toneyb:


The God hypothesis is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of a God.

The bolded in red is a major and absolute LIE.

You are FULLY aware that "modern science" HAS NOT explained the origin of the universe.

Is it not intriguing that the Atheist assaults the Theist with the question: "Where did God come from?"

Failing entirely to realize that this question applies just as poignantly to his atheistic dogma: to wit: "Where did matter come from?"

@tonyeb, while there are some salient points you put forward summarily, you must have spoilt everything with the claim about modern science:

toneyb:

The God hypothesis is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of a God.

That is not true (and I don't think anyone should attack you for that, though). Where has modern science tried to 'explain' -
             *  the origin of the universe?
             *  the origin of living things?
Where? By who? Many times when atheist naturalist make such statements, they immediately make an about-face and place disclaimers that they are not dealing with 'origins'.

The thing is that people often make these kinds of statements without having carefully thought about the implications and weight of such statements - it only reveals that the speaker has left the domain of science and is tending to atheistic materialism and naturalism.

viaro:

. . . it only reveals that the speaker has left the domain of science and is tending to atheistic materialism and naturalism.

. . . wild atheistic conjecture, you mean to say, Viaro.

^^^ Lol, I would not want to go that far in response to toneyb.

We all make mistakes (sometimes very annoying mistakes) in what we say or the ideas we espouse - all of us bar none. When such statements as appeared in his are made, we should try to contextualize it and show some deference to the poster, because whether theists or atheists many of us have the tendency to generalize issues.

Anyhow, happy new year in advance!

Very interesting discussion so far, i must say!

I have not run away. I am just caught up in some 'crazy' reports that i have to sort out before the new year, but will most certainly respond later today. Especially on the interesting subject of whether the universe is 'closed' or 'open'.

Catch you guys later!

Deep Sight:

The bolded in red is a major and absolute LIE.

You are FULLY aware that "modern science" HAS NOT explained the origin of the universe.

Is it not intriguing that the Atheist assaults the Theist with the question: "Where did God come from?"

Failing entirely to realize that this question applies just as poignantly to his atheistic dogma: to wit: "Where did matter come from?"

How do you read statements? Here is what I said.

toneyb:

Modern science, however can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of a God.

How do you read stuffs? Did you not see the "can" qualifier in my statement? I did NOT say that modern science has explained every thing I said it CAN explain without the need for god or gods.

viaro:

@tonyeb, while there are some salient points you put forward summarily, you must have spoilt everything with the claim about modern science:

That is not true (and I don't think anyone should attack you for that, though). Where has modern science tried to 'explain' -
             *  the origin of the universe?
             *  the origin of living things?
Where? By who? Many times when atheist naturalist make such statements, they immediately make an about-face and place disclaimers that they are not dealing with 'origins'.

The thing is that people often make these kinds of statements without having carefully thought about the implications and weight of such statements - it only reveals that the speaker has left the domain of science and is tending to atheistic materialism and naturalism.

Viaro hehehe, Are you also playing a deepsight on me? . Did you see where I put the "can" qualifier? I did not say that mordern science has explained, I said it can explain., I believe was careful enough and I phased my statement correctly. It wasn't a forceful and general statement of declaration, I said modern science can explain these things without the need for a god. The big bang model tries to explain the origin of the universe, Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life, Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, all these scientific explanations do not require a god no?

toneyb:

Viaro hehehe, Are you also playing a deepsight on me? . Did you see where I put the "can" qualifier? I did not say that mordern science has explained, I said it can explain., I believe was careful enough and I phased my statement correctly.

Haha. . I saw the 'can' and maybe played alongside Deep Sight (truth is, I was carried away, which was why I noted that you could not be attacked for that statement). Poor me.

It wasn't a forceful and general statement of declaration, I said modern science can explain these things without the need for a god. The big bang model tries to explain the origin of the universe, Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life, Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, all these scientific explanations do not require a god no?

Oh, sorry, tonyeb. You know what you've done? You just managed again to make us go 'deep sight' on you!

Okay, jokes apart, let me re-consider and show you why we still feel that the argument in both your posts are almost the same.

First, evolution does not deal with ORIGIN of living things (as in your initial post), even though it attempts to 'explain' the evolution of species. The 'origin' of species is just simply a non-starter because philosophers of science note that Darwinists (back and front of Darwin) have not even tried to show the 'ORIGIN' of species in the first place. The phrase just caught on without careful thinking.

Second, abiogenesis cannot explain the ORIGIN of life. This is not to deny that some have made attempts to offer this 'explanation', but has anyone even come close to the idea of 'can explain'?

Third, I'm not so sure that the Big Bang model 'explains' the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. I think that many more cosmologists are shying away from the idea of 'origin' of the Universe and rather lean towards the evolution of the Universe. The BB is not the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe but is an attempt to describe the 'beginning' of our known universe as far back as we can trace by Plank time. Back of Plank time and what happened before the BB is still an enigma to scientists of all disciplines (as far as I can tell).

It is for these reasons that it seems quite a leap of faith to postulate that modern science 'can' explain all these things, especially with reference to what is truly considered 'origins'. At best, we are looking at all sorts of postulations (perhaps 'conjectures' more aptly); but if one were to consider the limitations of 'science', it then becomes easy to see that perhaps it is quite ambitious to reckon that modern science (for whatever it is worth) 'can' explain all of these phenomena.

viaro:


Oh, sorry, tonyeb. You know what you've done? You just managed again to make us go 'deep sight' on you!

O

kay, jokes apart, let me re-consider and show you why we still feel that the argument in both your posts are almost the same.

First, evolution does not deal with ORIGIN of living things (as in your initial post), even though it attempts to 'explain' the evolution of species. The 'origin' of species is just simply a non-starter because philosophers of science note that Darwinists (back and front of Darwin) have not even tried to show the 'ORIGIN' of species in the first place. The phrase just caught on without careful thinking.

Where did I suggest that evolution deals with the origin of living things? How do you read things, I said Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, Why are you trying to build a mountain over what I did not say? . Stop playing a deepsight on me

Second, abiogenesis cannot explain the ORIGIN of life. This is not to deny that some have made attempts to offer this 'explanation', but has anyone even come close to the idea of 'can explain'?

Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life was what I said, why are you playing a deepsight on me my friend?

Third, I'm not so sure that the Big Bang model 'explains' the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. I think that many more cosmologists are shying away from the idea of 'origin' of the Universe and rather lean towards the evolution of the Universe. The BB is not the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe but is an attempt to describe the 'beginning' of our known universe as far back as we can trace by Plank time. Back of Plank time and what happened before the BB is still an enigma to scientists of all disciplines (as far as I can tell).

How is this different from what i said which is that the BB tries to explain the origin of the universe?

It is for these reasons that it seems quite a leap of faith to postulate that modern science 'can' explain all these things, especially with reference to what is truly considered 'origins'. At best, we are looking at all sorts of postulations (perhaps 'conjectures' more aptly); but if one were to consider the limitations of 'science', it then becomes easy to see that perhaps it is quite ambitious to reckon that modern science (for whatever it is worth) 'can' explain all of these phenomena.

I still insist that modern science can explain this things without the need for invoking any deities or supernatural entities. The problem is that if we discard the scientific process and explanation we will still discover that the supernatural claims have explained NOTHING about the origins of anything because they can not explain anything about the origin of anything beside ordinary claims and counter claims.

Please Toney, if Modern Science "CAN" explain it, then just go ahead and explain it so that we shut up completely? ? ? ?

Modern science CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.

The reason is simple:

Since the origin by natural implication rests before (i.e: precedes) the universe and since we cannot move beyond a singularity, then any analysis (i.e: science) based on physical laws within this universe cannot apprehend the realities preceding it as such must per force be said to rest in a preceding dimension absolutely unknown to this dimension.

Indeed this is the very postulation that agnostics re-characterize to assert that God (if existent) must be absolutely unknowable.

Science thus cannot explain the origin. Not now. . .and not ever.

A FEW POINTERS, though, may be found in philosophical reasoning.

Deep Sight:

Please Toney, if Modern Science "CAN" explain it, then just go ahead and explain it so that we shut up completely? ? ? ?

Modern science CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.

The reason is simple:

Since the origin by natural implication rests before (i.e: precedes) the universe and since we cannot move beyond a singularity, then any analysis (i.e: science) based on physical laws within this universe cannot apprehend the realities preceding it as such must per force be said to rest in a preceding dimension absolutely unknown to this dimension.

Indeed this is the very postulation that agnostics re-characterize to assert that God (if existent) must be absolutely unknowable.

Science thus cannot explain the origin. Not now. . .and not ever.

A FEW POINTERS, though, may be found in philosophical reasoning.

This is typical of the "God by default" argument. If God didn't make the universe, then you turn the table and ask another person to tell you how it happened. If the person can't, then you assume your argument wins" This is not compelling logic for an answer to anything. The fact that science doesn't have an answer for a particular query doesn't mean that anything you make up is acceptable by default. I don't know how it happened. I don't think the "how" is important since no-one seems to have an answer. I said science can explain means it can not that it has.

What has your god hypothesis explained? NOTHING at all. God is just your default position for "I don't know".

^^^ Escapism, Toney.

I did not say God by Default.

YOU stated that science "CAN" explain the origin of the universe.

I positively assert that it cannot.

In case you missed it, this is my reason again -

Deep Sight:


Modern science CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.

The reason is simple:

Since the origin by natural implication rests before (i.e: precedes) the universe and since we cannot move beyond a singularity, then any analysis (i.e: science) based on physical laws within this universe cannot apprehend the realities preceding it as such must per force be said to rest in a preceding dimension absolutely unknown to this dimension.

Deal with that. I hope you can absorb it intoto.

Instead you descend into contradictions. . .in one breath you say that science can explain everything, in another breath you say that science does not have the answers for every query. . .

And NO: do not foist that “God by default” thing on me: I have labored too hard on this forum setting up my objective arguments for the existence of God for anybody to accuse me of adopting “God by default.”

^[edited.]

toneyb:

Where did I suggest that evolution deals with the origin of living things? How do you read things, I said Evolution tries to explain how organisms evolved to their present state over time, Why are you trying to build a mountain over what I did not say? . Stop playing a deepsight on me

I didn't say that you argued evolution as dealing with the origin of living things. In my previous post, I had a parenthesis for what I was referring to - "(as in your initial post)" - where you had indicated that modern science can explain "all of these phenomena" such as . .
* the origin of the universe,
* the design of the universe,
* and the origin of living things.
What discipline in 'modern science' can explain the origin of living things, toneyb?

Abiogenesis tries to explain the origin of life was what I said, why are you playing a deepsight on me my friend?

Abiogenesis does not even come close to 'trying' - that is the point. If anything in abiogenesis could be put forward as possibly able to explain the origin of life, we should have seen some of these - but what has emerged from abiogenesis is mere speculation that continue to embarrass us all.

How is this different from what i said which is that the BB tries to explain the origin of the universe?

The 'beginning' of the Universe is not to be confused for the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. The BB does not say anything about the 'origin' of the singularity from which the Universe emerged - that is why it is important to know where we are starting our discussion, and for that reason I mentioned Plank Time.

I still insist that modern science can explain this things without the need for invoking any deities or supernatural entities.

Modern science could explain a lot of things; but the particular things you have indicated is not what modern science has shown itself capable of doing, to wit: 'the origin of the Universe' and 'the origin of living things'. One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who make such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe. The moment one asks questions like this, the typical response from the atheistic naturalist is to flag a disclaimer that his worldview does not deal with such kinds of 'origins'.

The problem is that if we discard the scientific process and explanation we will still discover that the supernatural claims have explained NOTHING about the origins of anything because they can not explain anything about the origin of anything beside ordinary claims and counter claims.

No, it is the other way round. No one here is begging to discard the scientific processes involved in any explanations; rather, you seem to be the one making claims about what modern science 'can' do and yet completely discarding the processes involved in science!

Where is Toneyb? ? ?

I need your response before 2009 runs out on this -

Deep Sight:


Modern science CANNOT EXPLAIN IT.

The reason is simple:

Since the origin by natural implication rests before (i.e: precedes) the universe and since we cannot move beyond a singularity, then any analysis (i.e: science) based on physical laws within this universe cannot apprehend the realities preceding it as such must per force be said to rest in a preceding dimension absolutely unknown to this dimension.

And this -

viaro:

^[edited.]

I didn't say that you argued evolution as dealing with the origin of living things. In my previous post, I had a parenthesis for what I was referring to - "(as in your initial post)" - where you had indicated that modern science can explain "all of these phenomena" such as . .
* the origin of the universe,
* the design of the universe,
* and the origin of living things.
What discipline in 'modern science' can explain the origin of living things, toneyb?

Abiogenesis does not even come close to 'trying' - that is the point. If anything in abiogenesis could be put forward as possibly able to explain the origin of life, we should have seen some of these - but what has emerged from abiogenesis is mere speculation that continue to embarrass us all.

The 'beginning' of the Universe is not to be confused for the 'ORIGIN' of the Universe. The BB does not say anything about the 'origin' of the singularity from which the Universe emerged - that is why it is important to know where we are starting our discussion, and for that reason I mentioned Plank Time.

Modern science could explain a lot of things; but the particular things you have indicated is not what modern science has shown itself capable of doing, to wit: 'the origin of the Universe' and 'the origin of living things'. One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who make such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe. The moment one asks questions like this, the typical response from the atheistic naturalist is to flag a disclaimer that his worldview does not deal with such kinds of 'origins'.

No, it is the other way round. No one here is begging to discard the scientific processes involved in any explanations; rather, you seem to be the one making claims about what modern science 'can' do and yet completely discarding the processes involved in science!

Deep Sight:

^^^ Escapism, Toney.

I did not say God by Default.

YOU stated that science "CAN" explain the origin of the universe.

I positively assert that it cannot.

I still maintain that modern science can explain the origin of the Universe, That it hasn't doesn't mean it can not, 1000 years ago we really didn't know what the stars are or that the cell is the basic unit of life. 

In case you missed it, this is my reason again -

This is not a reason at all but, You are simply begging the question.

Deal with that. I hope you can absorb it intoto.

Instead you descend into contradictions. . .in one breath you say that science can explain everything, in another breath you say that science does not have the answers for every query. . .

Sure science does not have the answers presently because science is progressive and is always progressing. I say it can because as it progresses it can find concrete explanations.

And NO: do not foist that “God by default” thing on me:me of adopting “God by default.” I have labored too hard on this forum setting up my objective arguments for the existence of God for anybody to accuse me of adopting “God by default.”

Sorry my friend you have NEVER set ANY objective argument for the existence of any god beside special pleading and incoherent and contradictory explanation. All you have done is steal from various world views when you feel they will help your case, One minute you are a pantheist and claim that everything we see around is god, the next minute you say that god is the prime mover, nest you steal from the Judeo-Christians world view and their claims. You even assert that the garden of Eden did not exist on earth but in another sentence you say that Adam and Eve are Jewish mythologies.  . You are VERY confused my friend.

Deepsight, I will like for you to explain to me in details how your god created the universe and all living thing, And how I can know that your god(oneness of infinity) alone created the universe and not Yahweh, Allah, Or Vishnu.

@tonyeb, howdy?

Your latest reply seems to still be asserting things without explaining anything. We all could do that same thing: make assertions, explain nothing, and expect applause at the end of it all. The reason I think that is what's showing up in your post is these examples:

toneyb:

I still maintain that modern science can explain the origin of the Universe,

. . then please show us how; because this next line seems to be the excuse behind which many assertions like yours are hidden:

That it hasn't doesn't mean it can not, 1000 years ago we really didn't know what the stars are or that the cell is the basic unit of life.

I understand that science as a progressive endeavour is capable of making many more discoveries. But we have to understand that 'science' has its limitations and seeks to answer questions of 'what' much more than questions of 'how' and 'why'. It does not mean we never ask 'why' or 'how' questions in seeking small details; but it means that when the proper questions of 'how' and 'why' are presented, science often leads us back to 'what'. This is one reason among many that helps us to both appreciate the limitations of current scientific thinking and the paradigms of philosophies of science, so that we can carefully weigh what anyone is asserting about what modern science 'can' do.

There really is no reason to flag the excuse of a future prediction of what modern science 'can' do, because we are at the cutting edge of understanding how modern scientific endeavours work, even to the extent that there's this talk today about the 'Theory of Everything' (ToE) or a 'Grand Unified Theory' (GUT) - which are attempts to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena. The point here is this: although we're already thinking of such theories, how would such be able to 'explain' the true ORIGIN of anything that exists? How would such help towards explaining how matter came into existence in the first place?

These are no small questions to play with; and for someone to assert that modern science 'can' explain the origin (that is, the true ORIGIN) of living things, such a thinker should be able to demonstrate HOW it 'can' do so in simple terms. To just make the assertion and excuse it under a future prediction of what science can do is to belittle science itself.

Sure science does not have the answers presently because science is progressive and is always progressing. I say it can because as it progresses it can find concrete explanations.

That kind of statement is borrowed - it was not made because you know how science is able to do so; but just because you might have heard some making such statements does not give anything more to the point.

I tried finding a coherent ‘scientific’ argument for some of the ‘findings’ out there relating to ‘how’ the universe works and ‘why’ it does so, but the honest truth is that most of the interpretations and working models are prejudiced in favour of preconceived philosophical/religious ideas and not based on ‘objective’ scientific evidence!

A lot of the recent hypotheses don’t even sound ‘scientific’ anymore. We’re gradually leaving the clearly scientific field of cosmology http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_cosmology and getting more and more involved in the more philosophical cosmogony! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

The fact is, few scientists want to admit this. Here is what internationally renowned Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis has to say about the various models of the universe being espoused:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

Currently there are different variants of the revised ‘big bang theory’ out there. Some suggest up to 50 variants of the so called Inflationary Universe Theories, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology), which has replaced the old model. It’s agreed, however, that in an ideal world Cosmology should really focus on ‘science’ and not get involved in metaphysical/philosophical issues.

With regards to whether the universe is ‘open’ or ‘closed’, the truth is that we don’t know. Albert Einstein had suggested ‘an infinite closed universe’. A sort of ‘finite’ spherical universe that is encased in ‘infinite space’! People have since moved on from there and are now suggesting an infinity of finite spacetime continuums, making up what they describe as ‘a multiverse’, which is ‘closed’ or ‘open’ depending on how you want to look at it!

The interesting thing about these new directions in cosmological thinking-which by the way are not evidence-based-is that it is encroaching more and more into other domains of philosophy and spirituality. The idea of multiple realities and non physical dimensions for instance has been there for a long time. All you need to do is to open up any book on religion!

Bottomline:
‘Attempts to create a naturalistic cosmogony are subject to two separate limitations. One is based in the philosophy of science and the epistemological constraints of science itself, especially with regards to whether scientific inquiry can ask questions of "why" the universe exists. Another more pragmatic problem is that there is no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony.

So in our arguments on this topic, let’s admit that our positions have very little to do with science. It's about what we want to believe in-our individual life philosophies!

viaro:

@tonyeb, howdy?

I dey Bro.

Your latest reply seems to still be asserting things without explaining anything. We all could do that same thing: make assertions, explain nothing, and expect applause at the end of it all. The reason I think that is what's showing up in your post is these examples:

I was just giving my opinion and not trying to explain the scientific process, I don't owe any body any explanation for my assertions If we are to go but that then I will also turn the table on your and begin to show you how you have made assertions that also explain nothing and expect applause at the end of the day but I am not really interested in all these running around.

. . then please show us how; because this next line seems to be the excuse behind which many assertions like yours are hidden:

How do you read stuffs? From dictionary.com. Can means: to have the possibility. My assertion is that modern science can explain all those phenomena I talked about. It seems you like taking a single sentence out of a whole narrative dwell on it build mountains and mountains of your own(As some on has pointed out), and then present it as if that is the entire arguments that's was presented. There is nothing hidden in anything is said. My assertion remains, Modern science can explain the existence of all the phenomena that I talked about without the need for any deities.

I understand that science as a progressive endeavour is capable of making many more discoveries. But we have to understand that 'science' has its limitations and seeks to answer questions of 'what' much more than questions of 'how' and 'why'. It does not mean we never ask 'why' or 'how' questions in seeking small details; but it means that when the proper questions of 'how' and 'why' are presented, science often leads us back to 'what'. This is one reason among many that helps us to both appreciate the limitations of current scientific thinking and the paradigms of philosophies of science, so that we can carefully weigh what anyone is asserting about what modern science 'can' do.

All these philosophical talk about science is personally meaningless to me because, Science is constantly progressing that it has limitations today does not mean it will not over come them tomorrow. Are you trying to say categorically that modern science can never know or does not have the possibility of explaining the origin of the universe or living things? Is that your position?

There really is no reason to flag the excuse of a future prediction of what modern science 'can' do, because we are at the cutting edge of understanding how modern scientific endeavours work, even to the extent that there's this talk today about the 'Theory of Everything' (ToE) or a 'Grand Unified Theory' (GUT) - which are attempts to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena. The point here is this: although we're already thinking of such theories, how would such be able to 'explain' the true ORIGIN of anything that exists? How would such help towards explaining how matter came into existence in the first place?

Are you asserting that modern science due to its limitations does not have the ability to explain the origin of the Universe? A simple yes or no will suffice.

These are no small questions to play with; and for someone to assert that modern science 'can' explain the origin (that is, the true ORIGIN) of living things, such a thinker should be able to demonstrate HOW it 'can' do so in simple terms. To just make the assertion and excuse it under a future prediction of what science can do is to belittle science itself.

Now I believe you are trying to play games here, I said science can explain the origin of those phenomena without the need for deities, You on the other hand are now trying to stress  or talk about the true Origin. I never talked about anything being true origin of anything,You are the one talking about true origin of things, What do you mean by true? There is nothing like true in science is there? And as far as I know there is nothing like truth in science. Scientific explanations are what they are and there is nothing like[i] true[/i] scientific explanation for anything. Let's take gravity for instance all we have is scientific explanations for what it is, There is nothing like the true theory of gravity or true origin of gravity or true explanation for gravity. Science can explain the origin of the universe, Its doesn't have to be true, Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless. Talking about science explaining the true origin of the universe is a misstatement in my view, Because science can not explain the true origin of the universe, science can only provide reasonable explanation for that. You don't hear about words like[i] true[/i] in science, you only hear about laws, hypothesis, theories that offer explanation to phenomena and I have never heard scientist talking about them explaining the true nature of anything.

That kind of statement is borrowed - it was not made because you know how science is able to do so; but just because you might have heard some making such statements does not give anything more to the point.

I agree that I do not know how science is able to do so but that does not mean that science can not explain the origins of the universe without the need for deities, Are you asserting that modern science can never explain the origin of the universes without the need for deities?

@ Beneli Your write up is quite interesting.

beneli:

So in our arguments on this topic, let’s admit that our positions have very little to do with science. It's about what we want to believe in-our individual life philosophies!

I thought you were the one that brought up the idea that science seems to favor your views? In your discussion with Mazaje on another thread, weren't you the person that was talking about modern discoveries in science supporting your position until mazaje called you out on it?

toneyb:

@ Beneli Your write up is quite interesting.


I thought you were the one that brought up the idea that science seems to favor your views? In your discussion with Mazaje on another thread, weren't you the person that was talking about modern discoveries in science supporting your position until mazaje called you out on it?

You are right.

Modern 'science', especially, the one that tries to talk about the 'nature' of the universe is beginning to acknowledge that there may be more to matter than meets the eye! My stance still remains. When science starts to talk about extracorporeal and extratemporal dimensions, they are encroaching into the field of metaphysics and spirituality. These new developments are quite interesting, to say the least!

beneli:

You are right.

Modern 'science', especially, the one that tries to talk about the 'nature' of the universe is beginning to acknowledge that there may be more to matter than meets the eye! My stance still remains. When science starts to talk about extracorporeal and extratemporal dimensions, they are encroaching into the field of metaphysics and spirituality. These new developments are quite interesting, to say the least!

I Agree too, but so far with regards to scientific study and investigations into extra corporeal and extratemporal dimensions nothing concrete or conclusive has been provided to demonstrate that these dimensions exist scientifically in about a period of 130 years.

@tonyb,
With regards to your question to Viaro as to whether modern 'science' can explain the 'origin' of the universe. The answer is both yes and no.

'Yes' in that it can give an explanation as it already is doing. But whether the 'explanation' is valid when tested using scientific methodologies is another story altogether. If we want to be honest, there are currently no physical models that exist that can be used to replicate the exact conditions around the time of the 'big bang' or the the period of the 'exponential expansion' that preceded the big bang. As mentioned earlier, most of the models are subject to a lot of biases, which would lead to errors. So, the answer can also be 'No'.

Another point.

When we say that science can explain the 'origin' of the universe 'without the need for a deity', we are just playing with words. Yet what 'scientists' describe in their explanation is still a supernatural event!

Scientists acknowledge that something happened just before the big bang, which does not obey all known natural laws, and which lead to the universe as we know it, springing into existence. One would have thought that an event which does not obey natural laws would be acknowledged to be nothing other than a supernatural event! 

But let us agree, just this once if no other time, that 'A rose by any other name, would smell just as sweet'!

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man.

O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.

Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
                       -William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet


May God bless all of us in this coming year. Amen

toneyb:

I was just giving my opinion and not trying to explain the scientific process, I don't owe any body any explanation for my assertions If we are to go but that then I will also turn the table on your and begin to show you how you have made assertions that also explain nothing and expect applause at the end of the day but I am not really interested in all these running around.

Interesting, and I observed you were giving your own opinions. But asserting things about what modern science 'can' do is quite another thing - and in that regard I offered some explanations as to what exactly you had not considered.

How do you read stuffs? From dictionary.com. Can means: to have the possibility. My assertion is that modern science can explain all those phenomena I talked about.

I understand very well what is meant by 'can' - and if you noticed, I already indicated this clearly in posts #44 and #48.

In post #44by my statement was: 'Modern science could explain a lot of things'. And in post #48, I made clear also that: 'I understand that science as a progressive endeavour is capable of making many more discoveries'.

The Accurate and Reliable Dictionary, ARDictionary, presents both 'can' and 'could' as basically pointing to the same idea of would be or should be 'able' or 'capable' of doing something. MacMillan Dictionary gives more or less just about the same meaning of could as 'used for saying what is possible' (third definition on that link). So we're saying the same thing here - 'can' or 'could' or 'possible' or 'capable'.

It seems you like taking a single sentence out of a whole narrative dwell on it build mountains and mountains of your own(As some on has pointed out),

They are wrong! Many Nairalanders often make such silly statements when they cheapen their own intelligence - and my reaction to such is just to humour them and pass on. As you can see above, I was not oblivious of your use of 'can'; and you should have calmed down to see that I did not disagree when I already said plainly that 'Modern science could explain a lot of things' - whether 'can' or 'could', they are just the same thing in context here. Just ignore twerps who make such accusations about my posts so they don't get you wired in all sorts of directions. There's nothing essentially different between 'can' and 'could' or 'capable' and 'possible' in context our statements.

My assertion remains, Modern science can explain the existence of all the phenomena that I talked about without the need for any deities.

That is precisely what I would like you to demonstrate. That was not saying that I was asking you to do the explaining yourself and so proffer an understanding of the ORIGINS of all those things you enumerated.

Basically, for someone to assert anything about modern science, it would be more helpful for that person to show just what they understand about modern science to be making such assertions. I went one step further to explain why your assertion is gravely mistaken by touching upon the talk in many quarters about 'Theory of Everything' and show just what many scientists have in mind when they lean towards such ideas - 'which are attempts to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena'. With that in mind, you will find that modern scientific paradigms are not structured in such a way as to answer the big questions of HOW and WHY: rather, they seek more to answer the basic question of 'WHAT'.

On the other hand, you just keep insisting on your own assertions and then turn round to argue on small words of 'can', like that was the huge point that settles this whole discussion.

All these philosophical talk about science is personally meaningless to me because, Science is constantly progressing that it has limitations today does not mean it will not over come them tomorrow. Are you trying to say categorically that modern science can never know or does not have the possibility of explaining the origin of the universe or living things? Is that your position?

Philosophical talk about science ought not to be meaningless - that is what has led us to the current paradigm of science today. But we ought also to recognize the limitations of what we mean by 'science' instead of making blanket statements about what 'science' can/could do. My position is categorically that the modern paradigm does not provide us with a systematic approach to understanding TRUE ORIGINS. This, I think, is the fine point that beneli makes in referencing astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis - 'What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that'. If then we're looking at TRUE ORIGINS, what branch of modern science has a well structured criterion for explaining the true origin of anything - especially how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe?

Are you asserting that modern science due to its limitations does not have the ability to explain the origin of the Universe? A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, I am not asserting anything. I make no assertions of whether modern science with its limitations has or does not have the 'ability' to explain the origin of the Universe. What I am asking is whether YOU understand the weight of your own assertions before stubbornly maintaining such assertions and explaining aboslutely NOTHING!

On my own part, I have tried to proffer my reasons for an understanding of TRUE ORIGINS and also asked a simple question: how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe? Even philosophers of modern science do not brashly assert that 'modern science' is able (or 'can')  do this or that with respect to true origins. I have tried to look up a few including the UCL Institute of Origins and The Origins Institute: it is not so much what they are doing, but HOW they are doing what they do. . which is, the philosophical foundation of the ORIGINS science. The latter has something interesting on their webpage:

[list]Formulating answers to the many questions that we consider involves a transdisciplinary approach that utilises ideas and methods from a variety of subjects, such as anthropology, astronomy, biochemistry, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, physics, and psychology, and advanced computational and visualisation techniques.[/list]

Scrolling to the bottom of that page shows what areas of origins they are concerned with:
[list]
[li]The Origin of Space-Time[/li]
[li]The Origins of Structure in the Cosmos[/li]
[li]The Origins of Elements[/li]
[li]The Origins of Life[/li]
[li]The Origins of Species[/li]
[li]The Origin of Humanity[/li][/list]

The basic question here being whether 'modern science' can/could/is capable/has the possibility of 'explaining' these origins (or 'all these phenomena' as you said earlier) is not so much that anyone makes an attempt. Just as George Ellis noted that 'there is a range of models that could explain the observations', the bigger question is: on what philosophical foundation would such models be formulated?

In the same way with the sciences of the various Origins Institutes, what philosophical foundation drives their researches? Yes indeed, there is quite a range of holistic approaches being considered including SYSTEMICS, etc. But even at that, would it not be coherent to understand that what many people attempt are mere speculations? Do you know why not many scientists are venturing into what is before Plank Time in questions about the true origin of our Universe, with such confidence of 'modern science'? The answer is simple: current scientific paradigms do not provide tools for such kinds of 'ORIGINS'; and any pretences to speculate on what modern science does not assert is mere speculation, no matter how interesting.

This is just one reason why you ought to be careful when making very unjustified assertions about what 'modern science' can do - you can't just excuse your assertions anyhow by a terse disinclination to the philosophical foundations of any scientific paradigm.

Now I believe you are trying to play games here, I said science can explain the origin of those phenomena without the need for deities, You on the other hand are now trying to stress  or talk about the true Origin.

What games was I trying to play? The point is that your constant assertiveness was taking a whole lot of issues for granted, and in some examples I had to show just how you're mixing up issues. Such examples would include the one where i tried to delineate the distinction between a 'beginning' and a 'true origin' - and went on to say simply that more and more cosmologists are shying away from the simplistic statements of the Big Bang as trying to 'explain' the ORIGIN of the Universe. They shy away from such because they know that it is just dishonest to maintain an 'origin' of the Universe where clearly the BB only traces from a specific point (Plank Time) and says nothing about the very 'origin' of the singularity from which the Universe emerged. Today you will find a lot of compromise in this area when cosmologists often do not leave 'origin of the universe' to stand alone; rather, they tend more and more to put that statement alongside evolution (e.g., 'the origin and evolution of the Universe'). No, toneyb, I wasn't playing any games.

I never talked about anything being true origin of anything,You are the one talking about true origin of things, What do you mean by true?

I have explained several times what I meant, example in post #48:

[list]The point here is this: although we're already thinking of such theories, how would such be able to 'explain' the true ORIGIN of anything that exists? How would such help towards explaining how matter came into existence in the first place?[/list]

If we're truly going to talk about true origins, that basic of all questions need not be thrown out of the lab - 'how matter came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly universe'. Starting at a singularity of the BB is not a true origin of the Universe coming into existence - the BB only goes as far as Plank Time and not earlier.

Of course this does not mean that I'm seeking to throw in the God-hypothesis; and in this regard I already said in post #44 -

[list]One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who makes such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe.[/list]

That is what I meant by true origins.

There is nothing like true in science is there?

I don't know; but 'true' is a qualifier often used in many sciences. It does not mean just that something is shown to be 'not false'; rather, it is used in several contexts to show particularities - 'the quality of being particular and pertaining to a specific case or instance'. For this reason we can understand the qualifier pointing to particularities as used in these two examples:

Negative Differential Conductivity in Gases: The "True Origin" -
by Blake D., and Robson R. E.
Abstract:
. . . In the present paper, we argue that the true origin of NDC
has indeed been explained satisfactorily, and present a
comprehensive range of calculations for a number of cases,
demonstrating the effectiveness of momentum transfer theory . .


Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps:
The True Origin of Species -
by Robert Felix

And as far as I know there is nothing like truth in science.

Well, I don't know. However, scientists who use such terms often try to contextualize what they mean.

Scientific explanations are what they are and there is nothing like[i] true[/i] scientific explanation for anything.

I didn't ask for 'true scientific explanation'; rather I distinguish 'true origins' from 'beginning' of the Universe - these are worlds apart.

Let's take gravity for instance all we have is scientific explanations for what it is, There is nothing like the true theory of gravity or true origin of gravity or true explanation for gravity. Science can explain the origin of the universe, Its doesn't have to be true, Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless. Talking about science explaining the true origin of the universe is a misstatement in my view, Because science can not explain the true origin of the universe, science can only provide reasonable explanation for that. You don't hear about words like[i] true[/i] in science, you only hear about laws, hypothesis, theories that offer explanation to phenomena and I have never heard scientist talking about them explaining the true nature of anything.

hehe. . you seem to be losing confidence in your own assertions. I already have shown what I have been talking about; but what you're saying is quite another thing entirely. I know and understand the place of theories, hypothesis, models, proofs, laws, etc. in science - but I have not made any reference to a conclusion beyond any doubts. The areas where I have been using the word 'true' is clear in context; and I've shown just two examples of the use of that word in science.

I agree that I do not know how science is able to do so but that does not mean that science can not explain the origins of the universe without the need for deities, Are you asserting that modern science can never explain the origin of the universes without the need for deities?

No, that is not what I am trying to assert. I have noted in post #44 that -
"[list]One may not need to invoke deities or atheistic materialism in these things; but the atheist who makes such huge assumptions about what modern science 'can' do, still himself has to show us the most basic of all things: how 'nature' came into existence completely on its own to produce an ordered and orderly Universe.[/list]"

I hope this sorts out what you may not have understood earlier.

toneyb:

This is not a reason at all but, You are simply begging the question.

Now this is Laziness in the extreme. Show me exactly why my reason is not a reason.

I verily belive that you have not grasped what i wrote at all, hence the above lazy attempt to sweep it under the carpet.

I state it again:

Since the origin by natural implication rests before (i.e: precedes) the universe and since we cannot move beyond a singularity, then any analysis (i.e: science) based on physical laws within this universe cannot apprehend the realities preceding it as such must per force be said to rest in a preceding dimension absolutely unknown to this dimension.

Deal with it through logic, Tony, not escapist laziness and references to my postulations which are not at issue here.

period.

One minute you are a pantheist and claim that everything we see around is god

FALSE. I  have NEVER claimed this. If anything i have argued vociferously against this idea here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

You even assert that the garden of Eden did not exist on earth

Its not my fault if people on this forum do not understand symbolism or metaphors.

Now address the issue: The origin of this universe rests before, or precedes this universe. Man cannot go beyond a singularity. Thus the origin is closed to man - and science. Deal with that.

Toneyb seems to be having an extended New Year Holiday.