Ten Commandments

[MMI]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

[Thorne]

I suggest that creation was possibly a supernatural event. What were the chances it could happen by itself before it "did"?

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.

Yes it is very probably certain that we are here, but it is conceivable that we are not and no scientist has come up with a coherent explanation that is better than the creation stories we all know and love.

What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

[MMI]

Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility. No one can definitively prove that such an event did not happen. No one can definitively prove that anything did not happen. We can show, with reasonable certainty, that some things did happen, though, and the more we learn about it the closer we come to certainty. Relying on superstition and the supernatural says, "We already know what happened so there's no sense in learning any more about it." And when you can provide no evidence of a supernatural explanation while science has ample evidence of a natural one, then I will stick with the evidence.


What? "Conceivable that we are not"? How is that conceivable? All the evidence of my senses tells me "I am here." If you are just a figment of my imagination then my mind is far too contentious and I might want to see about getting my head shrunk. And any explanation which agrees with the evidence that has been found of how the universe began is vastly better than an unsupported, "goddidit". Any creation story may be more enjoyable than the scientific explanation, sure, but they are just stories, with no evidence to support them, and with enough contradictions even within themselves as to make them poor fictions at best. They are children's stories, entertainments, not rational explanations.

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

In this discussion we are nbot only limited by our own powers of expression, but by language itself. I am certain you understood me, just as I understood you.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

[Thorne]

First of all, it's probably unwise to critcise me for saying it is conceivable that we don't exist immediately after saying, "Naturally, a supernatural event is a possibility."

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

Also, why do you claim that existence is of itself indicative of the scientific explanation of creation, but not of the religious explanation?

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

[MMI]

I wasn't criticizing, just asking for some kind of rationale for your statement. While it is possible that you are not here, and are only in my imagination, there is little doubt in my mind that I exist, here and now. Cogito ergo sum.

I am by no means competent to criticise Descartes's Cogito, however it does puzzle me why it is felt to be so conclusive. I cannot think things into existence: that would be magic, or a divine act of creation. How, then can I think myself into existence? Surely, Descates should have said, I am, therefore I can think. Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

Existence is itself indicative of some kind of origin, and the scientific explanation we currently have is far more able to reconcile our current understandings of those origins. The religious explanation is not.

What's hard to reconcile about, "God made all that there is"? If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin. Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too: if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ... and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

[Thorne]

Existence is, as can be seen a pre-requisite - and existence as a human to boot (or other thinking entity, such as a god, for example).

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

If something exists, that indicates it has a divine origin.

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Sure, there are contradictions - fossils don't sit well with a creation date of 23/10/4004 BC (Usher), but there are sientific anaomalies too:

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

if you know where a subatomic particle is, you cannot know how it is moving;particles and waves are neither one thing nor the other, but have properties of both of them ...

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

and, of course, every effect must have a cause: there is no uncaused effect. Or can science prove otherwise?

I don't have the knowledge to deal with this except to say that, under the accepted laws of physics as we understand them there can be no uncaused effect. However, there are places where these laws of physics no longer apply, such as within the event horizon of a black hole, or at the precise moment of the Big Bang. So who knows? Maybe there can be uncaused effects in those areas.

But you could say, you have to believe it happened that way, because that's what my theory holds to be true.

An incomplete phrase. You should believe it probably happened that way because that's what my hypothesis holds to be true, and here is the evidence to support the hypothesis!

[MMI]

I think it is simpler than that. The act of thinking is itself a proof of existence.

OK - I think I can concede that. But with that argument, Descartes only proved that he existed because he was a thinker. Ergo, only thinking things can prove they exist that way. But, fortunateley, it's not just thinking that proves existence, being red proves the existence of red objects, being dead proves the existence of dead things, being a scold proves the existence of my wife, and so on ad infinitum.

But we aren't actually concerned with existence, are we? We've sidetracked ourselves: what we want to find out is how things came to be in the first place.

Religions hold that there was a Prime Mover and He was the uncaused cause. He was also the creator of all things, so if a thing exists - which plainly, many things do - He created them. Cogito has nothing to say about this (so far as I am aware). Religions believe this to be so, and hope one day their beliefs will be demonstrated to be true

Your scientific hypothesis says that there must be a natural law of physiscs that says something can spontaneously come into existence, but we don't know what it is yet. But there is hope that we will know one day.

Where's the difference?

Only if you postulate a divine being in the first place. But then it comes down to evidence. Is there any evidence that the universe began through some sort of divine intervention? Not a possibility, not a belief, but real evidence. Science can back-track the universe, using the laws and processes that they have learned, to a point a fraction of a fraction of a second after the big bang. Before that point the laws of the universe as we understand them break down. So yes, it is possible that god exists within that tiny piece of unknown time. But possibility is not evidence. There are an infinite number of possible explanations of what happened at that time. And there is evidence for none. Yet.

Who cares what happened at any time after the Big Bang? God was there before it. Every one of your scientific laws can easily co-exist with the Supernatural Being who created them, along with everything else. It is hard to see how they can exist at all without a Supernatural Being.

A contradiction and an anomaly are two different things. The proverbial irresistible force meeting the equally proverbial immovable object is a contradiction: both cannot exist. An all knowing god who becomes angry because his creation does not perform as he wants it to is a contradiction.

An anomaly is something outside the norm, something which means your hypothesis is incomplete, that you must gather more data and, possibly, revise your hypothesis. Science advances through anomalies, because they lead to more questions which will refine our understanding.

I won't dispute your distinctions.

It is religious dogma that Yaweh(for example) is perfect, and that leads to inconsistencies that make faith look ridiculous. Why are you assuming God is bound to perfection? Why does He have to be? Why can't He learn like the rest of us, and make mistakes in the process?

And I would also submit that our understanding of religion and what we believe in has advanced, just as scientific theory has: from fear of thunderclaps to more sophistcated understandings of who we are and why we are here. Out of Zoroastrianism grew Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam; before Zoroastrianism, pagan beliefs, myths and superstition, perhaps, but all leading to the Ultimate Truth.

These aren't anomalies. There are perfectly valid reasons for these findings, which fit into our understanding of the universe. But their discovery did cause modifications to that understanding.

I believe they are theories which give (partial) explantions for our current hypotheses. I agree that these theories are constantly being refined in the hope that we will eventually have a Unifed Theory that explains everything ... or at least, as Hawkins put it, enables us to know the mind of God.