On Faith & Reason

[olp1fan]

im being chastized for "knowing it all or assuming" by people who are doing the same thing

thanks for the comedy

[Shwa]

There are many religions who have quite a different view and definition of 'God' to the point where there is no universal defined concept of 'god'.

That's right, but does there have to be a universal defined concept of 'god' for God to exist?

Jung talked about 'archetypes' and the collective unconciousness. Some people believe this as the definition of 'God.'

[Pliny]

As regards science man has profited quite well. As regards life he has lost ground.

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Matthew 16:26

An interesting post I thought was that religion tries to answer "why" and science tries to answer "how".

Science cannot ask why - to ask why is to give prior purpose. What could be the purpose of the physical universe?

[Bonam]

What could be the purpose of the physical universe?

Why does it have to have a "purpose"?

[GostHacked]

That's right, but does there have to be a universal defined concept of 'god' for God to exist?

A true god would have a universal defined concept which is not debatable. Anyone can have a different interpretation of it, but none know what this true god really is, if it exists at all.

Jung talked about 'archetypes' and the collective unconciousness. Some people believe this as the definition of 'God.'

But are they correct?

[olp1fan]

I wish people would stop quoting bible scriptures to try to prove their point

[Shwa]

A true god would have a universal defined concept which is not debatable.

But again, this comes down to how you define a "true god." You define it, then refute yourself.

Anyone can have a different interpretation of it, but none know what this true god really is, if it exists at all.

Some people believe they have found a "true god" and they don't debate it.

But are they correct?

Is your wont of knowledge of the divine an archetype?

[Shwa]

Science cannot ask why - to ask why is to give prior purpose. What could be the purpose of the physical universe?

Science asks why and supplies credible answers all the time, for the individual and compound elements that make up the universe. Why an eye blinks. Why rocks fall to the ground. Why disease spreads.

Are you speaking metaphysically or a 'why' with regard only to the sum of all those constituent parts?

[GostHacked]

You simply have to assign a higher potential to the author of the universe than science to have faith.

In other words, faith must include a potential to override scientific reason. Is it the physical universe that is more powerful than it's creator - that is not logical.

That is soley hinging on creationism. That 'god' created the universe.

And things can become bigger than the invidual. We see that all the time. So logically, yes the universe can be more powerful than it's creator.

Is the conclusion there is something more vast than the physical universe preposterous?

It's not preposterous, it simply is not proveable at this time.

If you believe it so, you must logically follow science. But in doing that, you logically put yourself in a box wondering about it's origin. So here we are.

Science does wonder about the universes origin. But the answer is still unknown at this time.

You either have faith in an originator of the universe or faith in science to eventually discover it's origin or - originator.

The other possibility, is that there is no creator. I know many can't and simply won't entertain that idea.

[Pliny]

Why does it have to have a "purpose"?

Why do you ask?

[Bonam]

Why do you ask?

Because your question seemed to imply that you believe the universe must have a purpose.

[Pliny]

That is soley hinging on creationism. That 'god' created the universe.

What was the universe before its creation? What was god doing before that? He obviously was not a part of the universe since it didn't exist. Time is a part of the physical universe - so logically there must have been no time. All he did was invent a clock.

And things can become bigger than the invidual. We see that all the time. So logically, yes the universe can be more powerful than it's creator.

What's an individual? A body? What's bigger for that matter?

It's not preposterous, it simply is not proveable at this time.

What happens if I just say you don't exist? Your urge is to show me your body and what it can do as proof. A nice smash on the nose will be definite proof to me of your existence, right? Then that would prove to me you are a body. Does that completely define "you"?

Basically, there is no means to prove there is another "awareness" that exists. If I face your body with my body. I am aware my body exists and your body exists. I am not sure of what you are aware of, if anything. If I think my body should be enough to convince you I exist and you ignore it then I might wonder what is wrong. Either your body is dysfunctional or my body doesn't exist. A third body introduced that ignored me might give me doubts about my awareness. I would certainly be perturbed and no acknowledgement of my existence whatsoever by a number of bodies would cast great doubt upon my awareness. I may become convinced I am not aware of anything and need to prove my existence. I become whatever someone else will acknowledge to prove to myself that I exist. It means I no longer trust or can rely upon my own awareness to tell me I exist. I must rely upon my body to prove to me my awareness. Basically, I guess we have progressed along a line of proving awareness does not exist and is a function of the body.

Science does wonder about the universes origin. But the answer is still unknown at this time.

Ahhh...time. The ultimate healer. Soon we will forget.

The other possibility, is that there is no creator. I know many can't and simply won't entertain that idea.

Believing in a creator is a way to continue being aware, I suppose. Those that can't or won't entertain that idea can only be proven they exist with a smash on the nose. Once they have no nose they are completely unaware. I don't know, can you be aware of being unaware of anything? Sounds like the ultimate demise. Scary.

[Pliny]

Because your question seemed to imply that you believe the universe must have a purpose.

You are not asking, are you? No one knows this, is what you are saying. At least, I hope you are saying that and not saying there is no purpose. If you are saying there is no purpose then why bother to ask any question?

There was a guy in Vancouver who wanted to build a stadium downtown. I believe it had some purpose, like playing soccer or something. Maybe he just wanted a stadium to be downtown.

[GostHacked]

What was the universe before its creation?

We are still trying to determine and understand that.

What was god doing before that?

And, where was god before the universe?

He obviously was not a part of the universe since it didn't exist. Time is a part of the physical universe - so logically there must have been no time. All he did was invent a clock.

If a god exists, we are still determining the details of how it was done. Results still pending.

What's an individual? A body? What's bigger for that matter?

We are a sum off all our parts.

What happens if I just say you don't exist?

Then you may want to talk to your psychiatrist. Because if I am a figment of your imagination, and you claim I don't exist, then who are you interacting with here?

Your urge is to show me your body and what it can do as proof. A nice smash on the nose will be definite proof to me of your existence, right? Then that would prove to me you are a body. Does that completely define "you"?

I only define myself by myself. I don't need anyone to define me for me. And I would not hit you on the nose just to prove I exist. There are much more productive ways to do that, and without violence.

Basically, there is no means to prove there is another "awareness" that exists.

Exactly.

If I face your body with my body. I am aware my body exists and your body exists. I am not sure of what you are aware of, if anything. If I think my body should be enough to convince you I exist and you ignore it then I might wonder what is wrong. Either your body is dysfunctional or my body doesn't exist. A third body introduced that ignored me might give me doubts about my awareness. I would certainly be perturbed and no acknowledgement of my existence whatsoever by a number of bodies would cast great doubt upon my awareness. I may become convinced I am not aware of anything and need to prove my existence. I become whatever someone else will acknowledge to prove to myself that I exist. It means I no longer trust or can rely upon my own awareness to tell me I exist. I must rely upon my body to prove to me my awareness. Basically, I guess we have progressed along a line of proving awareness does not exist and is a function of the body.

There is a conundrum in there for sure.

Believing in a creator is a way to continue being aware, I suppose.

We are many aware of a lot of things, but yet don't have any faith/belief in a creator.

Those that can't or won't entertain that idea can only be proven they exist with a smash on the nose.

So if god wants to come around and punch me in the nose to prove he exists, I'll take the hit.

Once they have no nose they are completely unaware. I don't know, can you be aware of being unaware of anything? Sounds like the ultimate demise. Scary.

Yes we are aware that we are unaware of many things. Being aware of those unknowns means knowledge and growth. It also makes us humble, because we really don't have the answers for everything yet. Some answers we may never find. But that does not mean we are going to stop looking for that truth, even if that truth does not exist.

[Shwa]

Because your question seemed to imply that you believe the universe must have a purpose.

It is an interesting thought.

Is there anything in the universe without a purpose? (assuming that "purpose" is not a mere anthropomorphism and that mechanical function could constitute purpose)

A corollary question might be: is there anything in the universe that you could not use for one purpose or another?

[ToadBrother]

What was the universe before its creation?

We are still trying to determine and understand that.

More to the point, we're trying to figure out whether it's even a sensible question.

[GostHacked]

More to the point, we're trying to figure out whether it's even a sensible question.

Well now, that is something to think about.

[Argus]

What was the universe before its creation? What was god doing before that? He obviously was not a part of the universe since it didn't exist. Time is a part of the physical universe - so logically there must have been no time. All he did was invent a clock.

Actually, that's a question science has never really come to terms with. The big bang began to the universe.

Okay. Nice theory. What caused the big bang. And if the entire universe was some great big mass of material jammed together, well, where did IT come from?

[ToadBrother]

Actually, that's a question science has never really come to terms with. The big bang began to the universe.

Okay. Nice theory. What caused the big bang. And if the entire universe was some great big mass of material jammed together, well, where did IT come from?

Well, first of all, there was no matter at the moment of the Big Bang. It was too dense and too hot for matter to exist. Fortunately, we do have the ol' matter-energy equivalency (E=MC^2) to explain how matter came into being.

But aside from that, as I said above, the very question may not even be sensible. There may have been nothing before the Big Bang. Since time itself came into existence along with the spacial dimensions (however many of those there may be), on the face of it, the question doesn't exactly seem appropriate. There is legitimate question here as to whether the laws of the universe would actually apply to the actual moment of the Big Bang itself. In other words, causation may be an artifact of the Big Bang as much as time, space, and everything else.

There's also the underlying confusion that many seem to have about what it is exactly that the Big Bang describes. In fact, Big Bang cosmology only explains the observable universe. Essentially, it states that the observable universe was once incredibly small, incredible hot and incredible dense. The Big Bang may have only effected one region of the cosmos, the part we can see (and presumably a lot of stuff beyond the horizon of the light cone we're in. There are models that state that the Big Bang was a localized event.

Of course, these aren't even really theories yet, being as they are essentially untestable, and I still fall back to my problem with metaverses and brane theory and such, in that I still am not sure there is any necessity for a "before the beginning" concept at all, that the fault is not in the explanation given, but rather in that the human mind has an awfully hard time imagining that there is something that could exist that has no cause. Well, actually many humans don't. They just dress it up and call it God and wave their hands and declare that that entity, who is ultimately just as unexplainable and foreign to our notions of causality, must have caused it all.

[Pliny]

Well, first of all, there was no matter at the moment of the Big Bang. It was too dense and too hot for matter to exist. Fortunately, we do have the ol' matter-energy equivalency (E=MC^2) to explain how matter came into being.

What was too dense and too hot?

But aside from that, as I said above, the very question may not even be sensible. There may have been nothing before the Big Bang. Since time itself came into existence along with the spacial dimensions (however many of those there may be), on the face of it, the question doesn't exactly seem appropriate. There is legitimate question here as to whether the laws of the universe would actually apply to the actual moment of the Big Bang itself. In other words, causation may be an artifact of the Big Bang as much as time, space, and everything else.

There's also the underlying confusion that many seem to have about what it is exactly that the Big Bang describes. In fact, Big Bang cosmology only explains the observable universe. Essentially, it states that the observable universe was once incredibly small, incredible hot and incredible dense. The Big Bang may have only effected one region of the cosmos, the part we can see (and presumably a lot of stuff beyond the horizon of the light cone we're in. There are models that state that the Big Bang was a localized event.

Of course, these aren't even really theories yet, being as they are essentially untestable, and I still fall back to my problem with metaverses and brane theory and such, in that I still am not sure there is any necessity for a "before the beginning" concept at all, that the fault is not in the explanation given, but rather in that the human mind has an awfully hard time imagining that there is something that could exist that has no cause. Well, actually many humans don't. They just dress it up and call it God and wave their hands and declare that that entity, who is ultimately just as unexplainable and foreign to our notions of causality, must have caused it all.

Well, the big problem is getting something to persist or continue, we have successfully succeeded at that and now have something really solid. So the basic problem was time and it still is. Now we have to figure out how we got something to continue. Are we getting really close to asking the right question?

String theory is interesting physics. How about a few trillion dimensions? We can all have one. Or would that be kinda p-braned? (Sorry. Bad pun)

[Pliny]

We are a sum off all our parts.

What are our parts?

Then you may want to talk to your psychiatrist. Because if I am a figment of your imagination, and you claim I don't exist, then who are you interacting with here?

A figment of my imagination. Or perhaps I am a figment of yours? We are not trying to prove your body exists. We know it does. We are trying to prove what your awareness exists.

I only define myself by myself. I don't need anyone to define me for me. And I would not hit you on the nose just to prove I exist. There are much more productive ways to do that, and without violence.

Do you have a solid definition of you?

So if god wants to come around and punch me in the nose to prove he exists, I'll take the hit.

He told me there was more productive ways to do it.

Yes we are aware that we are unaware of many things. Being aware of those unknowns means knowledge and growth. It also makes us humble, because we really don't have the answers for everything yet. Some answers we may never find. But that does not mean we are going to stop looking for that truth, even if that truth does not exist.

Good idea. We should always have some unknowns around to make us humble and give us direction. Something to keep ourselves occupied.

[ToadBrother]

What was too dense and too hot?

The universe.

[Argus]

The universe.

But it didn't exist yet...

And every explosion has to have a cause. What caused the big bang? What set it off?

[Bonam]

Double post

Edited October 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

1. We have a self-consistent and predictive understanding of the general universe starting from a fraction of a second after the big bang.

2. What happened before that remains unknown, though there are many theories, none have yet made any predictions that could be experimentally verified with presently available technology. Bigger and bigger particle accelerators allow us to experimentally probe what the universe would have been like closer and closer to the moment of the big bang.

3. "Matter" already existed even at that point in time, though not matter as we think of it today. Instead it existed in much higher energy states, such as a quark-gluon plasma. Additionally the four fundamental forces were not yet separate, instead, electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces were unified. We have a good understanding of how the 3 forces besides gravity become unified at high energies. Unifying gravity is one of the things theoretical physicists are working on now, though I think it will be some decades before we can access the relevant energy regimes experimentally.

4. The universe immediately after the big bang is very non-intuitive. It was expanding at essentially the speed of light (even though light as such could not have existed yet). Objects that an instant ago were mere angstroms away from each other would have become causally disconnected in mere nanoseconds. Causally disconnected objects can move superluminally relative to each other. Even if one has an intuitive grasp of relatvity and quantum mechanics, which only a handful of people in the world do, it is still almost impossible to fathom what was going on in the first second of the universe's existence. Trying to reason about it with an intuitive grasp of only basic everyday physics is futile.

The fact that the fabric of causation was essentially being ripped apart in the moments after the big bang certainly suggests that the concept of a cause becomes increasingly less relevant as one looks closer and closer in time to the big bang.

For those curious about it, there are many excellent popular physics books by famous physicists that give a layman's description of the early moments of the universe.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Bonam