"A question to discuss..." Topic

The "point" is that complexity is TEMPORARY. Therefore, when the universe dies (however that eventuality occurs), there is nothing to explain why it would start up again, once the complexity has run its course and entropy becomes the final state. If the universe starts up again, then something "unscientific" is at work; because by all evidence the universe is a closed system: it should not be able to "uncomplexticate" itself and resume a more ordered, complex state, once it has reverted to a simple state.

So the implication/evidence/point is that someTHING is at work outside the universe itself, causing it to do what it does.

I repeat: IF the universe is "all there is and has ever been", i.e. it was never caused, it has just always been: then the universe is "God" by any other word. We are not apart from the universe. We are sapient beings. The evidence is that the universe is sapient: and, being eternal and infinite, that sapience must be also. The evidence supports this concept. There is NO evidence supporting the opposite: that the universe is somehow bereft of awareness and intelligence….

The questions were addressed to TJ Doug. I would be interested to hear what he thinks the point is.

<I repeat…> Yes, you certainly do.

Just Visiting – No.

There is no evidence the universe is sapient.

For God's sake LH, don't get him started!

His 'argument' basically goes like this: 'I think, therefor the Universe is just like me.' Except he uses a lot more words. And frankly I think even his initial posit is suspect.

There is NO evidence supporting the opposite: that the universe is somehow bereft of awareness and intelligence….

Please take a deductive reasoning course at a local school. You cannot prove the non- existence of something. Plus, you are jumping on questions directed at TJ. We've heard it all before from you.

<Please take a deductive reasoning course at a local school.>

Breath. Wasted.

But I'll waste mine by trying one more time.

Sorry Doug, Your idea about an intelligent Universe contradicts my hypothesis that the Universe is an ever-expanding fart from a sardine, itself no bigger than my pinkie. If you do not agree, please DISPROVE it. If you cannot, it must be true, right?

No wait. No need to deploy the sardine-finding deep space radar. I withdraw the argument as I am not stupid enough to advance such an obviously fallacious argument. Heck I don't even know anyone so bereft of awareness and intelligence as to make such a moronic argument that something that cannot be disproved must be true.

Oh wait, my bad. I do.

It's simple logic: science posits that the universe "is all there is" and "has always existed". Fine. I believe that, too; I believe a lot more than that as well, but I believe that the universe has always existed.

We are obviously sapient enough to imagine and develop this technology, by which we argue with ourselves. Being sapient, and deriving from the universe, which has always existed, MAKES the universe sapient. We are part of it.

The very existence of our sapience is evidence that the universe, of which we are all part, must be sapient too. Inescapable logic. Whereas your assertion that the universe, which has always existed, and of which we are all part, is not sapient, has zero evidence to support it.

Whatsit: I believe that if you can form a wildly imaginative concept into simple words like that, it is true. In a concept where Existence is not in any way bound by space-time, It Is All True. The finite brain cannot comprehend it, only apprehend. You have experience enough to imagine cosmic sardine farts; and infinite macro and micro universes: these are stock imaginative concepts used to excess in science fiction and movies of the same: e.g. the way Men In Black ends; or Stephen King's whirling galaxies in the toenails of the dead Turtle ("that cannot save us"). We all think of these wild things all the time; it is called "tripping naturally", and anyone who allows it sufficient time in a normal day has no need to take psychotropic drugs!

The mistake you all are making, is assuming that it is merely the product of a biological function, having no origination within an infinite conception….

It's simple logic……

Apparently not simple enough.

………..science posits that the universe "is all there is" and "has always existed".

Doug, science says nothing of the sort. It says, "as far as we can observe, the Universe is all there is". It also says, "as far as we can observe, the Universe began some 13-14 billion years ago".

That's a bit different to your erroneous statement.

The very existence of our sapience is evidence that the universe, of which we are all part, must be sapient too. Inescapable logic

Ahh, no. Escapable logic actually. Our intelligence is the end product of close to 14 billion years of the evolution of the Universe, our Milky Way Galaxy, the Solar System and ultimately, Planet Earth, with another 4 billion years of biological evolution. Same can be said of the flying ability of the Peregrine Falcon. That doesn't mean the Universe is intelligent anymore than the Universe can fly. Nor can our Galaxy, our Solar system, nor our planet.

Our Universe, Galaxy, Solar System and planet provided the proper environment for living organisms to develop. Some of these organisms organisms think, some run fast, some swim and the Peregrine Falcon can fly very, very fast. It does not mean the Universe thinks, runs, swims or flies.

The mistake you all are making, is assuming that it is merely the product of a biological function, having no origination within an infinite conception….

What you characterize as a mistake, I'd call a sensible position. An Occam's razor sort of position. I'd also say your use of the word "merely" is incredibly poor. There is no "merely" about it.

<It's simple logic: science posits that the universe "is all there is" and "has always existed". >

No it doesn't. You are making that up. Which is typical of you.

Science is open on the question of one or many Universes, of whether there is or was anything before the Big Bang, to give just two examples. Hell, 13.7 years old (which is science's best answer for the age of the Universe) is not 'always' anyway. Quite the opposite. As I say, we don't know what – if anything existed – before then. Personally I favour a multi-universe model, but I recognise the difference between speculation and proven fact.

<The mistake you all are making, …>
No, the mistake I am making is waiting my time speaking to someone who can neither form nor evaluate a cogent argument. And who doesn't bother to get his basic facts right before drawing far-reaching conclusions from them.

@Bowman 4 Oct 2011:

If you want to do some reading, I'd recommend "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. In it they say that the Universe was NOT caused, and needs no cause.

Or take Lawrence Krauss'"A Universe from Nothing"….

Whatsit, Bowman was responding to you. I've listened to several hours of Krauss on YouTube already.

You can't brush aside what is being asserted here: that without a Cause, the universe must therefore be eternal. If by "universe" we mean that it is possible that there are infinitely manifesting "dimensional" universes, or even a "multiverse" of expanding single universes such as our own; none of that changes a thing if we agree with the assertion that the universe sprang from "nothing". That is just a word game. "Nothing" is nonsensical. We are something, the universe, of which we are a part, is obviously "something"; and it requires explaining. To believe that there was literally "nothing", and that the universe just suddenly existed; and to never explain what is believed to have occurred to cause this to happen, is not only bad science, it is ludicrous and rude.

@Bowman: Your comparisons to flight or any other specific quality possessed by living things, and the universe as a whole, are fallacious; because as I have pointed out before: using our bodies as a finite example, if I point to my big toe and claim that because it grows a nail, and has hairy knuckles, so too must the rest of my body, that is obviously a silly thing to say. A toe does not equate to a brain; yet taken as a whole, my body does have hairy knuckles, nails, and it also thinks and is self-aware.

As thinking is what renders existence as something perceived, it is strange to me, that you insist on denying that the universe thinks and is also self-aware. That we, who merely derive from the universe, possess a quality lacking in the universe as a whole, is an assertion utterly lacking in logic. You wouldn't say that just because your toes don't think, that they are any less a part of the body. Krauss says, "We haven't realized just how insignificant we really are." We appear to be, in his estimation, not even as significant as a single toenail paring to the rest of the body. Yet we possess this fine quality of sapience, which you downplay into nothing more than a natural consequence of apparently random factors resulting in our appearance "on the scene".

@Whatsit: You complain that you are wasting your time; yet nothing is more inconceivable to my mind than someone who insists on believing in "something from nothing": which is what you attribute to our sapience. Thinking is the central point of existence; without it nothing is aware of anything. To extend this to the universe as a whole, yet allow that we are uniquely sapient, is mind boggling denial of the logic which demands that something cannot exist without a cause; that the cause must possess the traits that result in something; for if something springs out of nothing, that is the most unscientific assertion of ex nihilo….

Yes. There must be a cause to the Universe. We do not know what it is.

Making stuff up doesn't change that simple fact.

Doug,

Your posts do make me wonder.

I wonder how anyone can look at the Universe and see only a reflection of themselves.

PS As usual, I do not assert ANY of the crap you say I do. As usual you have not bothered to check what people actual think before saying their wrong and assuring them you have all the answers.

My position is very simple and as stated above:

We do not know how the Universe started.

I hope we find out. Until we do, I am not going to accept the assurances of every passing nutcase and moron that they hold the secret of the Universe already. No matter how loudly they yell or how often they repeat themselves.

Your comparisons to flight or any other specific quality possessed by living things, and the universe as a whole, are fallacious……….

Yes! Yes, they are. Thanks for making my argument for me.

As thinking is what renders existence as something perceived, it is strange to me, that you insist on denying that the universe thinks and is also self-aware.

Apart from your unsupported statements, simply claiming this to be true, I have yet to see any shred of evidence that the Universe "thinks". Good luck with this hypothesis.

Seriously, I'd suggest that someone's willingness to consider this idea as plausible, would be inversely proportionate to their science education. Doug, you are simply anthropomorphizing……………………….again. And you are blind to it.

I do not hold a remotely anthropomorphic concept of the "Cause" of Existence in the first place. Talk about putting words into somebody's mouth!

And yes, you and Whatsit DO deny that there is any evidence for a thinking universe/cause.

The universe IS the cause of existence if it was never caused and has always existed. Do you even get that? If it requires no cause, the universe is eternal and infinite. As we are part of the universe and we manifestly do think, then the universe thinks. My whole body does not think: my toenail clippings do not think, nor my hair, not even my balls. Only my brain. Everything my body does originates with the brain; either consciously or automatically. The Cause of our existence was not caused. Like our bodies, the universe need not think with every "part" of itself in order to be self aware. In fact, I consider our level of thinking to be a lot closer to that of a toenail clipping, compared to the level of thinking that God does; even though I have said that toenail clippings do not think: yet the matter of which they are composed "answers" to the will of God and thus the matter itself, whether microcosmic or macrocosmic, possesses awareness of some kind, but of a much lower "order" than our thinking. That is my current assumption.

I have not advanced a single "insight" (despite what Whatsit keeps insisting to the contrary) on what Existence in the first place Is: I've chosen to call it God, because to me God is the ultimate Existence; the only uncaused Existence. Because some people are locked into preconceived assumptions bound to that word, God, they assume that a believer in God must believe in an anthropomorphism. Aside from our being inescapably human, and seeing the universe/existence from that limited perspective, there is no reason why anyone should be bound to belief in an anthropomorphism as the greatest concept for God….

<As we are part of the universe and we manifestly do think, then the universe thinks.>

That simply does not follow. But I despair you will ever understand that.

<My whole body does not think: my toenail clippings do not think, nor my hair, not even my balls. Only my brain.>

Based on the evidence of your writing, the last is debatable.

Does that kind of moronic one-liner swapping make you feel GOOD, Whatsit? I have been accused of thinking too much; not the other way around; except by bored Net denizens who simply cannot resist quipping because it's so easy….

No. In this case, merely calling it as I see it. Your ignorance is breathtaking and I have seen more cogent arguments emerge from the rear end of cows.

Endless repetition of logically flawed and – frankly moronic – arguments hardly qualifies you for thinking to much. Perhaps they were just too polite to say 'talking too much'.

The only way to 'feel good' discussing something with you Doug, is the same way as when banging one's head against a brick wall. To stop.

I do not hold a remotely anthropomorphic concept of the "Cause" of Existence in the first place. Talk about putting words into somebody's mouth!

Doug, you keep insisting the Universe is "sapient" because you are, ( or the other way around). When you project a human quality onto a non-human object, you are anthropomorphizing. No one is putting words in your mouth

And yes, you and Whatsit DO deny that there is any evidence for a thinking universe/cause.

Now who is misquoting? I'll not answer for Whatisit, he is pretty eloquent without my help. I believe I wrote:

"Apart from your unsupported statements, simply claiming this to be true, I have yet to see any shred of evidence that the Universe "thinks". Good luck with this hypothesis."

That is hardly "denial". It is lack of evidence for me. There is a BIG difference, Douglas.

When you project a human quality onto a non-human object, you are anthropomorphizing.

As it is impossible NOT to put our human projection on everything we observe, this definition includes everything we observe and attempt to understand. Without sapience there would be no observation by "homo sapiens". Despite your insistence that homo sapiens must necessarily view "God" anthropomorphically, I do my very best to hold a concept for "God" where it Is so far beyond human comprehension that to attribute a shape, dimension, or any other physical/empirical quality to that concept and call it "God" is no more than viewing one of infinite manifestations. This means that sapience is merely a manifestation of the infinite qualities of "God". There is nothing anthropomorphic about sapience; other than our species happens to possess it to some degree.

You continue to see us as not evidence that the universe possesses sapience. Yet our very existence is evidence for sapience in the natural order of things. I would ask you to provide some evidence to support the notion that sapience in our species is somehow "other" than the universe; or is an aberration to that natural order of things. If sapience is not aberrant, then it is natural; and nature is the way things are. That is strong evidence for a "thinking universe". As I said, all the "parts" of the universe are not required to think in order for us to define the universe as self aware; anymore than all of our body parts must be sapient in order for us to define ourselves as homo sapiens….

As it is impossible NOT to put our human projection on everything we observe, this definition includes everything we observe and attempt to understand.

You're going off on a tangent here. I don't "project" human qualities on non-human things. I'm not the one insisting that the Universe thinks. When I look at a tree, or rock, or sunset, trust me I don't imbue them with aspects of human traits. You are the one anthropomorphizing.

Despite your insistence that homo sapiens must necessarily view "God" anthropomorphically…..

What? Where did you get that from? Doesn't resemble anything coming from me.

I'm stopping this nonsense now. None of this pertains to Science. It belongs on the News of the Weird board. Feel free to continue this there.

<I would ask you to provide some evidence to support the notion that sapience in our species is somehow "other" than the universe; or is an aberration to that natural order of things.>

How typical of you to so misunderstand our position that you challenge us to prove the exact opposite position!

Intelligence is a perfectly natural phenomena. Like flight, long necks, and photosynthesis. An adaption to help genes survive to the next generation. How / where have we ever argued it is 'an aberration to that natural order' as you have just challenged us to prove? Brick Wall I Am Sure.

The universe flies; it has long and short necks; it uses photosynthesis; it is black and white; it is hot and cold; it is animate and inanimate; it is an infinite variety of "things". All of it Is the universe. Yet you confine sapience to an "other" manifestation. If the universe is all of these things, without the entire universe being required to manifest all of them, why is the universe not sapient? Our bodies are not entirely sapient, yet we are self-defined because of that singular trait as homo sapiens. You seem bound and determined to "lalalala" this to death. A self-aware universe/God bothers you no end. Just the concept is repugnant to you. There aren't that many possible reasons why this is so….

"The universe flies…"

This is -on its face- nothing short of very, very silly. So why isn't "the universe thinks" the same?

"A self-aware universe/God bothers you no end."

No moreso than a flying universe does…they are equally ridiculous/nonsensical notions that apply a naturally occuring adaptive aspect of a miniscule portion to the whole.

I suppose it can be supported from a "if it's part of a piece then it's part of the whole" argument…but I see no application of that beyond the moot…and, of course, to the benefit of making one feel good because one happens (through no more than blind luck) to possess a trait (sapience, geography, wealth?) that is looked upon as a rightful gift for which one is dutifully proud.

PS- sorry for the borderline (or crossing?) blue-fezzy tone…a bit touchy today.

A beautiful summation, thank you gweirda. I will be happy to let it stand as my final summation as well.

"Final summation", that's a thought; a silly one. Nothing is "final" unless you accept that your death is final and you stop learning. Before you are dead you are constantly (un)learning. But I am just being pedantic.

"The universe flies…"

This is -on its face- nothing short of very, very silly. So why isn't "the universe thinks" the same?

Of course "on its face" almost anything we accept is silly. Deeper reflection is required to remove the silliness.

Actually, what you have said, once we remove "silly" from it, is the approach to the largest concept to explain Existence in the first place. "So why isn't the universe thinks the same way?" It Is the same way; with everything.

I have resorted to the human body analogy; we refer to ourselves as homo sapiens; yet considerably under 1% of our total material mass actually thinks. Birds are defined as "creatures of flight", usually; yet if you remove the pinion feathers they do not fly; less than 1% of their material mass makes flight possible. The universe is observed by our empirical senses; yet the "stuff" we observe is statistically non existent: Krauss has lovingly quipped, "So you see, statistically we don't exist." This is because, iirc, dark matter makes up c. 25% of the universe, and dark energy makes up 75%; rounded off, of course; organized, visible matter is fadingly small, with I don't recall how many zeros after the decimal point before it shows up as a "percentage" of the universe. Yet we define ourselves and our world by what we observe with our empirical senses: AND our sapience, which has devised methods of observation that far outstrip our empirical senses, requiring that we explain even more than ever before. Thus Krauss, et al. quantum physicists continually derive theories and formulae to define them, pressing into the unknown (and "unknowable" if we accept people who love the use of the word "silly").

Nothing unique about the observable universe is shared by any other part of the universe. Mammals overlap. Animal life overlaps; material possessing energy overlaps. So why shouldn't the universe as a WHOLE overlap? Our bodies are an interconnecting array of overlapping particles; the final "product" being referred to by itself as "homo sapiens", because of the ONE trait not observed in any other species. Why could not the universe overlap and include that trait within its awareness?

Birds fly; men did not until the last hundred years or so. We changed all of that by inventing "flying machines". If the sapience required to accomplish that existed only in us then we could assert with confidence that although traits pop up here and there, the universe as a "whole" is devoid of any traits whatsoever. You go ahead and keep saying that.

The greater concept, and it is only a beginning of where our minds can go, requires that a greater manifestation of all observable traits exists elsewhere; and originates elsewhere. The universe bangs into empirical existence; it expands, grows complex in this area or that, then expands to the point of "death". Then what? Why bang into existence at all? Ah, "the universe requires no cause"; i.e. the universe just Is and always has been; "banging" and fading is what it does and has always done. Yet it produces "us" (all observable matter and energy); and at the same time in such fadingly small quantities that statistically "we are so insignificant we practically don't exist."

Overlapping Existence explains why the universe possesses all traits; including "The Void". Without the uncaused Cause possessing it, no trait could Exist in the first place….

It's a trap

The greater concept, and it is only a beginning of where our minds can go, requires that a greater manifestation of all observable traits exists elsewhere; and originates elsewhere. The universe bangs into empirical existence; it expands, grows complex in this area or that, then expands to the point of "death". Then what? Why bang into existence at all? Ah, "the universe requires no cause"; i.e. the universe just Is and always has been; "banging" and fading is what it does and has always done. Yet it produces "us" (all observable matter and energy); and at the same time in such fadingly small quantities that statistically "we are so insignificant we practically don't exist."

Try thinking about the concept of infinity, this might help:

link

Here is a nice simple essay by Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist from Australia.

link

Sorry Doug, but when he says, "Children grow up with an intuitive sense of cause and effect.", I have to smile and think of you. You hang on to the "cause and effect" paradigm like a Rottweiler puppy hangs on to his chew toy.

I guess we can"t treat Aquinas's First Cause argument as axiomatic, anymore than Euclid's geometry, or Newton's mechanics.

"…..quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory."

Dr. Edward Tryon, Nature 246, December 14, 1973

(Check the year. Yes, that's 1973!!)

The new synthesis from Hawking, Franco Nori, A Sakharov, H E Puthoff, Edward Tryon, A Freidmann, G Lamaitre, A Guth, et al, indicate that the Universe started from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that lasted long enough for inflation to take effect. I think that means "ex nihilo". Somewhere in there are superstrings and Higgs bosons too.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what that entails. But I'm sure Doug has a strong opinion on it already.

I'd help, but I'm not sure which ones would be the correct to read: pig's?…goat's?…?

Oh…entails…not…

nevermind.

Lol!

We could examine the innards of a bull, sing our praises to Mithras:

and enjoy some nice fresh hamburgers after.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what that entails. But I'm sure Doug has a strong opinion on it already.

I have an opinion, but I don't know how "strong" it is.

The "perfect vacuum" either isn't, or all of existence is "inside" a "perfect vacuum". I tend toward the latter concept, rather than assume that scientists will at some future time learn that their "perfect vacuum" experiments have been anything but; i.e. they discover that outside (or inside) "tampering" has been occurring from influences not previously detected.

"Ex nihilo" is unscientific. It violates every theory prior to quantum theory. Quantum theory arose because of the anomalies detected "outside" of stated scientific "facts". I don't know when "facts" died; probably over a rather extensive period: a scientific education at the university level would probably answer that question of historic timing: I just know that this process occurred, causing the "death" of smug certainty: that very brief period of time when some/most? scientists believed in the declaration that human beings had learned almost everything there was to know and had invented most of the things that could be invented. Hubris on a worldwide scale! (This is another factoid I have inculcated in my sojourn on earth; whether or not it is exaggerated or not I have no idea. Probably, I suspect, it is distorted by repetition: because repeating it makes the repeater seem smarter than former scientists. I doubt that very many true scientists at any point in time fall for the hubristic notion that "we" are getting close "now" to knowing all that there is to learn. Certainly, in our lifetimes, there are virtually none of that former "breed" of scientist extant on this planet.)

Anyway, a "perfect vacuum" means that appearance of any particle out of "nowhere" shows a miniature model of the universe. Explaining it is the fun part. Nobody has or can up to this point: only theorizing goes on. The godless come up with "the universe has always existed and needs no cause." The believers call this theory "God" in so many words….

I also suspect that a "particle" manifesting inside a perfect vacuum is not only a "model" of this universe; but is in reality an entire universe within itself. We just don't have any tools of detection to "see" beyond the particle as such.

The reality is that there is no more finiteness to empirical objects than there is to time: all manifesting matter is both infinitely huge and infinitely minuscule: that is to say, part of larger and smaller things; while within a "scale" of existence, all matter appears to be organized as this or that phenomenon. The very same elements that make up the heart of a sun millions of times larger than our solar system's sun, exist inside my own body, giving off light if observed at the microcosmic level, yet appearing only as dense matter on the scale of existence of our empirical senses.

Each atom "contains" infinity. Each universe in the multiverse (from our vantage point of the macrocosmic) is "merely" a subatomic particle making up the body of some living being, or sun or whathaveyou….

Doug, a few corrections, if I may:

"Ex nihilo" is unscientific. It violates every theory prior to quantum theory. Quantum theory arose because of the anomalies detected "outside" of stated scientific "facts".

Absolutely wrong.

Quantum mechanics is totally scientific and observed. In some conditions it explains the Universe better than Newtonian Mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is adequate for everything you and I experience in our everyday life, but falls apart when describing things, very small, very fast, or very energetic. This science started in the early 1900's.

Euclidean geometry is also adequate for everything you and I experience in our daily lives. However, without Non-Euclidean geometry we wouldn't be able to get a satellite to orbit Jupiter. Non-Euclidean geometry started in the Victorian era.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations is an observable phenomenon. A computer generated image of it was in the Krauss video. The theoretical background goes back to famous dissident scientist Andrei Sakharov in the 1960's.

I doubt that very many true scientists at any point in time fall for the hubristic notion that "we" are getting close "now" to knowing all that there is to learn.

Straw-man argument. Who do you tar with that idea?

The godless come up with "the universe has always existed and needs no cause." The believers call this theory "God" in so many words….

Ya, these guys do physics because they are all "closet atheists". While Hawking and Krauss are non-believers Martin Rees and George Smoot are believers (I believe). I think if you look closely, the understanding of quantum fluctuations cuts across religious lines, and this is not an issue.

I'm just responding to the stuff I understood. I'll leave the "all atoms contain infinity" comments to others

"I'm just responding to the stuff I understood."

phhlllpt!

And where do you think discussion would be if everyone held to that rule? H-E-double-toothpicks: I rarely understand the blather I post…much less anyone else's.

'course, Doug's stuff is really off the edge (and speaking as one further off the edge -based on our aircombat discussions- I feel comfortable posting that) but I have to wonder where the line lies between expressing concern over the limit and enciting mayhem.

ps- take a moment, if you will, and consider the importance of this (and the time you spend on it) with whatever else may -in your particular place in the world- be worthy of your time/energy.

sorry---not meaning to be preachy…just…you know…

I come up with "this" at the drop of a few keyboard keys. I think this way all the time, so transferring thoughts to fingers is not a biggie; neither energy or time expenditure.

I didn't wax exhaustive with the details, and of course Bowman takes what I say as a "tar brush" condemnation of science and scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I say "the godless", I am not referring de facto to scientists!

When I say "believers" I am not de facto excluding scientists either.

When I say "Quantum theory arose because of the anomalies detected "outside" of stated scientific "facts". I am not asserting that there is something unscientific about quantum theory/mechanics!

The more we find out, the more we see how much we still don't know. Learning points out far more ignorance that remains, than how much we now know. This was not always the case: "legend" still says that sometime in the mid 19th century, the Patent Office was thought by some/many to be redundant, because there was not really anything further to be invented; the same kind of thinking was popularly carried over into science, where "we know all that there is to know" was a brief hubris shared by millions. (But very few scientists, I am sure.)

The thing that fascinates me about "godless" scientists, though, is how everything learned is used to bolster the notion that we have no evidence to show God. Whereas, the "believers" see the entire cosmos, macro and micro, as evidence to show God. Neither point of view can teach the other one anything….

The thing that fascinates me about "godless" scientists, though, is how everything learned is used to bolster the notion that we have no evidence to show God. Whereas, the "believers" see the entire cosmos, macro and micro, as evidence to show God. Neither point of view can teach the other one anything….

Different use of the term "evidence", n'est pas? The former seems a little more concrete and rigorous than the latter.

I also enjoy coming here and squandering a little time. I even learn things from Doug. I hope I can reciprocate.

Oh yes, have no qualms on that point: you and Whatsit in particular have pointed me to many informative Net sources….

Well, let's see TJ starts a thread then only comes in to sneer? I've been away from the TMP for some years but coming here, I encounter a tremendous sense of déjà vu.

TJ seems to have a problem with what he and his ilk term "scientism", but which is really 'Naturalism' as set out in his original post.

Well, TJ, if you dislike the Scientific Method what would you replace it with?

How is your pseudo-science superior to real science? (Apart from giving answers that appeal to your rather narrow weltanschauung.)

How many times will I have to challenge you before you come out from under your bridge and give me a straight answer this time? IIRC last time on the 'Darwin Day' thread it was something like 15 times before you even attempted to answer a simple question. Will history repeat itself? Enquiring minds want to know!

Yaaaaaaawwn… RAF. Same old bleatings. Like I said before – you just don't get it – probably never have.

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the (and read carefully)only way to show that something exists?

Don't be lazy and go back and read the replies…

Lazy?

TJ, your only contribution has been sneers, and 'Yaaaaawwwn's.

If you have bothered to read the thread you would see the question that keeps being asked is 'Well what other method is there?'

And that IS in fact an answer to the original post: namely 'It may well not be the only method, but it is the only method we know of and have proof that works'.

You OTOH have so far offered NO answer. Just 'Yaaaawn'.

Do you have an answer to the question that isn't as lazy, condescending and frankly unintelligent as – and I quote – ' Yaaaaaawwn'?

What other method is there? I personally know of no other reliable method for exploring reality. Please enlighten us.

Put your method against the scientific method and let's see how it fares.

"…and I quote…"

You missed an "a", there…don't want to make sloppy presentation a habit, it may be used to dismiss your point.

; )

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the (and read carefully)only way to show that something exists?

Which or what "something"? What is your definition of "exists"?

Well gentlemen that was what was I thinking? That for once TJ would come out from under the bridge and give a streight answer?

For the record, I had read the TJ posts, what did we get attacks on the scientific method? CLearly articulated alternatives? I think not.

Did we get streight answers to simple questions, questions not just posed by me, but by others. Again, no.

Disappointing and predicible.

Typical creationist tactic. TJ will never present an alternative because he has none. His silence speaks eloquently on this matter. The "thinkers" of the Discovery institute can't come up with an alternative, why should we expect anything more from TJ?

Pointing the finger and sneering is so much easier than providing the other half of the argument isn't it?

I'll further suggest that the fact that we don't get "it", is that the "it" was never properly formulated or presented to us in the first place. Why don't you scramble out from under the bridge and illuminate us with what "it" is? As usual no one is holding their breath.

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the (and read carefully)only way to show that something exists?

I do read carefully, thank you. I doubt science is the ONLY way to understand things. And I doubt anyone suggested that or mentioned that. It is another "red herring" of TJ's.

The Scientific method is currently the BEST way to determine the nature of the physical, naturalistic, and materialistic environment around us. We do this by controlled observation. If we can't see it, sense it, or somehow measure it, it can't be Science. We then make "models" to explain these observations. The best model, which describes our observations the best with a minimum of contradictions, is a Theory. From that, we can predict things we have yet to observe. Other competing theories eventually become falsified, such that predictions and observations contradict the tenets of that theory. The reigning Theory generally gets more refined and polished over time. After decades or centuries of study, a successful Theory can be thought of as a fact, in of itself. Therefore, the Germ Theory, The Heliocentric Theory, The Atomic Theory, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are all considered "facts" now.

(Therefore also , Intelligent Design is a falsified Theory, as it cannot make any predictions and has no observations to back it up. Irreducible Complexity has become a massive intellectual failure when used as a prop for ID. In fact, Behe's star performer, the bacterial flagella, has been found to be evolved from simpler Type 3 secretory system proteins, which in fact bolsters the competing Evolutionary Theory.)

Just because a Theory has been successful doesn't make it inerrant. We don't treat it as Gospel (pun intended). If new evidence doesn't hold up Theory A, then we look to Theory B or C. Show me something that can approach the Scientific Method for understanding and interpreting our Universe and I'll give it serious consideration. Show me a theory that describes biodiversity better than the Theory of Evolution and I'll seriously consider that too.

Your serve.

Sometimes one needs to let a thread like this run its course. A topic like this, by its very nature, can be, how shall I put this, a little "touchy" for some here… as we can see. And of course we get lots of discussions going off topic and heading off in all sorts of directions. That's unavoidable. It's just part of being on a public forum. I've found that sometimes one needs to stand back for a while and let people vent and get what they need to say out of their systems. If you have a problem with me standing back and letting all this happen, well so be it.

Ok. Bowman said…

I doubt science is the ONLY way to understand things. And I doubt anyone suggested that or mentioned that.

And I choose to strongly disagree with you on this point, especially when one looks back at the overall thrust of many of the previous postings.

Moving along: I quote something you said Bowman…

The scientific method is currently the BEST way to determine the nature of the physical, naturalistic, and materialistic environment around us. We do this by controlled observation. If we can't see it, sense it, or somehow measure it, it can't be Science.

Sigh. And around in circles we go yet again. And yet again, for the record yet again, I thoroughly agree… 100%… yet again!

To all generally, and to the likes of Whatis in particular, do try and understand something: Science and the scientific method are not under attack here by me (except in your mind that is). When used correctly, science and the scientific method are an excellent way for us to determine (and note what I'm saying here yet again if you're able) the nature of the physical, naturalistic and materialistic environment around us. I have never said otherwise… though some here seem to have made it their personal crusade to make out that it is so.

And so having also vented, I now move along. Now, what I said way back at the start was this:

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the (and read carefully) only way to show that something exists?

So, after all these postings, has any actual evidence been provided…? No. Oh we see lots of rhetoric, bold statements, personal beliefs and biases but when it comes to actual evidence, well it's appallingly thin on the ground.

Now, Bowman has been honest and said…

I do read carefully, thank you. I doubt science is the ONLY way to understand things.

From this I deduce that Bowman and I actually do share some common ground in this matter for I too doubt that science and the scientific method is the ONLY way to understand things… which is where the original question/topic came from in the first place. Of course, in saying that you do have some doubt, then that poses an interesting question:

On what basis exactly do you base this belief, that is, your doubt?

Are you of the belief that there may be other rational alternative methods to science and the scientific method to understand things? If so, then what exactly are your thoughts on those other methods? Please explain. Further, do you consider any other such methods to be the ONLY other such methods… or could there be even more?

If we propose the hypothesis that something called the supernatural (or spiritual) exists, and that the supernatural is neither physical, natural, material or bound by time (by definition), then I ask (as I too have done many times here before without any answers Whatis… even by you)… How can science and the scientific method be used to investigate the supernatural (or the spiritual)?
Obviously it can't. Therefore, to study the supernatural (the spiritual) we cannot use science and the scientific method.

It follows then that science cannot have anything final to say on a question like "Does the supernatural exist?". Thus, when one boldly declares that science has disproven God (who is supernatural) or boldly declares that there is no scientific evidence that God exists, then that is simply that person's way of consciously giving to science and to the scientific method a level of authority that it just plain and simply doesn't have.

If one claims to be open minded, and actually is, then science and the scientific method can certainly help answer pertinent questions that can point one in the direction of the supernatural, but another method must be used if we actually desire to answer such a question. So, the question I pose is this: Do you desire to investigate the possibility of the supernatural? If not, then why not? What are your reasons? In truth, I think we all know the reasons and answers to these questions for many of those here…

Science and the scientific method are excellent tools for gaining knowledge but science can't answer everything. Good, sound science has its limitations… and that seems to be a simple fact of life that many around here seem to be having difficulty grasping… yet alone acknowledging. It's not the be all and end all that some here believe it to be.

Oh, one last thing. Bowman said:

Show me a theory that describes biodiversity better than the Theory of Evolution and I'll seriously consider that too.

To which I must say – Oh what a load of male bovine excrement… and you know it. So what you're saying is that you would, and I quote, "seriously" consider supernatural creation as an explanation? It's also a valid theory that explains biodiversity… and dare I add… better. Or would you simply just dismiss supernatural creation with the wave of a hand because of what a supernatural creation implies…?

Yeah… just as I thought…

And so we will go around and around in circles yet again until, hopefully, the penny drops about the scientific method and its plain and obvious limitations…

[So what you're saying is that you would, and I quote, "seriously" consider supernatural creation as an explanation?]

I would most certainly consider such an explanation, if there was any evidence, even a shred. But there is none.

Seriously, there are a lot of creation myths. Should I believe the Maori creation myth because I cannot disprove a tree God forcibly pushed apart Mother Earth and Father Sky? How much serious thought are you going to devote to the Maori creation myth btw? But your magic-did-it myth is different … how?

[It's also a valid theory that explains biodiversity… ]

No, it is not a theory at all, yet alone a valid one. Look up what a theory is. To be a theory something must be falsify-able and make testable predictions, which Darwin's Theory of Evolution does. In spades. Over and over again. That's why it is taught in every reputable university in the world.

'Magic did it' is not a theory, it is a belief. That's why it is NOT taught as science in any non-religious universities. If you can't see the yawning chasm between a scientific theory and a belief, … well it is clear that you cannot, which pretty much explains this whole thread.

Try looking at the Dover trial again. The judge – a practicing Christian – correctly ruled that ID was not science. It was religion. You may not see the difference, but fortunately for the children of Dover and for the Constitution of the United States of America, he could.

Your creation ideas are religion. Pure and simple. Lovely. Fill your boots. Enjoy. Believe it is infallible. But this is a science board, not the religion board. Come to think of it, there is no religion board anymore.

TJ, Welcome back, we've missed you!

Could I refer you to my question back in February that you seem to have ignored:

This is interesting. Which spiritual/supernatural method would you use for measuring the existance/non-existance of the spiritual/supernatural TJ?

If science can't measure the spiritual/supernatural, which method do you suggest and how do you differentiate between reality (assuming we can agree on what "reality" is) and illusion/psychosis using that method?

TJ can answer or not: my answer is: the individual, egocentric "universe" that each one of us is, can answer that question about "what is real" for itself alone. We do not overlap in the empirical sense, and there is no empirical evidence that we share metaphysical contact either, i.e. no empirical experiments result in metaphysical evidence that there are such things as mind readers or soothsayers. All such examples reside firmly in our legendary and mythological lore, not in the contemporary world: no experiment has ever shown a metaphysical explanation for anything: the "million dollars" is safe; there have been no takers with their claims of metaphysical powers/gifts. They don't exist in the empirical world. So any beliefs in the metaphysical realm of Existence remain the sole "property" of the individual believer. If you are convinced of their reality, that is all that matters….

That's his drive by for this season. See you in two-three months for a repeat of your last post TJ.