Elton John: ban organised religion

[Flip McWho]

It isn't a theory though. It's a claim. There is no observation/experimentation, that could prove or disprove that claim, and nor is there one that could prove it. Science cannot say anything about this claim.

Now I agree that believing in such a God would be useless considering this being doesn't intervene with the world.

But if instead of saying non-interventionist I said that there existed a being who was omnipotent, omniscient and created the universe.

Now, because science does not know what came before the initial inflation of the universe since our understanding breaks down in that extremely dense and hot arena, the claim as to whether there was an omnipotent, omniscient being who created the universe is just as likely as any other attempt to explain what caused the big bang given what science can say at this time. **

Lastly, if I posited the existence of a being who was omnipotent, omniscient, created the universe, and intervened in that universe the first thing science would have to say is, intervened how? Now we get into those discussions about morality, revelation, intelligent design. Some of which science can be applied too.

The reason I accept agnosticism as the most rational position in the argument over Gods existence is because it is not possible, given humanities current understanding, to either deny or confirm whether there is a Being who is omnipotent, omniscient and created the universe.
The reason I consider myself an atheist is that I don't believe there is a compelling argument that proves whether this Being intervenes in the world.

Note, the default position of agnosticism is based only on our current level of understanding. Science may oneday in the future have something to say about the initial moments of the big bang and thus atheism will become the default. Just as theism was the default position 200 years ago.





**Consider the possibility that oneday it may become within the realms of human capability to create baby universes through some complicated means involving black holes and quantum tunnelling processes*, if this does indeed become possibly then it could be considered possible that this universe was created through a similar process.

* Got the notion of baby universes from Adams F, Laughlin G, The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity.
There was also a New Scientist magazine that mentioned something along these lines.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
It isn't a theory though. It's a claim. There is no observation/experimentation, that could prove or disprove that claim, and nor is there one that could prove it. Science cannot say anything about this claim.

Theory, claim, claim, theory. I don't see what the big difference is.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Now, because science does not know what came before the initial inflation of the universe since our understanding breaks down in that extremely dense and hot arena, the claim as to whether there was an omnipotent, omniscient being who created the universe is just as likely as any other attempt to explain what caused the big bang given what science can say at this time.

Why is a cause neccesary?

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Note, the default position of agnosticism is based only on our current level of understanding. Science may oneday in the future have something to say about the initial moments of the big bang and thus atheism will become the default. Just as theism was the default position 200 years ago.

This sounds a lot like the "god of the gaps" fallacy shown by creationists. Why would a complete understanding of inflation cosmology be particularly useful in evaluating God's existance?

[Kuciwalker]

Why is any of this necessary? Religion's not some problem that needs to be solved.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why is any of this necessary? Religion's not some problem that needs to be solved.

Is this addressed to my debate?

[Kuciwalker]

More in general.

[Flip McWho]

Theory, claim, claim, theory. I don't see what the big difference is.

A Claim is stating something about the universe (in this case). A theory is an explanation of why/how something happens. Theories use claims.

Why is a cause neccesary?

So saying it happened because it happened is scientific reasoning is it?

The big bang may or may not need a cause, we cannot know. Any statement about the cause of the big bang is speculative. EDIT: At this moment in time.

This sounds a lot like the "god of the gaps" fallacy shown by creationists. Why would a complete understanding of inflation cosmology be particularly useful in evaluating God's existance?

Alot of arguments in support of Gods existence are god in the gaps statements. I fail to see what relevance this has to what you quoted. I was simply stating that at this moment in time I consider the rational default to be agnosticism. Because at this moment, nothing definitive can be said about the creation of the universe. Theism was once the default because human comprehension relied on the idea of God, the world could not exist without God.

In regards to the inflation cosmology. A full understanding of that would remove God from any possible relationship with this world.

[Flip McWho]

Kuci thinks any talk about religion/philosophy is a waste of time

[Kuciwalker]

No, just most of them.

Like efforts to debunk religion.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho A Claim is stating something about the universe (in this case). A theory is an explanation of why/how something happens. Theories use claims.

Well, my argument applies to both.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So saying it happened because it happened is scientific reasoning is it?

Everything in science doesn't need a because statement before it. "It happened" makes just as much since as "God made it happen" except "It happened" doesn't require an additional theoretical construct.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
The big bang may or may not need a cause, we cannot know. Any statement about the cause of the big bang is speculative.

I'm speaking from a logical perspective. There is no logical neccesity for the big bang to have a cause.

Originally posted by Flip McWho Alot of arguments in support of Gods existence are god in the gaps statements.

These arguments are pretty lame. There's always going to be something about our origins that won't be completely explained by science. God could be inserted into numerous ways. The key is noticing that these lack of explinations are generally overcome eventually and that notions of God were completely useless in describing the phenomena.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I fail to see what relevance this has to what you quoted. I was simply stating that at this moment in time I consider the rational default to be agnosticism. Because at this moment, nothing definitive can be said about the creation of the universe. Theism was once the default because human comprehension relied on the idea of God, the world could not exist without God.

Big Bang theory has a bunch of componants that are quite definitive.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
In regards to the inflation cosmology. A full understanding of that would remove God from any possible relationship with this world.

Not really. there's incompleteness in every theory. If inflaton cosmology is fully understood there's still a vast amount of places for interventionalists to peddle thier junk.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker Like efforts to debunk religion.

Just because everyone won't accept my argument doesn't make my time useless. It makes people thing about how they get their data, which is important.

[Flip McWho]

Everything in science doesn't need a because statement before it.

Yes it does. At least till we get a theory of everything. Science is about the how and why of the physical world. Something that doesn't need/have an explanation isn't science.

"It happened" makes just as much since as "God made it happen" except "It happened" doesn't require an additional theoretical construct.

Depends on your viewpoint as to whether existence needs a cause or not.

I'm speaking from a logical perspective. There is no logical neccesity for the big bang to have a cause.

So have you departed from scientific reasoning here?

I disagree. It is equally likely that the big bang may or may not have needed a cause given our understanding at the moment. To believe that the big bang just happened requires a belief, just as some believe that the big bang happened because God willed it.

These arguments are pretty lame. There's always going to be something about our origins that won't be completely explained by science. God could be inserted into numerous ways. The key is noticing that these lack of explinations are generally overcome eventually and that notions of God were completely useless in describing the phenomena.

I agree, and thats also where I think the morality argument lies, just because we don't understand how we became moral beings doesn't mean it requires a mystical explanation.

Big Bang theory has a bunch of componants that are quite definitive.

I agree, but there is nothing in it that says why the big bang occured, everything post big bang is explained. We won't begin to understand the moments leading up to the big bang untill quantum gravity. Though again I fail to see the relevance. I'm talking about the default rational opinion given a particular era of human understanding.

Not really. there's incompleteness in every theory. If inflaton cosmology is fully understood there's still a vast amount of places for interventionalists to peddle thier junk.

God creating the universe is the ultimate act of intervention. It kinda sets God up as master of this universe. A being who tinkers with the universe without actually creating it could be an alien race who is bordering on omnipotence/omniscience. It removes a substantial pillar that God is based on.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Yes it does. At least till we get a theory of everything. Science is about the how and why of the physical world. Something that doesn't need/have an explanation isn't science.

Well there are two different sorts of "because" statements, temporal and explanitory. For a valid scientific theory neither needs to be in place.

Temporal because statements (that happened because this caused it) aren't neccesary. Causality is not a garunteed property of the universe and there is a great amount of credence to the idea that physical laws at thier heart partially stochastic (based on random chance). This forces one to think of causeless effects (like an atomic nucleus decaying).

The other is explanitory. Laws don't have to explained further then they are laws. Certainly many times they connect to other laws or can be derived from them, but that is not always the case. Energy is conserved. We don't need to say why to say that the statement is correct and we don't need to delve further into the whys of this relation. It's possible that this has a deeper explination that unites more concepts, but it's also possible it does not. The fact that we don't know shouldn't lead to idle speculation involving spiritual beings.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Depends on your viewpoint as to whether existence needs a cause or not.

Time as we know it is based on physics, physics without existance is meaningless, therefore time (and temporal notions like causation) are meaningless with out existance

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So have you departed from scientific reasoning here?

Nah, logic and scientific reasoning are inextricably linked.

Originally posted by Flip McWho God creating the universe is the ultimate act of intervention. It kinda sets God up as master of this universe. A being who tinkers with the universe without actually creating it could be an alien race who is bordering on omnipotence/omniscience. It removes a substantial pillar that God is based on.

I don't think so. I think the pillar is aready gone as it's gonna be. There's always gonna be some figment of the big bang (results of stochastic processes, initial conditions, yada yada yada) that could be attributed to God.

[Flip McWho]

Hmmmm, I'll reply later, just bookmark it here for myself. I'm a little bit too tired to be able to give these posts the thought required at the moment.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Hmmmm, I'll reply later, just bookmark it here for myself. I'm a little bit too tired to be able to give these posts the thought required at the moment.

Sounds good! Talk to you then!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection

Just because everyone won't accept my argument doesn't make my time useless. It makes people thing about how they get their data, which is important.

Not really. I've heard all this junk before, and it still doesn't impress me. All it shows me is that you've got a hard-on for science and you think your inability to view the world by any other means indicates that other means do not exist. I'm rather fond of science myself, though I don't know much about it; being an asthmatic, I'd be dead if I'd been born a century earlier. But all you're showing is that religious beliefs are not scientifically valid--so what? They're not intended to be.