tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4805742962670230870..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3260301728542349052010-07-28T08:59:47.772-04:002010-07-28T08:59:47.772-04:00I watched this video in amazement. I am a student...I watched this video in amazement. I am a student of physics and a Catholic. With respect to both of those aspects, this theory is beautiful! A universe from nothing? That hardly conflicts with my faith which embraces science and believes that the universe is "creatio ex nilhilo" (i.e. created from nothing). Does Krauss think he's somehow disproved God with this theory? Hardly. <br /><br />What he does do is make a fundamental error as a scientist. He attempts to answer a question of "Why?" with a theory of "How?" This is bad science. Science is the best way to understand how our universe works, but science by its very nature cannot answer questions of absolute meaning.<br /><br />Whereas Krauss takes his theory to mean no God is necessary for the universe to come into being, I take his theory as an elegant physical description of a theological truth. Which interpretation is right? Well that's a matter of BELEIF! Whether you're Krauss or a Catholic, finding an answer to Why the universe was made is simply a matter of belief, and Krauss should admit his faith in nothing.D.M. Aquinashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640267379856075568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30659236890575392952009-11-11T21:18:03.506-05:002009-11-11T21:18:03.506-05:00Piero
Fair enough!Piero <br /><br />Fair enough!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82833338924363364602009-11-11T14:05:31.351-05:002009-11-11T14:05:31.351-05:00Chris:
"Well by that logic I can believe in a...Chris:<br />"Well by that logic I can believe in a transcendent reality or be open to it."<br />That's perfectly all right with me. As long as you don't ask for tax exemptions.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22078870383622379752009-11-11T13:00:16.414-05:002009-11-11T13:00:16.414-05:00"You can choose to believe it or not: nothing..."You can choose to believe it or not: nothing changes."<br /><br />Well by that logic I can believe in a transcendent reality or be open to it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5852490948220201862009-11-11T12:58:50.686-05:002009-11-11T12:58:50.686-05:00"The reason being that string theory won'..."The reason being that string theory won't become science until it makes a testable prediction. It is a candidate for a scientific theory, but it is not one yet."<br /><br />But by the very definition of science string theory would only have indirect evidence but couldn't be proven empirically. Therefore it would be supernatural.<br /><br />"In order to charge reductionism, wouldn't you have to prove there is a 'bigger reality' out there?"<br /><br />No I wouldn't. I don't have to prove anything and I am not claiming to. All I am saying for the 100th time is that I think it is reasonable to believe in a supernatural reality. Reductionism is a faith statement as well and shouldn't be treated like the only way to view reality.<br /><br />"Not only that, but it impedes us from advancing & finding REAL explanations."<br /><br />Well it shouldn't.<br /><br />"Brain states CAN be caused by nothing. OIr artificially induced, LSD & MDMA?"<br /><br />Are you saying that hullucinations resulting from lsd are the same as mystical experiences? Even you said that neuroscience is a young field so maybe you should not make sweeping generalizations..Just a thought!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6453185677957684142009-11-11T12:51:28.251-05:002009-11-11T12:51:28.251-05:00Oh, and Chris, I'm sorry to say that your exam...Oh, and Chris, I'm sorry to say that your example of the multiverse sucks. For a start, its proponents are not mystics, but scientists; and the fact that it is untestable is precisely the reason why no new knowledge can arise from it. You can choose to believe it or not: nothing changes.<br />We might also choose to believe we are living in a computer simulation run by superintelligent beings. There is no way we can disprove that possibility, and there is no way we can acquire new knowledge from it.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32659756709024796312009-11-11T12:39:05.721-05:002009-11-11T12:39:05.721-05:00Chris,
"For some reason, the eleven or twenty...Chris,<br />"For some reason, the eleven or twenty six-dimensional string worlds of scientific theory are plausible, but the supernatural realms of mysticism are judged to be mere superstition."<br />Yes, for some reason. The reason being that string theory won't become science until it makes a testable prediction. It is a candidate for a scientific theory, but it is not one yet. Mysticism and the supernatural realms, on the other hand, are the fairyland where anything goes, where your hunch is as good as anyones else's. In other words: bollocks.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87766717488913732042009-11-11T11:54:33.295-05:002009-11-11T11:54:33.295-05:00Your right, science is not at war with religion, r...Your right, science is not at war with religion, religion is trying to declare war on science. Creationism, Intelligent design, religion attacks science, because it proves it WRONG. I'm not saying that because science has explained so much that religiob should be discarded, I'm saying religion has explained NOTHING, THAT"S why it should be discarded. Not only that, but it impedes us from advancing & finding REAL explanations.<br /><br />Did you totally ignore my point about mirror nerons? Brain states CAN be caused by nothing. OIr artificially induced, LSD & MDMA?<br /><br />In order to charge reductionism, wouldn't you have to prove there is a 'bigger reality' out there? From what are we reducing? And why do people still want to cling to iron age 'mystery'? What makes you think scientists can't have that 'mysterious' feeling when studying the universe, they say they do. No one has claimed that science has figured out everything. There's still plenty of wonder & mystery.<br /><br />That 'reason' you refer to is EVIDENCE. While string theory is fantastic & sounds science fiction, there is STILL more empirical evidence for it than 'transcendental spiritual dimensions'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61577069261407552832009-11-11T07:22:36.564-05:002009-11-11T07:22:36.564-05:00I am reading a book called The God theory written ...I am reading a book called The God theory written by an astrophysicist. In it he talks abouth the same issues we are talking about here. I like this quote," For some reason, the eleven or twenty six-dimensional string worlds of scientific theory are plausible, but the supernatural realms of mysticism are judged to be mere superstition." Before this he also says that when people talk about "transcendent spiritual realities" they are scoffed at even when scientists do similar things. The author states this arises because of the dogmatic reductionism of a lot of modern science.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21983599655582199712009-11-11T06:20:06.561-05:002009-11-11T06:20:06.561-05:00Did you just miss my example of the multiverse? On...Did you just miss my example of the multiverse? Once again you are missing my point. Science is not at war with religion as so many of you be believe. You think b/c it has explained so much, religion needs to be discarded. Must I say again that people can do science and believe in the supernatural. Its how one views the world. <br /><br />Well obviously the apple pie was real. I think his point is we can study the brain but science cannot know if the experience is just in our heads or not. It can just study the physical.<br /><br />"whine how science isn't good enough. One example?"<br /><br />How am I whining? I am just stating that I am not a reductionist like you are. There is a mystery in the universe and I don't believe science can answer every question. Many scientists would agree with this statement. Once again it depends on your worldview.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13612013938279108392009-11-11T01:31:40.174-05:002009-11-11T01:31:40.174-05:00Nice quote mine. Now, that is a really bad analogy...Nice quote mine. Now, that is a really bad analogy, quite simply because there's an easy way to test if the apple is real. Look in their hand! We already start the experiment knowing that there is an object causing the brain activity. Also, our brain lights up when there's NOTHING there. the same areas that light up when YOU eat an apple pie will ight up when you watch someone else eat it. That goes for just about everything so far (neuroscience is still new, mind you hehe) our brains 'mirror' what we see. It CAN be caused by 'nothing'.<br /><br />Notice, all the while, you still can't give an example, & whine how science isn't good enough. One example?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42812409569899781642009-11-10T23:31:11.283-05:002009-11-10T23:31:11.283-05:00Chris, would you please stop beating about the bus...Chris, would you please stop beating about the bush and give an example?Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26997974690715263622009-11-10T21:15:26.940-05:002009-11-10T21:15:26.940-05:00Piero
"Then please give me an example of kno...Piero<br /><br />"Then please give me an example of knowledge gained by supernatural means that could not have been gained by purely natural means, or already in the believer's head."<br /><br />You seem to think that because science has taught us so many things than it is exhaustive and unlimited in its reach. Even the multiverse is viewed by some as supernatural b/c it can not be empirically verified.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50097212167349729822009-11-10T21:08:32.294-05:002009-11-10T21:08:32.294-05:00"And if there werew some supernatural agent c..."And if there werew some supernatural agent causing these brain states, it would be detectable. There is no need to insert unnessecary metaphysics to what can be explained by natural means."<br /><br />No it wouldn't. Here's a quote by neuroscientist Andrew Newberg." If you ate a freshly baked, piping-hot slice of apple pie and took a SPECT scan at the moment of your first bite, the parts of your brain that register shape and form, smell, taste, memory, and association would all light up, while other areas of the brain not involved in the task would go dark. This experience leaves its footprint on the brain in much the same way as does a peak meditative moment. But does that mean the apple pie isn't "real"?<br /><br />Yeah I apologize for the slapping comment. My emotions got the best of me. I just wish religious adherents and atheists could have peaceful dialogue without polemics and condescension.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2905265254664492582009-11-10T11:15:14.872-05:002009-11-10T11:15:14.872-05:00Chris:
I think GungFu's challenge sums up my ...Chris:<br /><br />I think GungFu's challenge sums up my position:<br /><br />"Then please give me an example of knowledge gained by supernatural means that could not have been gained by purely natural means, or already in the believer's head."<br /><br />I would go as far as to define knowledge as a configuration of synapses which allows someone to make predictions with a greater than random rate of success.<br /><br />No "supernatural knowledge" has so far passed this test.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1184655014999941742009-11-10T10:49:20.347-05:002009-11-10T10:49:20.347-05:00It's really funny, you threaten me with violen...It's really funny, you threaten me with violence (obviously in a jokingly playful manner, but that's beside the point) then procced to complain about a peaceful conversation. You really just underscore one of the main problems of religion. One that I think even atheists overlook, it;s what it does to you thinking. You allow yourself to hold contradictory ideas in your head for so long it becomes second nature, something being 'A' & 'not A' starts to be ok in your mind. It's not.<br />The first movie references the helmet, & shows it doesn't work. They tried it on Dawkins, nothing happens. It wasn't all about the helmet, there is alot more work being done. And if there werew some supernatural agent causing these brain states, it would be detectable. There is no need to insert unnessecary metaphysics to what can be explained by natural means.<br />Finally, yes, science is 'pwerful' enough to test for god, as we see with the tests done on the efficacy of intercessory prayer. & the data shows, there is no god answering those prayers. The large hadron collider has a chance to find out what happen milliseconds after creation, pretty close to god, I'd say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78031513414196412482009-11-10T01:27:13.702-05:002009-11-10T01:27:13.702-05:00Chris said...
"Piero
You are correct yet we...Chris said... <br />"Piero<br /><br />You are correct yet we don't know which way it is. I think the point of the argument is that it is not unreasonable to believe in something outside the universe. It really depends on how you want to view existence."<br /><br />While passing on the subject of reasonable v unreasonable.<br /><br />So then is it "unreasonable" to think that if there does be something outside the universe that is infact "intelligent" and a omnipotent supreme and especially a "all knowing" all loving,graceful,merciful father etc.<br /><br />That it is (MORE LIKELY) he would be caring and thoughtful and understanding etc.<br /><br />So then surely! he (MOST LIKELY) would have supposedly quite likely bothered to be in more personal touch quite often well before now! with everyone!! on this planet?.At least once or twice even?.<br /><br />Seems MORE likely surely?.I personally even hazard to bet MOST likely for sure!!.<br /><br />Yeah maybe Its not quote:.. "unreasonable to believe in something outside the universe"<br /><br />But in my opinion it does seem a little rather (unreasonable) though, to think there be some intelligent force outside the universe who just simply decided he dont be bothered to be intouch with us that much.Infact seems he bothers to be intouch, hardly at all....Seems he only ever really appears in silly old books!.<br /><br />Its like humans living a childhood dream,where anything is always forever possible.The improbable becomes quite possible,just like in a nightmare where the dreamer finds themselves "unable to swim" away from some shark who is swimming hungrily after them in their dream.<br /><br />You really know MOST LIKELY there is no real factual sharks in your sleep.But the silly posibilitys still stick around to haunt folks trapped within the mere thought.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54013625771585273712009-11-09T22:16:18.619-05:002009-11-09T22:16:18.619-05:00"Prime example of my point, NOW science can&#..."Prime example of my point, NOW science can't say anything, but you will jump on the big bang as soon as you can to confirm what cannot be confirmed...you CANNOT have it both ways."<br /><br />Once again you are misunderstanding my point. I think the limits of science leave the possibility of their being a transcendent reality, not that I can prove there is such a reality.<br /><br />"Neuroscience can show what goes on in the brain during a religious experience, & it's purely activities of the brain, no supernatural need be inserted."<br /><br />Neuroscience can study what the brain is experiencing during these events however they can not state whether it's caused by natural forces or supernatural forces. It has simply not be proven that epilepsy causes religious or mystical experiences. If you reference the God helmet I will slap you...<br /><br />"Belief in God is a dark cloud that has covered humanity for too long, & it's about damn time that the sun come out."<br /><br />When you say comments like that it becomes clearer that your hatred of religion disallows you to have a peaceful dialogue with those who disagree with you.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53965850134393617642009-11-09T20:55:36.199-05:002009-11-09T20:55:36.199-05:00Then please give me an example of knowledge gained...Then please give me an example of knowledge gained by supernatural means that could not have been gained by purely natural means, or already in the believer's head.<br /><br />Prime example of my point, NOW science can't say anything, but you will jump on the big bang as soon as you can to confirm what cannot be confirmed...you CANNOT have it both ways.<br /><br />Religious experiences can be explained, and in fact are being explained. Neuroscience can show what goes on in the brain during a religious experience, & it's purely activities of the brain, no supernatural need be inserted. Most of what is described as 'religious experiecnce' is a result of temporal lobe epilepsy, and can be induced artificially.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKbeLfhHvPY<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg<br /><br />Sam Harris just finished a study about the correlates between nonreligious belief & religious, showing that the same areas of the brain are used. Thus, 'faith' is not a speacial belief, but like any other.<br />http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-neural-correlates-of-religious-and-nonreligious-belief/<br /><br />And, the morality arguments can be explained by neuroscience as well..<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo<br /><br />So, given that religious experiences can be explained, & you yourself admit that science can prove god, believers should just give up trying to convince people. Belief in God is a dark cloud that has covered humanity for too long, & it's about damn time that the sun come out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8760174673256457692009-11-09T20:36:33.223-05:002009-11-09T20:36:33.223-05:00"In the absence of good evidence to the contr..."In the absence of good evidence to the contrary, it is safer to assume that a scientific explanation will be found eventually."<br /> <br />That is the key difference between you and I. This right here says to me that you are a naturalist and you think science is the only real knowledge. I disagree.<br /><br />"When an atheist asks a theologian for evidence of god, all of a sudden, it's not in the realm of science, blah blah. Yet, then they will be the first ones to jump no a scientific advancement if it somehow confirms their beliefs. I, & obviously many others, are tired of seeing them have their cake & eat it, too."<br /><br />Science can neither confirm or deny that there is a transcendent being. There are other reasons one might believe in God such as a religious experience.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18920751464387178962009-11-09T15:38:35.647-05:002009-11-09T15:38:35.647-05:00Chris:
Of course I would not want scientists to st...Chris:<br />Of course I would not want scientists to stop trying to understand the origins of the Universe.<br />There are two possible outcomes of that quest:<br /><br />- scientists will eventually understand the process in terms of the laws of physics (current and newly discovered)<br />- scientists will forever be unable to understand the process in terms of the laws of physics (current and newly discovered)<br /><br />The point is that we'll never be able to ascertain whether the second possibility holds. How can you tell now that no explanation will be discovered in the future? In the absence of good evidence to the contrary, it is safer to assume that a scientific explanation will be found eventually.<br /><br />The alternative (i.e. the existence of a timeless, spaceless creator) is by definition beyond our reach. In other words, unless that creator can make itself intelligible, we have no hope of ever proving its existence.Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8679798509431359252009-11-09T14:15:36.204-05:002009-11-09T14:15:36.204-05:00I didn't say Aquinas was an idiot, he did the ...I didn't say Aquinas was an idiot, he did the best he could with the information he had at his time. That is the only thing any of us can really do. At this point, the information available points to no god, at least non that we have conceived in our paltry couple of millenia of trying to form coherent thought. <br /><br />Once again, you say it, you're not explaining it. How did he misunderstand? The form that Aquianas put forth is not that hard to get, it's nowhere near as complicated as say, the kalam version. The whole thing is fallacious, like I said, it's like saying something can be 'A' and 'not A' a the same time. Either everything that exists has a cause, or it doesn't. You cannot create a specail rule for god.<br /><br />I'm not saying it discredits them, but is doesn't help their credibility. They have an emotional investment in it as well. We could all be said to have that, but my job doesn't depend on what I believe. It's a bit different. Now you could say, how is this different than those creationists/evolution thing, 'both are attacking belief! Here's the difference, when creationists doubt evolution & ask for evidence, there is plenty to put forth. When an atheist asks a theologian for evidence of god, all of a sudden, it's not in the realm of science, blah blah. Yet, then they will be the first ones to jump no a scientific advancement if it somehow confirms their beliefs. I, & obviously many others, are tired of seeing them have their cake & eat it, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88701225526207349612009-11-09T13:20:32.654-05:002009-11-09T13:20:32.654-05:00"are not the cause of thetins "
*are no..."are not the cause of thetins "<br /><br />*are not caused BY thetins* I'm going to change those batteries, I swear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49047874703018837472009-11-09T13:17:26.494-05:002009-11-09T13:17:26.494-05:00Just googled those names, just as I thought, all c...Just googled those names, just as I thought, all christians. It is a favorite tactic of apologists to straw man & ad homenim instead of actually adressing the arguments. <br /><br />So are you saying that because they are Christians they automatically discredit Dawkins? Eric Reitan, for example, isn't fully convinced by the Cosmological arguments nevertheless he believes Dawkins didn't take the time to understand the arguments.<br /><br />"I'd like to point out again more hipocracy, you charge Dawkins with being smug, then write this...<br /><br />"Your probably didn't understand it. Ah ignorance"<br /><br />I agree that I reacted harshly it just frustrates me when you called Thomas Aquinas an idiot when nothing could be further from the truth. <br /><br />Regarding Hume, I don't really know if he has been dismantled. The thing with philosophy is people will always disagree with each other. You are basically saying that philosophers like Aquinas' views have been criticized so we should discard them. The point is that Hume has been discussed just as much and people have disagreed with his ideas.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825630853478631690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10953093639913631312009-11-09T13:12:06.927-05:002009-11-09T13:12:06.927-05:00No, Chris, I think he's saying that we SHOULD ...No, Chris, I think he's saying that we SHOULD study things. Instead of, every time we reach an impasse, inserting 'goddidit', we should actually try to find out the real answers. Saying 'goddidit' only raises MORE questions than it answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com