infinite number of speculative beings who are associated with phenomena we (or some) do not understand, “childish”? … I don’t think so.
It doesn’t take much scientific knowledge to realise that once you posit a creator you must then ask what created the creator. And then what created the creators creator. etc. etc.
The creator route goes nowhere and you don’t need a doctorate in physics to realise this.
Ben:
There is loads of scientific evidence that the our universe has not existed eternally. For example, had it done so the stars would all have burnt out an eternity ago and, if they had not, the night sky would be as bright as day. Atoms would have broken down an eternity ago and their constituent parts would have broken down also, possibly even including protons. Also, even if the universe were eternally old, the same question basically remains. How come? Why?
There is presently no credible scientific evidence for why the universe exists, as one of your other contribs pointed out. Most of cosmology when talking about the origin of the universe is speculation. The idea of a fluctuation in the nothing is coming under increasing attack as being ridiculous, as is string theory. There are even now questions about distance measurements in the universe as it turns out that the light from distant galaxies is dimmed by huge amounts of dust (or ash) in space. Dawkins does speak for himself, of course, but whose opinion do you suppose will and should carry more weight – yours – or his, which he is always happy to give his reasons for?
You are free to have all the opinions you like, rational or otherwise. Why not start a blog? “TOLSTOY´S SYNTAX WAS CRAP”. I know you probably don´t speak a whole lot of Russian and probably haven´t even read a book in translation by Tolstoy. But what the hell.
It is a minor point, but I don´t quite follow your rationale for putting the g in God in lower case. Isn´t it a proper name to the same extent as Harry Potter is a proper name? Or do you think of it as a job. We might talk about Lawyer Simms, but we would say Simms is a lawyer. What is childish is your usage of “god” to express disdain for people who happen to believe in him/her/it. It is intended to offend and the stuff about your using it as a collective noun for “an infinte number of speculative beings etc. ” is crap.
Bernie:
You have had this same argument before with others – well, one other. It is obvious that something very strange happened to cause the existence of the universe. I know a small amount about physics and cosmology, which have to be the all-important sciences when you are talking about the origin of the universe – I know enough to discover that no-one presently has the least idea how it happened. I also know enough to have discovered that no physicist or cosmologist expresses the same certainties that most of the people on this blog do. Hawking, referred to in previous posts, is a well-known atheist but even he has expressed uncertainties. (He has also objected strongly to being described as an atheist.) I suppose someone who believes in a creator might say in answer to your question that such a being would exist out of time and, therefore, had no beginning. Incredible, of course, but there is no answer that is not incredible.
Actually not. There is no evidence in support of, or against, an eternal universe. What is certain is the temporal and spatial constraints of the observable Universe. There is no evidence regarding what existed beyond the limits of observation.
I did not imply that the existence of stars is eternal. In fact, I think my prior response was clear in the inference that they did not.
It is irrelevant to the subject at hand, but I agree with you in the sense that the universe eventually reach a state of low energy density and nearly no mass.
Your question begs the existence of a governing intelligence. There is no evidence of such, and even if there were, there is still no proof that having one to ask a question ensures a correct or even that the question itself is relevant.
The universe exists. “Why?” can only be answered if the universe were not eternal. Meaning the “why” of its existence lies in the infinite sequence of events (causes and effects) that brought it to its present state.
Further, if the universe is not eternal, then what created it, and what created the creator? … it is a circle in logic. A circle that often ends with the insistence that the mother of all creation was eternal.
It is all speculation. However, it you mean; “How did the universe come to arrive in the state we are able to observe?”, than the qualification of “speculation” is mixed. The more evidence that exists and the better adapted theories are in explaining and predicting, the less the speculation (but make no mistake all of science’s theories are speculative to some degree).
Opinions are irrelevant in science. Evidence carries all the weight.
I already did
… Ben’s Place”
No. The term is used to describe an infinite number of speculative beings. Each with their own proper names.
Hmmm … please allow me to speak for myself, and feel free to speak for yourself, but please don’t attempt to speak for me. ok?
Speaking for myself; if you feel persecuted by my personal expression of my personal opinion … too bad. If you hope to intimidate me or to force your opinion down my throat, it won’t work. I make an effort to be respectful and polite, but that doesn’t indicate a weakness in my character.
Ben:
Dear…..dear………aren´t we sensitive souls!
As your previous correspondent attempted to get over, assuming for the moment that the universe started at some point in the past, then it was created by some force or entity – or it created itself. The only sensible answer to this is: “I don´t know which, though my inclination is towards….”. As soon as you assert that it was not created then you are going for it creating itself, or coming into existence spontaneously, because there is no other option. At that point it is perfectly legitimate to ask you the question that you love: What evidence is there…. that it could or did create itself.
There is presently no evidence either way. People, including scientists, have opinions in both directions – but you will have difficulty finding scientists who assert with your dogmatic insistence that there is only one option.
See the quotes from Hawking and Dawkins sent you by Robert.
The idea that the universe has existed eternally is also an option, which cannot be disproved. (It also depends on what you mean by the Universe – “our universe” as is meant by most scientists most certainly has not existed eternally, for all the reasons I gave and a whole lot of other ones.)
Regarding what, if anything, came before BB, I refer you to Chapter 8 of a Briefer History of Time – mentioning only a particular sentence that I found striking:
“This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses”. Why do you suppose I found that sentence striking?
My question as to “why” for an eternal universe does not beg the existence of anything. It merely repeats what a physicist that I exchanged emails with said – he has always wondered why there should be anything at all. To use the language that you love, there is no evidence for a universe that has existed eternally. (As a side issue, I have always wondered how you can have an event in a universe that has existed eternally. Why wouldn´t the event already have happened an eternity ago?)
I am,though, pleased to see you come up with some more credible stuff than in what I have seen previously, either with me or with my friend Robert, with whom I have had many enjoyable debates and arguments. (He is a someone whom I´ve known for umpteen years and was staying with me when you “debated” with him before. I remember that one of his invariably well-expressed comments was: “Trying to find a brain cell in their collective head is like crawling round the Sahara desert in summer looking for an ice cube.” He was not necessarily referring to you and your colleagues. In fact, he wasn´t.)
Regarding God with a lower case g, the English language is wonderfully flexible, but I have never before seen the word God, with a lower case g, used as a collective noun for an infinite number of speculative things. I am sure everyone will be absolutely convinced by your “explanation”. As I am not a believer in God, I am do not feel personally offended (or persecuted, as you say) – but, yes, there is something disagreeable about seeing other people deliberately offended by a piece of idiocy.
You include it later, but I think it more appropriate to include the it now. Before speculating on the nature of creation we should first speculate on whether or not a “creation” even occurred, or if it’s present nature is simply the result of an evolution from a prior state. My inclination is to answer; no there was not creation. Simply because this is the simplest answer (we need not answer the question as to the nature or origin of the creator).
Regarding; “What is meant by the universe?”; the universe is all that exists, ever has existed, and ever will exist. Its nature may have evolved so significantly that beings bound to the current state will never grasp the nature of a prior state, but that does not mean that the universe is not eternal. Only that your grasp of the nature of the universe is limited.
There is no why in the philosophical sense (imo). Why did Babe Ruth’s last home run go over the fence? … because he smacked the heck out of it
Regarding your speculation, the question as to “why?” implies the question; “What is the purpose of the universe?; or what is the purpose of me?” Which is a question I’d never ask because I find it irrelevant. Further, when I hear it asked by others, I can only speculate on the motive. Of which the only motives that come to my mind is a hope that something external to the individual can give the individual purpose, or it is an exercise in vanity (a feeling that I am so significantly important that something much greater than myself must be responsible for my creation). Perhaps there are other possibilities, but since the question doesn’t intrigue me, I’m not the best to construct a list.
All evidence indicates that the universe, as we know it, is a product of enumerable causes and effects. There is no objective and intelligent answer to “why?” or as to a dictated purpose. However while there is no evidence for a predetermined purpose for the universe, or for us, I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence … meaning I take no issue with individuals believing what ever they find agreeable to themselves. That said, I do take substantial exception with those who try to force their religious opinions on others. There are no agents for God (see how I used the proper form ). Those who posture as such are placing their subjective opinions ahead of others … From a philosophical position, I’d say they are placing their opinions above God’s.
Thanks!… pardon me if a blush a bit
Ben:
I had a look at your website and my first reaction was “Oh no! Not another atheist blog!! What´s with these people – OK, so they´re atheists – Big deal – so what!” Then I saw your picture, always assuming it´s you and I thought: Hell! There´s a human being at the other end. And he´s grinning, so he has a sense of humour too. I am usually only rude and sarcastic to good friends and relatives and they do the same thing back and most of the time we´re just kidding. There´s something funny about the internet, though. If I find myself debating/arguing with someone, it seems as though at the other end there´s a computer-generated virtual being, to whom I can reasonably be as rude and sarcastic as I want. Someone made a mistake in their wiring. After all, they are not fellow human beings. You´ve ruined it now, because I see there is in fact a person there, who probably is actually called Ben and I feel guilty about having been rude and sarcastic.
The truth is, that we do not really disagree that much.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in some entity that created the universe. The problem is that I do not believe in the alternatives either. A quantum fluctuation in the absolute and total nothing, for no cause, does not seem credible to me and neither does the concept of a universe that has existed for all eternity. This last I do not believe in because most scientists, who are generally pretty bright and spend their lives thinking about this stuff, do not believe in it, and also because had the universe existed for all time backwards I do not think we could be here debating it. Everything that could happen would already have happened an eternity ago. I do not believe that anything happens or exists without a cause, though there may well be things that we do not know and cannot know the cause for. So, the question of why there should be anything at all to try and explain is a legitimate one, even if we can never know the answer. Whatever the answer is, it has to be something weird and probably beyond human comprehension. I find totally incredible some of the peculiarities that Robert referred to – all of them, but particularly the clocks. We are standing on a street corner, you and I, with our perfect atomic watches. We synchronise them. Then I walk round the block and come back 10 minutes later and the watches now mark different times. How can that be??????? A detail, I know, like lots of other inexplicable things about the working of the universe. And the atom – over 99.999% empty space???????? Paul Davis (or is it Davies?) says, in an article that I read a while ago, that science has proven very good at finding out facts about the universe and how it works but has not been very good on answering the question “why”.
(You said earlier and I forgot to respond, which is probably just as well, that there is no evidence for the existence of other dimensions – re Dawkins´ speculations. String theory, of course, requires the existence of at least 6 other dimensions. Add this to the list of things I don´t comprehend. What are these other dimensions? Why can´t we see them? Because they are rolled up tight the string theory physicists say. Ah!! I don´t even understand how time can be considered the fourth dimension. One of the startling things I´ve discovered, from emails that I and Robert have sent to cosmologists, is that all these things which I assumed I did not understand through lack of brain power or vision, the cosmologists and physicists don´t understand either. “Keep your head down and do the math” one of them said is an aphorism amongst them.)
When we are talking about why the universe exists, there is no evidence for anything, which is why I don´t think lack of evidence is a valid reason itself for rejecting any speculation. All the different theories are in reality pure speculation. (At least, at the moment).
Anyway, I do apologise for earlier rudeness and sarcasm – though I remain convinced that you should stop spelling God with a small g.
I agree that all speculations concerning universal creation are bunk. I’d prefer that anyone positing such would qualify their remarks as speculation. Events that are unobservable due to their distance to us (in time or space) are unknown. To attempt to use science to explain speculations looks silly to me.
Personally, I wish fewer individuals would focus on what they cannot know, and turn their passions toward the mystery as to the mechanism of space/time expansion and the mechanism of the collapse of space in the presence of mass.
Regarding “belief”, I’ll point out that a majority of scientists are uncomfortable with the term “believe”, at least in the realm of science. Science seek our understanding, not belief. I’ve observed that “belief” is often accompanied by a degree passion for the idea or self-righteousness, which is destructive, imo.
Along that vein I don’t see myself as “believing” in anything. I’ll work with the best understanding of phenomena that I can master, and will eagerly embrace better ones as they become available to me.
When it comes to passion, I am quite passionate about liberty (everyone’s not just mine), and find religious tyranny particularly troubling due to it being entirely subjective, and due to the profound vanity of those who claim to be agents for God.
There are many questions that interest individuals that science cannot answer. In this case, speaking of a purpose, you are correct.
It makes the math conceptually simpler to treat space and time in the same way. Although time has some different properties associated with.
All theories are speculative, but not all speculations are theories. If there can be no evidence then there can be no theory. However, speculations can apply to anything, without regards to evidence.
That said the question of (quest for) purpose is passionately important to many individuals. It is the realm of religion where these questions are sought. It is regrettable that organized religion attempts to place judgement on such a deeply personal and passionate quest.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that many individuals lack the character to seek out a purpose for themselves. Organized religion does attempt to provide one. Even if I think they do it improperly, there are many who like it as it is.
After reading through much of the above I would like to quote Omar Khayyam.
How long, how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.
And also:
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.
I have a theory about species survival. Religion is a disease and the species that fails to find a cure fails to survive. Just look at our own. From the beginning of the big monotheistic religions we’ve been at each others throats arguing that ‘my god is better than your god’.
Personally, I’m a follower of the true Messiah, Brian of Nazareth.
“Brian of Nazareth” … from “The Life of Brian”?
Nice!
Ben and Bernie:
I don´t know if you still look at this new expanded website – but I think all you militant atheists spend a lot of time looking at each others´ sites.
I seem to remember, Ben, saying that I don´t understand space/time, which was a bit misleading. I do understand the theoretical aspects of it, but I do not understand how it can be true. Guess what – it turns out that physicists don´t understand either. The conservative majority confine themselves to saying it´s “counter-intuitive” while the more flamboyant ones , like Brian Greene, call it bizarre. (He also calls simultaneous action at a distance “spooky” and various other unexplained and unexplainable aspects of the natural world by similar uncomfortable adjectives.)
(The key thing in space-time is that motion in time plus motion in space always come to exactly the speed of light, with obvious consequences for time.)
I think we may have agreed that once one has eliminated a divine creator as an explanation for the existence of the Universe, it becomes a scientific question with three possible answers. Created by some force or entity; created itself; or eternal. (Militant atheists always go for number three, as, for some reason, they find themselves bound to reject number one – even though no reputable physicists would do so – while number two is pretty hard to believe. Number three becomes the only viable option for them, because, in their innocence they, don´t know that this one is at least as improbable as the other two.)
I know Bernie has the eccentric opinion that, even though the question of how come there is a universe is a scientific one, it is not necessary to know any science. He has faith in his opinion, which, in fact, is based only on faith. Still and all, I do think your militant atheism would be enhanced and less open to easy attack if you did know some. I don´t think your opinions would change, but you would lose your dogmatic certainties. I think most militant atheists do not pause very long to think about the various alternatives and to realize that whatever the answer is, it has to be unbelievably incredible. (I recommend Brian Greene´s “The Fabric of the Cosmos”.)
Robert,
I’ve never seen anybody get so many things wrong in a single paragraph.
The term ‘militant atheist’ is somewhat of a mantra to you. I’m not exactly manning the barricades and my only objection to the belief in a creator is that it leads to that disease we term religion. And a quick glance at planet Earth is all you need know where that in turn leads.
As for the rest of your nonsense, which is drowning in meaningless adjectives and mis-quotes, I doubt whether a piece by piece explanation of your mistakes would get past your immune system so I won’t bother trying.
huh? ? ?
Science models space-time using very precise and accurate *mathematics*. It appears scientists understand the concept of space-time quite well. So well, in fact, that we are able to send probes to the outer reaches of the solar system using that math. With out that understanding those attempts would have failed.
? ? ? … huh?
“Motion is space” is simple enough, it is commonly measured as velocity, acceleration, etc.
… but “Motion in time” … how do you measure that? … or is that a colorful euphemism for “passage of time”?
In any event, motion in the universe is limited by the speed of light. It is not equal to the speed of light.
Ben, stop wasting your time. It is not neccessary for you to prove how the universe came into existence. Just accept that when the answer comes it will be logical and rational and will need no god. The mindless among us, who are too lazy to think, are trapping you. They are saying ‘..if you can’t prove how the universe came into existence, then you must accept a creator…’. Their laziness should not become your burden. The simple answer is ‘… I don’t know and I don’t care…’.
At this moment there are chidren dying of starvation, of stepping on land-mines, of drinking polluted water…
There is no god. We are alone. If we are to survive we must deal with the problems that confront us, and we must deal with them as rational beings living in a rational universe. Those who believe in a god are diseased and it is best that they be allowed to die off.
I make no claims with respect to how the universe came into existence. My point is that there is no evidence that there was a point of origin. The simplest explanation is that the universe is eternal.
However sufficiently far into the past we are no longer able to understand the nature of the universe.
That horrible things happen has no relevance upon the existence or non-existence of God.
There is no evidence for God. Whether he exists or not is irrelevant. What I am personally certain of is that the God of Abraham does not exist.
However, many spiritualize the universe can call it’s natural properties God (a kind’a deism).
If a God is non-personal enough, he becomes a perspective rather than a being we can related to.
I am in total agreement here.
If you refer to dying in a social/traditional sense … meaning that education accompanied by rational thought will eventually displace superstition belief then I agree.
I expect we will look back on society in 20-50 years and realize what a profound impact the information age had on society and the difficulty many had in accepting the new information available to them.
You and I struggle with what we each see as irrational theists and religious dogma, while others struggle with secularism and lack of a reliance religion and its authorities. None of this is new. What is new is our awareness of others perspectives and practices.
In any event, I am optimistic that we are living in a very special period that will be looked back upon with fascination.
Sorry I did not comment before on your, as ever, lucid posts, but I have been in Mongolia. (Yes….yes… I know…why didn´t I stay there?)
Bernie:
a) It is a shame that you did not list my errors – though it might have been a very short list. Which, say, are the misquotes?
b) Your thesis that one cannot believe in the possibility that the Universe was created by some entity because one might end up believing in God is – naturally – absurd. One of the icons of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, for example, speculates on such an entity, but he clearly does not believe in God. You do seem to have a problem distinguishing between the two things – one absurd and the other simply a possibility. You should also note that I always talk about a “creative entity” – maybe another Universe that our one detached from? Maybe a force field outside our universe? (Before you tell me that there cannot be anything outside our Universe, by definition, I refer you to scientific speculations about the possible existence of other universes.)
c) I think you also have an atheism blog, which would make you a militant atheist. What reasonable person, after all, is going to start a blog simply to expound their opinion/guess as to the existence or otherwise of a creator. Particularly when they have minimal relevant knowledge.
Ben:
Re Space/Time: I don´t know how mathematically you add speed through time and speed through space – but you will find this explanation in Fabric of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene. (You will also find it in other places). As a matter of fact, it explains why at speed of light time stops and why nothing can go faster than light (unless it also goes backwards in time).
There is evidence – very strong – that our Universe had a beginning. An eternal Universe is hard to believe in, though it remains a possibility. As Paul Davies says, eternity is a very long time. If you take a number of years represented by 10 to the power of a billion multiplied by itself a billion times and then multiply the result by a trillion….the time you would have would be less than a blink in eternity. Everything that could happen would have happened an eternity ago. Also, you could not fix any event in time, therefore nothing could happen because it has already happened. (Practically everything I put in the posts is lifted from the opinions of physicists or cosmologists but the previous sentence is my very own theory so it is probably very open to attack.) I don´t think you will find many reputable scientists that believe that our Universe has existed eternally.
I really do recommend The Fabric of the Cosmos. I think it is much better than A Brief History of Time.
ahhh … no
There is no evidence for a beginning of the universe. What is evidence for is that our ability to observe and model each have spatial and temporal limits. That there exist constraints upon what we are able to observe and develop an understanding of does not mean that such constraints apply to the universe itself.
This is one step past the concept that “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”. There are known limits to our ability to observe and known limits to our models for phenomena (limits to our body of science), but such constraints are only a concern for us, not for the universe.
When the Swiss turn on their new super collider we will eventually be able to look deeper into such a realm, but no matter how far we peer we will encounter constraints.
I have suddenly realised a remarkable thing about Bernie´s beliefs, regarding why there is a Universe. He believes there isn´t really a universe at all, it is a figment of the imagination! How did he arrive at this? The answer is probably deep – but it goes something like this. There are only three possible causes for the existence of the Universe – 1) it was created 2) it created itself 3) it has existed eternally. He doesn´t believe in 1), on the grounds that there is no evidence. (We´ll leave out his other two grounds – no necessity for a creator and the slippery slope to belief in a deity – I expect he only came out with them as a consequence of a temporary quantum fluctuation in his brain.) As there is no evidence for 2) or 3) either, he can´t believe in them, for the same reason as he doesn´t believe in 1). Therefore, there is no Universe. I think it was Bishop Berkeley who came up with a similar idea in the 18th century., as I expect Bernie knows, together with Dr Johnson´s famous refutation.
Most people who vehemently deny the possibility that the Universe was created, tend directly or otherwise to say: “Come on, guys – you don´t need to know any physics or cosmology – it´s all a matter of common sense.” Bernie more or less said exactly that. Ben,a while ago,said “since Big Bang, the Universe has worked on cause and effect”. (Hell of an opening qualification, Ben, considering we were talking about how the Universe came to exist). Behind this is the idea that the Universe operates pretty much like Grandad´s mechanical pocket watch. Maybe we don´t have all the explanations yet as to how all the levers and springs work, but we will do at some time in the future and then all will be clear. The Universeis a bizarre and spooky place. (Paul Davis? I don´t remember.) There are many things in it that appear impossible ever to understand from a rational perspective. I used to think it was just my lack of intelligence that stopped me understanding all these counter-intuitive things (more flamboyant scientists use words like bizarre and spooky to describe them). Then as I´ve mentioned before, I found that scientists don´t understand them either – they are just bizarre properties of the Universe that no-one understands but which we have to accept. How the Universe comes to be is likely to have an equally “counter-intuitive” answer which could be any one of 1), 2) and 3) – but we will probably never know.
Ben: I´ve just seen your recent post – but it´s 2.40am where I am and I haven´t had time to ponder it or, more importantly, consult with my colleagues Stephen, Paul and Richard.
Robert, I assume Stephen, Paul, and/or Richard have some formal expertise? … if so please invite them to post. No offense, but much may be getting lost in translation, and I’d welcome discussing this subject with some experts.
Robert, what you know about my beliefs could be counted on the fingers of zero hands. Your entire first paragraph has no basis in anything I’ve stated. Your second paragraph starts off in similar fashion. Your overuse of adverbs and adjectives also makes the reading long and tedious (‘vehemently deny’, etc.).
Imagine a primitive sitting by a river and wondering how the river came into existence. He begins to investigate but holds it as possible that a creator made the river. At the first difficult question he will shrug his shoulders and decide that the creator answer must be correct. If he denies himself the creator loophole then he is forced to continue investigating and may eventually learn much about weather and soil and landscape.
Similarly, if you want to understand why a section of a river develops a whirlpool, is there any point in holding as possible that a creator made it? Logically, you would look at the river and its shape and depth and speed and know there must be a logical answer.
Keep in mind that the primitive has no obligation to explain or understand the origins of the river. He could simply say ‘I don’t know and I don’t care. The river is and serves me well and I will use it’. This is the way most people think about the origins of the universe. But once you decide that it is important to know, either the origins of a river or of the universe then it is an intellectually moral obligation to set aside as an explanation that a creator is a possibility. The creator route is simply your too-hard bin.
All these explanation on how the universe might have come into existence can be interesting but are beside the point.
I make no denials, vehemently or otherwise. I do not run an atheist blog as has been suggested and a true atheist would not consider myself a wholly kindred spirit.
There are also many explanations for existence. If you read a little wider than mainstream you will find scientific explanations that negate the entire field of quantum mechanics. Many have also shown even Einstein to have jumped to the wrong conclusion and that much of his theory simply doesn’t hold up. Much of today’s science will be tomorrows Piltdown Man.
However, if the creator route keeps your mind warm and comfortable then have it. It’s obviously good enough for George Bush, and his intelligence and integrity need not be questioned.
Bernie: Your waffle about the primitive sitting by the river is, perhaps, interesting – but it is also totally irrelevant. You are aiming for that “Hey guys, I don´t know anything about anything relevant, but let´s just use a bit of common sense”. It doesn´t work. If you had read more carefully what I have said in the past, you would have discovered that I too do not believe in a religious god. (I came to the conclusion at the age of about 11 that religion is baloney and have enjoyed ever since asking believers what we do in Heaven during our second trillion years there.) I have also said that I do not believe that the Universe was created – but it is never the less a possibility. You say I should not read only mainstream scientists (I don´t – I think Lee Smolin is terrific), but I suspect that you do not read any at all, mainstream or otherwise. If you did, you would quote tangible arguments sometimes and you would also have a less simplistic view of the Universe. It is not a clockwork thing. (By the way, Bernie, where´s that list of my misquotations? You know, the ones you said I make all the time.)
Ben: There is considerable evidence for the Universe having had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago. (Second Law of Thermodynamics and also that Relativity requires it, though I can´t explain why.) It remains, however, just a theory and certainly does not preclude the existence of other universes.
The Life of the Cosmos – Lee Smolin – “…we have made a monumental discovery that completely changes the context in which we ask it. This is that the Universe we see around us is not eternal. Nor is it static. It was born a finite time ago, and it has evolved over time to reach its present state…….” Later on, he says “the fact that our universe is young and evolving puts the question of the origin of the laws of nature in a quite different light. If the Universe is eternal, there are only two possible answers for the question of why the laws of nature are as we find them to be: religion or Platonism.” I think, in this context, that Platonism means something outside the Universe. (Bernie would be pleased to know that though Smolin is a celebrated cosmologist, he is controversial. For example, he has recently been causing a stir by saying that string theory has proved to be a dead-end and should be abandoned. The book mentioned above, which I also recommend, suggests that the Universe evolves in much the same way as life does and has a lot in common with the Gaia Theory. I don´t really understand why this should be controversial, but it is.)
Hawking says, in Chapter 6 of a Briefer History of Time,
“…….as we will see, the old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed forever, and could continue to exist for ever, was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to have begun a finite time ago and which might end at a finite time in the future”. All of this is what Bernie would describe as mainstream – supported by most reputable scientists. None that I have read, however, exhibits Bernie´s certainties – most would probably say that they do not believe that the universe was created but it cannot be ruled out at all. (I read that in a poll of scientists in the early 1990´s, 40% of American scientists said that they believe in God. I find this incredible.)
We are all free, of course, to disagree with mainline scientists/cosmologists – but our disagreement lacks credibility if it is not backed by rational argument.
Ben: Stephen, Paul and Richard – Hawking, Davies and Dawkins. I know, infantile humour. You might have difficulty entering into a debate with them on the origins of the universe, but reading them would certainly be better than getting their opinions and speculations second-hand from me. On the other hand, it is better to get their ideas second-hand from me than to have no exposure to them at all.
I don´t really know why you (and Bernie) feel it necessary to maintain that the universe could not possibly have been brought into existence by some agency outside of itself. Your main point, surely, is that you do not believe in a religious god. Just as I don´t.
Neither is true. The theory of relativity applies to the evolution of the universe, not the origin. There is not theory which requires an origin for the universe. However, there are a multitude which cannot explain it. Why you think entropy requires that the universe has an origin is a total mystery to me. However, the second law of thermodynamics might be interpreted to so as to preclude a universal origin (although it is not a position I’d take).
The words “just a theory” imply the a typical person that a theory falls short of some higher status … it does not. The goal of science is to understand natural phenomena, and theories represent that understanding.
The added words “does not preclude the existence of other universes” are also misplaced. Theories explain how phenomena work. They do not preclude anything … “laws” would though.
Agreed.
You might also benefit from reading some of Hawking’s and Davies’ work. Speculating is a waste of time.
Robert, You’re simply an idiot. I give up. Signing off.
sigh … not that I speak for Bernie, but I’ll point out some substantial problems with your perspective.
(1) Science exists to explain natural phenomena, and imposes the constraint that all causes and effects must be natural phenomena. From that perspective, there is nothing greater to the universe. Multi-verses and such are speculations. There is and can be no evidence, and therefore no theory for such claims.
(2) Science does not “believe”. Science predicts. The degree of reliability (accuracy and precision) of theories is a manifests itself as a confidence on the part of those who understand and have experience with a theory.
(3) It is not for the responsibility of anyone to disprove that a speculative supernatural force or being gave birth to the universe. There is no reason to give such a claim any consideration at all. The supernatural is unknowable and thus beyond science … and to be honest such knowledge (by definition) is beyond any natural being, or collective beings.
(4) Philosophically speaking, injecting a “outside agency” as the creator, only produces a larger problem. It is not a solution.
So to answer your question, there is no merit to considering any creator (outside agent). While we can have no evidence one way it is erroneous to consider the claim as it would produce a conflict of interest upon those who might otherwise indulge themselves with a verifiable explanation.
Ben and Bernie: Have a look at the content of the link. It is not directly connected with our various arguments – but it is fascinating stuff. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6914175.stm
Ben: I have read some of their work, together with the work of various other notable cosmologists and physicists- amazing stuff and full of speculation. Physics and cosmology at their level is largely speculation. Something neither you nor Bernie seem to have grasped is that most of what I have said throughout the “debate” was lifted directly from the writings of Hawking, Davies and others. You have been, therefore, to a large extent arguing indirectly with them. Bernie (or you) will be tempted to say “Ah! But you obviously did not understand what you were reading.” Please….argument at that level is infantile. Like Bernie´s comments about my misquotations and errors of fact – have you noticed that he hasn´t come back with any examples? Neither you nor Bernie are equipped to argue about cosmology/physics, because you haven´t read the relevant material. Hawking, Davies etc. do not share your simplistic certainties. You should both stick to arguing against religion.
Is that an appeal to authority?
In any event, Please give me a reference where Hawking/Davies says “[the universe] wasbrought into existence by some agency outside of itself”.
No of us have debating with Hawkings et al. However, you appear to be patronizing yourself as their representative here … reminds me of the many theists who speak for God … its all in your imagination ;-(
A preemptive ad hominem? … or a Freudian moment?
That’s rich … you don’t even understand the points we’ve made. for example the fields of physics and cosmology presently are incapable to describing the pre-Big-Bang universe.
ahhh … we are arguing against religion!
Ben:
I already sent you some time ago quotations from Hawking and Dawkins, together with where you can find them. As I have said repeatedly, they do not say the universe was brought into existence by something outside itself – they merely leave that possibility open. Look again at the quotes I sent before.
You inveigh (lucky Bernie´s gone, as he would be objecting to my nouns as well as adverbs and adjectives) against speculation, without apparently realising that that is precisely what you are doing. To repeat – there seem to be three possibilities to account for the existence of the universe – created by something outside of itself, popped into existence all on its own (Brian Greene´s words – I think) or existed eternally. No-one knows which is correct, or even whether there is another possibility. There is only one sensible answer – I don´t know. If I were to say I believe in the first, I would be speculating – equally if you say you don´t believe in it you are speculating. Subject to any secret information you and Bernie may have, all three possibilties remain open, though people may differ on prababilities.
Yes, I have been leaning heavily in the words of various scientists. Of course – is there a reasonable alternative?
You would get a lot more out of this whole subject if you read some of what relevant scientists have to say, though, like me, you would probably understand fully only up to about Page 10. Your opinion at the end would probably be just as it is now, but you would certainly have some relevant information – and would possibly even come to distinguish between belief in a god of religion and belief in the possibility that the universe came into being through something outside of itself. You would also come to realize that the universe is a very weird place and that a large chunk of cosmology rests on shaky foundations. We know that time is peculiar, for example – we all walk about with our own times which do not agree – but it seems that space is also subject to argument. What is it? Does it exist if there is nothing in it? As Paul Davies says, science has been very good at finding out “how” (eg. discovering facts) but pretty poor at answering the question “why”.
I think I´ll follow Bernie´s huff and retire from the “debate”. Following his remarkable discovery that knowledge is not necessary to debate meaningfully, I´m going to start a blog questioning Coptic influence on modern Ethiopian sculpture.
Robert, you continue to miss the point.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION FOR A MOMENT!
You are the only one taking a position (speculating) on the origin of the universe. My position is that there is no *known* evidence to support an origin, and no *known* evidence of (nor a theory to describe) the nature of the universe prior to the Big Bang.
As you continue to misrepresent/misundertand my words, and my understanding of Bernie’s, I am increasing confident you do not understand those of Hawking et al. either … Which is a speculation I do posit due to your continued expressed misconceptions of cosmological understanding.
Please don’t ask for examples, many have been given. However, as you been overcome with self-indulgence I’m certain you’ve missed them. If you are genuinely interested they lay in wait of your discovery in the comments above this one.
As I have no vested interested in a futile effort to correct your conceptual short comings and you have expressed a desire to move on to questioning “Coptic influence on modern Ethiopian sculpture” … have fun, and I’ll occupy myself with some constructive activities.
Bernie: There is a strange wonderful sort of irony in being called an idiot by the village idiot.
Unfortunately, I only read the first couple of lines of your previous effort, about the primitive. “Oh no! More kindergarten piffle from Bernie!” Perhaps, had I read it, I would have discovered that it was a very good little cameo, with a beginning, a middle and an end – wise and relevant. Why do I suspect that this would not have been the case?
It is hard to understand why you are unable to accept the possibility that our universe came about through the agency of something outside of itself. Born in a black hole in another universe, perhaps? Were it not that you consider information useless and read nothing on this subject, I would suggest that you dipped into Lee Smolin. You did recommend that I read “non-mainstream” cosmologists, by which I assume you mean the cosmological equivalents of Kurt Vonnegut – but were you to take up reading, you really would be better off with the mainstream, at least to start. You would probably lose your facile certainties, which arise from ignorance.
Unfortunately, I have forgotten the address of your website – which you assured me is not simply another of the plethora of barely literate militant atheist blogs. I expect I would find it full of interest. Debates on the impact of Kafka on modern thought, a learned discussion on the causes of the Renaissance, the effects of tourism on the Peruvian economy – perhaps even contributions by the advocates of all the main theories as to how the universe came to be, together with the thoughts of some eminent believers in God. You, of course, insert your succinct “opinions”, based on a wealth of ignorance. “There is no evidence that tourism has affected the Peruvian economy” or “there was no Renaissance – and there was no need for one”. My God! What a fine website it must be! Probably won lots of prizes.
Ben: It may be that we have been talking at cross-purposes. If you are simply saying that no-one knows how the Universe came to be, then we agree, but I was under the impression that you had definitely discarded one of the possibilties. It is all speculation. Most cosmologists still seem to believe that there was no “before” the Universe. BB was the beginning of everything – space, time, matter and energy – and BB happened for no cause (which is important). You say that maybe I have not understood what I have read. Quite possible, but I find it very hard to understand why you apparently have made no attempt to read relevant books by cosmologists and physicists. The trouble is, that leaves you with taking the apparently “common-sense” point of view and there are many things about the Universe that simply do not work that way – all those “counter-intuitive” things. How the Universe came to be is another thing that is very unlikely to be subject to “common sense”. There is no “commin-sense” explanation available.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.