Richard Dawkins

Irish_wolf

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What is wrong is that teapots make tea, not universes.

And on the burden of proof argument, well let's say either

a) the universe spontaneously popped int existence
b) God put it there

There's obviously a burden of proof for idea b.

For idea a, I've never seen something as simple as an apple spontaneously pop into existence never mind a universe, so I'd argue that that places a burden of proof on people putting forward idea a.

So, the burden of proof doesn't lie solely with idea b.




Because we've not come across a single omnipotent being and don't have any data on them.

Well actually according to my limited knowledge of quantum physics, despite the fact that something as large as an apple popping into existance has not been recorded yet. There have been recorded cases where two elementary particles will just simply pop out of seemingly nothingness and then annihilate each other back to nothingness in something like a quadrillionth of a second. So maybe over an infinite amount of time and nothingness the spontaneous popping into existance of a universe is not so improbable or unprovable.

Of course that could be all nonsense, I doubt we know even a quarter of what goes on at such a tiny scale. :pac:

thebaldsoprano

PDN wrote: »

We have and we do.

From a Christian perspective, with faith available as a means to gather evidence, yes I couldn't argue with that.

If you restrict your means of gathering evidence to the physical world, which is perfectly reasonable, then no, we haven't.

Fanny Cradock

Irish_wolf wrote: »

Well actually according to my limited knowledge of quantum physics, despite the fact that something as large as an apple popping into existance has not been recorded yet. There have been recorded cases where two elementary particles will just simply pop out of seemingly nothingness and then annihilate each other back to nothingness in something like a quadrillionth of a second. So maybe over an infinite amount of time and nothingness the spontaneous popping into existance of a universe is not so improbable or unprovable.

Of course that could be all nonsense, I doubt we know even a quarter of what goes on at such a tiny scale. :pac:

Of course, that says nothing about he laws that govern why such things happen.

thebaldsoprano

Irish_wolf wrote: »

There have been recorded cases where two elementary particles will just simply pop out of seemingly nothingness and then annihilate each other back to nothingness in something like a quadrillionth of a second.

If they annihilate each other then even an infinite amount of time won't be enough to produce anything

But yes, if it were shown to happen with aggregate particles 'left over', and a theoretical basis put forward linking it to the creation of the universe, that'd considerably weaken any arguments that God had a part creating it.

It'll be interesting to see where this one leads.

Zombrex

branie wrote: »

Anyone here read any of his books, and what's their opinion on them? apologies if there are threads on this already.

Dawkins challenges people, and a lot of people don't like that. So they dismiss him.

I don't think he minds though, I would say he is pretty rich, he can buy friends :P

krudler

PDN wrote: »

We have and we do.

Such as?

philologos

The one word lacking is probably adequate to describe The God Delusion. Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great is a better read.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

Such as?

Such as God, the omnipotent being that some of us have come across, and the Bible, which contains data about Him.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

Such as God, the omnipotent being that some of us have come across, and the Bible, which contains data about Him.

Right..

Its kinda pointless to call Dawkins arrogant though, that can be said about the pope or any priest as well, it'd be kinda pointless if he said "well theres no god, but sure I could be wrong and there probably is, look here buy my book and shut up" he has to believe in whats hes writing otherwise it renders the exercise futile. Hes no more arrogant than a theist who knows(believes) there is a god and us non believers are going to hell.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The one word lacking is probably adequate to describe The God Delusion. Christopher Hitchens' God is not Great is a better read.

A better read in that the arguments being put forward are better or in that you prefer Hitchens as a writer? The use of the word "lacking" seems to imply his arguments are lacking but the last time you were challenged on this you insisted you simply preferred other writers and were making no comment on the strength of his arguments. So is he lacking as a writer or as a person putting forward arguments that theistic gods are a delusion?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't say you can't claim god exists or that you can't claim you know god exists - I haven't heard many arguments against free speech at all tbh, people claim all manner of things and are perfectly at liberty to do so.

It's not in the realm of speech and the freedom thereof that objection is raised. The objection asserts my not being able to know God exists (as a principle) and because I can't know that, I can't claim it

In my experience, objections are generally related to presenting either claim as fact without also presenting supporting empirical evidence.

Understood. This isn't the experience I'm having - given the above objection.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not in the realm of speech and the freedom thereof that objection is raised. The objection asserts my not being able to know God exists (as a principle) and because I can't know that, I can't claim it

I see what you mean...more of a "if you can't prove it to me then it doesn't happen" kind of thing?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I see what you mean...more of a "if you can't prove it to me then it doesn't happen" kind of thing?

Precisely. You'd be amazed how frequently that objection is raised.

Ickle Magoo

Yes, you're right, there is an important distinction between "if you can't prove it to me then it doesn't happen" and "it has to happen to me for me to consider it proof"...

*goes to ponder*

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

Right..

Its kinda pointless to call Dawkins arrogant though, that can be said about the pope or any priest as well, it'd be kinda pointless if he said "well theres no god, but sure I could be wrong and there probably is, look here buy my book and shut up" he has to believe in whats hes writing otherwise it renders the exercise futile. Hes no more arrogant than a theist who knows(believes) there is a god and us non believers are going to hell.

You seem to be confusing his atheism with his perceived arrogance. As far as I can see, the problem is how he chooses to conduct himself, not with his beliefs.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What is wrong is that teapots make tea, not universes.

And on the burden of proof argument, well let's say either

a) the universe spontaneously popped into existence
b) God put it there

There's obviously a burden of proof for idea b.

For idea a, I've never seen something as simple as an apple spontaneously pop into existence never mind a universe, so I'd argue that that places a burden of proof on people putting forward idea a.

It certainly does, which is where science comes in.

We know, for example, that particles spontaneously pop into existence.

We know that it is mathematically possible, using the current understood laws of physics, for the universe to spontaneously pop into existence.

That falls short of stating we know how the universe came into existences (it could happen like this but we can't say it did), but it is doing a lot better than "God did it"

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

We know, for example, that particles spontaneously pop into existence.

We know that it is mathematically possible, using the current understood laws of physics, for the universe to spontaneously pop into existence

Do you have any good references for these? I've been fairly lapse in keeping up with the current laws of of physics.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly does, which is where science comes in.

We know, for example, that particles spontaneously pop into existence.

We know that it is mathematically possible, using the current understood laws of physics, for the universe to spontaneously pop into existence.

I'm no fizacyst but are you saying that mathematics and the current laws of physics tell us that it is possible for something not governed by the laws of physics to occur according to the current laws of physics?

I mean, if there are no "current laws of physics" prior to the existance of the universe then how can the universe spontaneously pop into existance according to them?

That falls short of stating we know how the universe came into existences (it could happen like this but we can't say it did),

"Falling short" is a disingenous term - having no idea how the universe came about isn't falling short of anything, it's being not at the races.

"It could happen" (because time might show us that anything can happen - including Goddidit) is a better term

but it is doing a lot better than "God did it"

Godknowswhatdidit better than Goddidit? Hmmm

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Do you have any good references for these? I've been fairly lapse in keeping up with the current laws of of physics.

The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, and excellent read.

Details, in not such a understandable way as the Greenes book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm no fizacyst but are you saying that mathematics and the current laws of physics tell us that it is possible for something not governed by the laws of physics to occur according to the current laws of physics?

Yes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, if there are no "current laws of physics" prior to the existance of the universe then how can the universe spontaneously pop into existance according to them?

Because there is no unknown law that governs the spontaneous formation of particles in quantum mechanics. It (at least to us) appears random. We only know it happens.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Falling short" is a disingenous term - having no idea how the universe came about isn't falling short of anything, it's being not at the races.

Not really. If you have possibilities that in theory rules in a universe like our own, but you don't know which one is true I would hardly call that not being at the races.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"It could happen" (because time might show us that anything can happen - including Goddidit) is a better term

It is more It could happen like this ... (presents scientific model) but we don't know it did

Still better than Goddidit in my mind.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Because there is no unknown law that governs the spontaneous formation of particles in quantum mechanics. It (at least to us) appears random. We only know it happens.

Could you clarify this? You appear to be saying on the one hand that the formation is spontaneous (there is no law governing it). On other hand you seem to be saying that it 'appears' the formation is spontaneous (with the possibilty that it's not - and is governed by an as yet unknown law)

The second seems safer (given that I can't figure how anyone could say there is no unknown law)

Not really. If you have possibilities that in theory rules in a universe like our own, but you don't know which one is true I would hardly call that not being at the races.

The problem lies, I think, in the fact that it's not known if any of the theoretical possibilities is true. With countless new theoretical possibilities potentially over the horizon (one of which Goddunit), I'd call that not at the races.

Still better than Goddidit in my mind.

I would have thought Goddunit a most exciting possibility. The most rivetting of all!

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you clarify this? You appear to be saying on the one hand that the formation is spontaneous (there is no law governing it). On other hand you seem to be saying that it 'appears' the formation is spontaneous (with the possibilty that it's not - and is governed by an as yet unknown law)

I'm saying the second. To the best of our ability to work it out the formations are random and spontaneous.

That is not simply a guess though, there is actually a lot of statistical maths and observational science behind that which I don't pretend to understand. For example we can verify that there is nothing in a vacuum, not particles and all fields are zero.

Of course like everything in science there could be something we are missing (don't say God, don't say God ... :P)

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem lies, I think, in the fact that it's not known if any of the theoretical possibilities is true. With countless new theoretical possibilities potentially over the horizon (one of which Goddunit), I'd call that not at the races.

But sure when we know which one is true we will be not only at the races but won the race?

I would consider ideas that have no theoretical model and which can't explain the current universe, to be not at the races. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it for example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have thought Goddunit a most exciting possibility. The most rivetting of all!

Not really, since Goddunit doesn't actually explain what actually happened beyond saying what ever happened God did it. And in fact sort of makes the all of physics irrelevant given that God just does something, there is no process or method to uncover by scientists.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, since Goddunit doesn't actually explain what actually happened beyond saying what ever happened God did it. And in fact sort of makes the all of physics irrelevant given that God just does something, there is no process or method to uncover by scientists.

I guess that's one difference between atheism and agnosticism. I'd consider Goddunnit a reasonable possibility until a scientific approach has the problem nailed.

Off now to sit on my fence while I ponder the uncertainty principle

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly does, which is where science comes in.

We know that it is mathematically possible, using the current understood laws of physics, for the universe to spontaneously pop into existence.

No we don't! current mathematical interpretations can say nothing about anything before the planck time.

That falls short of stating we know how the universe came into existences (it could happen like this but we can't say it did), but it is doing a lot better than "God did it"

No actually it isn't since it is a Planck time AFTER the universe existed!

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm no fizacyst but are you saying that mathematics and the current laws of physics tell us that it is possible for something not governed by the laws of physics to occur according to the current laws of physics?

I mean, if there are no "current laws of physics" prior to the existance of the universe then how can the universe spontaneously pop into existance according to them?

the current laws of physics do not explain the universe from time zero. they explain the universe from the Planck time which is about 10 tothe minus 42 of a second AFTER creation. we can't actually measure such a short period of time nor can we reach the energy levels required to examine such a time. we can get back to about 10 to the minus 30. Thats what the CERN thing ( the big accelerator) is all about. Seeing what happens to matter at high energies. High enough to rip apart the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes atomic neuculi. The think is that if the universe was as small as an atom in the past then the field of the very large (cosmology) and that of the very small( quantum physics) converge into one physics and we can possibly adopt the force of the very large (gravity) into the two nuclear and the electromagnetic force. the universe is thus simplified into basis interactions and particles.


The philosophy of science looks at the above in different ways. There isn't one absolute overarching "science". The nearest we have to it is the grand unified theory of physics.
This explains how basic matter behaves and has behaved since about a second after The Big Bang (if indeed a Big Bang happened and for which there are three strong pieces of evidence based on observing the universe 300,000 years later).
Based n that we can explain how matter behaves and Chemistry and then how chemicals combine and biology and medicine. But at the macro level of biology things are not so nearly a clear cut as the micro level of theoretical physics. ANd in the "real world" idealised systems have to be tweaked.

One question for example is whether there is an "atom" in other words a basic building block. It is very important to physicists but a biologist might not view it as important in solving the world food problem. Another idea is that there are no actual laws of physics and all we have are approximations.

"Falling short" is a disingenous term - having no idea how the universe came about isn't falling short of anything, it's being not at the races.

Science would predict and explain how the universe behaved since about the time it came to be. It can't explain creation of the universe. It can however explain that lifeforms with come about by accident if you wait long enough. It cant explain how lifeforms might have a soul or a conscience. Memetics tried to exlplain social evolution and Dawkings once believed in it doing so but he abandoned this belief.

monosharp

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

What is wrong is that teapots make tea, not universes.

And who are you to dare suggest that my god, the almighty teapot, can't make universes ?

I'm afraid it is you who is missing the point.

What possible difference does it make what god/gods look like ? Does god look like a grey haired old man ? Does he look like a teapot ? Does he look like something else ? Are we incapable of seeing him/her/it at all ?

These are not the points.

The point is that someone is claiming that there is a supernatural omnipotent being that exists outside of our universe, that created our universe and that controls this universe.

And that is no different regarding evidence or proof then me suggesting that there is a supernatural/natural omnipotent/stupid teapot/dog/unicorn/fairy/beach ball that exists outside our universe/somewhere very far away/somewhere we can't see them/detect them.

And on the burden of proof argument, well let's say either

a) the universe spontaneously popped into existence
b) God put it there

And who exactly decided on those two options ?

a) the universe spontaneously popped into existence -> is making an argument based on nothing. Its many times worse then saying "I don't know" because now your actually saying "I know without any evidence whatsoever".
b) God did it -> Same as above.

Most educated people who don't have a religion would say "I don't know how the Universe started, I don't even know if it had a beginning".

There's obviously a burden of proof for idea b.

And not for a ?

For idea a, I've never seen something as simple as an apple spontaneously pop into existence never mind a universe, so I'd argue that that places a burden of proof on people putting forward idea a.

And who are these people ? Because I've never met one.

So, the burden of proof doesn't lie solely with idea b.

No one said it did.

Because we've not come across a single omnipotent being and don't have any data on them.

But you've come across celestial teapots capable of orbiting Mars ?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

And who are you to dare suggest that my god, the almighty teapot, can't make universes ?

I'm afraid it is you who is missing the point.
...
The point is that someone is claiming that there is a supernatural omnipotent being that exists outside of our universe, that created our universe and that controls this universe.

And that is no different regarding evidence or proof then me suggesting that there is a supernatural/natural omnipotent/stupid teapot/dog/unicorn/fairy/beach ball that exists outside our universe/somewhere very far away/somewhere we can't see them/detect them.

So no to athiests disbelieve in the same God. so what?
If the unicorn (or say aslan) above is the same as the christian god then what does it matter if he cares to look like a burning bush or a teapot or a lion?

Most educated people who don't have a religion would say "I don't know how the Universe started, I don't even know if it had a beginning".

As would most educated people WITH a religion


And not for a ?



And who are these people ? Because I've never met one.

Barrow, John D. & Silk, Joseph. 1993. Left Hand of Creation. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks.

Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam.

Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.

Morris, Richard. 1997. Achilles in the Quantum World. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.

Stenger, Victor. 1996. Posting on DEBATE list (19 Mar)

In Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)
Mark I. Vuletic http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

No we don't! current mathematical interpretations can say nothing about anything before the planck time.

Which wasn't what he said.

He said

Wicknight wrote:

We know that it is mathematically possible, using the current understood laws of physics, for the universe to spontaneously pop into existence.

He didn't say it did, he didn't say scientists think it did, he said we know that it is mathematically possible.

No actually it isn't since it is a Planck time AFTER the universe existed!

Which has what to do with "God did it" ?

And how are you defining "After the universe existed" ? Do you know about a time when the universe didn't exist ?

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Which wasn't what he said.

I was saying what he said isn't true. While science can accept particles in the universe and spontaneous pop into existance (according to probability0 which isn't the same as "something out of nothing" it cant say anything at all but anything before the Planck time. Given mathematics is only a language used to formally describe scientific theories then mathematics can't either!

He didn't say it did, he didn't say scientists think it did, he said we know that it is mathematically possible.

And I said we DON'T! We only can use mathematics to explain how it is possible to explain it for particles in the existing universe and not for the universe as a whole before the Planck time.

And how are you defining "After the universe existed" ? Do you know about a time when the universe didn't exist ?

I know about a time before which the universe can't be described by science and about a time zero before which the universe didn't exist.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

If the unicorn (or say aslan) above is the same as the christian god then what does it matter if he cares to look like a burning bush or a teapot or a lion?

It doesn't. Which was my point.

Are you going to misinterpret me in this thread too ? :rolleyes:

As would most educated people WITH a religion

It depends on what their education is in. I'm pretty sure there are many educated people with a religion right here on this forum who would say "God created the Universe".

And who are these people ? Because I've never met one.

And the list you just gave suggest that the Universe just popped into existence ? Are you trying to equate "The Big Bang theory" with "popped into existence" ?