Islam

[MarkFL]

Oh, I feel a great deal of awe and wonder when I consider the scope of the universe and the wondrous things we've discovered within...I am moved emotionally when I hear certain passages of music or consider the intrinsic beauty of mathematics...I just happen to do so without needing a nod to God or gods. This is part of the human experience, and the religious certainly have no monopoly on it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Oh, I feel a great deal of awe and wonder when I consider the scope of the universe and the wondrous things we've discovered within...I am moved emotionally when I hear certain passages of music or consider the intrinsic beauty of mathematics...I just happen to do so without needing a nod to God or gods. This is part of the human experience, and the religious certainly have no monopoly on it.

Not sure if I posted this on this forum before but; does not the fact that all observable existence can be exactly described with mathematics lend credence to the possibility of intelligent design?

What is your opinion?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

Not sure if I posted this on this forum before but; does not the fact that all observable existence can be exactly described with mathematics lend credence to the possibility of intelligent design?

What is your opinion?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Well, not all of observable existence can be described exactly using mathematics...we have mathematical models that describe and make testable predictions regarding some things to a high degree of accuracy. Other things, mostly at the boundaries of our scientific theories, such has inside the event horizon of black holes or certain non-linear dynamic systems, are beyond our description at present.

The fact that the natural world seems to consistently follow a set of rules that can sometimes be sufficiently described by a language we have discovered/invented really has nothing to say about whether this is by guided intelligent design or not. A universe without such consistency wouldn't be conducive to the existence of sentient life, and so we wouldn't be here to ponder the implications of that lack of consistency (the anthropic principle).

 

[popsthebuilder]

MarkFL,

What I had said was that all observable existence is exactly defined within mathematics. We can't observe an event horizon. We aren't even sure if there are event horizons in black holes. As far as non linear dynamics; they still aren't random or chaotic, they just aren't readily observable in full. In other words; there are too many variables or the theory is incomplete. Those aren't really observable existence either.

So you really think that everything from the most grand to the most observable miniscule particles being of a singular language that we can verify on every level (granted we don't know the inner workings of all in order to accurately create formulas that perfectly describe them) lends no credence whatsoever to the probability of a singular creative force?

Your point about life is my point too.

It isn't chaotic or by chance. I like reading your posts usually because you are pretty honest with yourself and seem intelligent, but to deny that what I stated at least leans more towards a singular creative force than some random chance seems uncharacteristic of you.

If a theist did the same thing but in favor of God, then they would be accused of circular logic, or blind faith.

Peace


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

MarkFL,

What I had said was that all observable existence is exactly defined within mathematics. We can't observe an event horizon. We aren't even sure if there are event horizons in black holes. As far as non linear dynamics; they still aren't random or chaotic, they just aren't readily observable in full. In other words; there are too many variables or the theory is incomplete. Those aren't really observable existence either.

So you really think that everything from the most grand to the most observable miniscule particles being of a singular language that we can verify on every level (granted we don't know the inner workings of all in order to accurately create formulas that perfectly describe them) lends no credence whatsoever to the probability of a singular creative force?

Your point about life is my point too.

It isn't chaotic or by chance. I like reading your posts usually because you are pretty honest with yourself and seem intelligent, but to deny that what I stated at least leans more towards a singular creative force than some random chance seems uncharacteristic of you.

If a theist did the same thing but in favor of God, then they would be accused of circular logic, or blind faith.

Yes, you are correct in that we are not certain black holes have vent horizons:

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

So, perhaps that was a bad example. I am no cosmologist, and I was speaking of the classical view of black holes as given by Einstein's General Relativity. However, we can readily observe non-linear dynamical systems...one example is the Earth's atmosphere and our inability to make meteorological predictions beyond a few days with any acceptable precision. I would say this is random and chaotic. Chaos can be found in very simply non-linear ordinary differential equations. The universe is rife with randomness at the quantum level, as given by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, giving rise to quantum foam in some theories.

However, our ability to describe anything quantitatively does not mean this points to any kind of design in any way, shape or form. Neither does it point away from it...it is simply silent on the notion. I am reminded of what Pierre Simon Laplace said to Napoleon when asked why his treatise on Newtonian mechanics made no mention of God:

Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.

Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, you are correct in that we are not certain black holes have vent horizons:

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'

So, perhaps that was a bad example. I am no cosmologist, and I was speaking of the classical view of black holes as given by Einstein's General Relativity. However, we can readily observe non-linear dynamical systems...one example is the Earth's atmosphere and our inability to make meteorological predictions beyond a few days with any acceptable precision. I would say this is random and chaotic. Chaos can be found in very simply non-linear ordinary differential equations. The universe is rife with randomness at the quantum level, as given by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, giving rise to quantum foam in some theories.

However, our ability to describe anything quantitatively does not mean this points to any kind of design in any way, shape or form. Neither does it point away from it...it is simply silent on the notion. I am reminded of what Pierre Simon Laplace said to Napoleon when asked why his treatise on Newtonian mechanics made no mention of God:

Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.

Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.

Any can do the research regarding predicting weather. It was stated that is indeed seemed chaotic or random, however was not.

I don't think Laplace knew of symmetry on the molecular level or laws that bind all creation on a galactic level without waver or deviation. He probably didn't know that all physical matter isn't actually different physical objects, but all the same general substance that more closely resembles fluid with varied vibrations. He may not have known that all is approximately 2% substance and the rest is void. What unifying force or thing is that 2%. Could it be light? Similar to perhaps a big bang from a super nova? Could it be when GOD spoke creation itself into existence known in Genesis as "let there be light"?

Could these things be the same.

You can justifiably claim that God isn't needed in one's explanation of the origin and structure of the universe once science can actually explain it.

I'm sorry, but saying all things being defined within mathematics context doesn't give to, or take away from the logical probability of intelligent design still seems a little like it stemming from a preconceived notion.

Peace

Any can hypothesise anything. But what is lacking in these theory's is unification. An all encompassing theory.

You would think math would be only partially able to define what is easily and readily observable, similar to the way the multiple theories are sporadic and un-unified, but that just isn't the case.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

Any can do the research regarding predicting weather. It was stated that is indeed seemed chaotic or random, however was not.

Weather forecast model tries to predict the future state of the atmosphere using the laws of physics given the current state (i.e. the weather now). Weather forecasting is subject to chaos, which includes:

• No periodic behaviour.
• Sensitivity to initial conditions.
• Chaotic motion is difficult or impossible to forecast.
• The motion 'looks' random.
• Non-linear.

But the Earth isn't a closed system...it receives energy from the Sun, the Moon and even meteors just to name a few.

I don't think Laplace knew of symmetry on the molecular level or laws that bind all creation on a galactic level without waver or deviation. He probably didn't know that all physical matter isn't actually different physical objects, but all the same general substance that more closely resembles fluid with varied vibrations. He may not have known that all is approximately 2% substance and the rest is void. What unifying force or thing is that 2%. Could it be light? Similar to perhaps a big bang from a super nova? Could it be when GOD spoke creation itself into existence known in Genesis as "let there be light"?

Could these things be the same.

Sure, Laplace was ignorant of many things that have been discovered since his time, but his treatise was on Newtonian mechanics, and I was using his reply as a generality on the whole of physics. And we still have a great deal left to figure out.

You can justifiably claim that God isn't needed in one's explanation of the origin and structure of the universe once science can actually explain it.

What explanatory value do we achieve by confining a notion of God or gods to ever-receding pockets of scientific ignorance?

I'm sorry, but saying all things being defined within mathematics context doesn't give to, or take away from the logical probability of intelligent design still seems a little like it stemming from a preconceived notion.

Actually, observing that nothing in nature points compellingly to a creator is the lack of a preconceived notion...the minute we state that nature points to anything regarding the supernatural, whether we claim it points to God or gods, or that it points to the lack of God or gods when we have no reason to say that it does either way is relying on preconceived notions.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Weather forecast model tries to predict the future state of the atmosphere using the laws of physics given the current state (i.e. the weather now). Weather forecasting is subject to chaos, which includes:

• No periodic behaviour.
• Sensitivity to initial conditions.
• Chaotic motion is difficult or impossible to forecast.
• The motion 'looks' random.
• Non-linear.

But the Earth isn't a closed system...it receives energy from the Sun, the Moon and even meteors just to name a few.



Sure, Laplace was ignorant of many things that have been discovered since his time, but his treatise was on Newtonian mechanics, and I was using his reply as a generality on the whole of physics. And we still have a great deal left to figure out.



What explanatory value do we achieve by confining a notion of God or gods to ever-receding pockets of scientific ignorance?



Actually, observing that nothing in nature points compellingly to a creator is the lack of a preconceived notion...the minute we state that nature points to anything regarding the supernatural, whether we claim it points to God or gods, or that it points to the lack of God or gods when we have no reason to say that it does either way is relying on preconceived notions.

Well; to me it isn't a God of the gaps thing, all existence was formed from God, that includes our scientific methods and knowledge.

Just because science can't describe something accurately doesn't make it supernatural, oh wait, yes it does. That really is a worthless word. It applies to event horizons you know?

So science can't explain away everything yet anything it can't explain in its relative youth stemming from finite minds, must by default be "supernatural".

There is a difference between not knowing something and ignoring it in favor of the outcome you desire. And preconceived notions and personal motives can play a part.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Weather forecast model tries to predict the future state of the atmosphere using the laws of physics given the current state (i.e. the weather now). Weather forecasting is subject to chaos, which includes:

• No periodic behaviour.
• Sensitivity to initial conditions.
• Chaotic motion is difficult or impossible to forecast.
• The motion 'looks' random.
• Non-linear.

But the Earth isn't a closed system...it receives energy from the Sun, the Moon and even meteors just to name a few.



Sure, Laplace was ignorant of many things that have been discovered since his time, but his treatise was on Newtonian mechanics, and I was using his reply as a generality on the whole of physics. And we still have a great deal left to figure out.



What explanatory value do we achieve by confining a notion of God or gods to ever-receding pockets of scientific ignorance?



Actually, observing that nothing in nature points compellingly to a creator is the lack of a preconceived notion...the minute we state that nature points to anything regarding the supernatural, whether we claim it points to God or gods, or that it points to the lack of God or gods when we have no reason to say that it does either way is relying on preconceived notions.

Did I mention how engaging this conversation has been so far?

I do respect you and your opinion.

Oh, and I didn't mean that what I was talking about was some riveting information that would instantly and utterly change your mind, I was just hoping that you would admit that it lends more credence to intelligent design than to random chance or chaos.

What happened to the intrinsic beauty of mathematics?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

Well; to me it isn't a God of the gaps thing, all existence was formed from God, that includes our scientific methods and knowledge.

That there is a creator is a claim, but it is a claim which is not necessarily pointed to by nature (which is what I have been getting at).

Just because science can't describe something accurately doesn't make it supernatural, oh wait, yes it does. That really is a worthless word. It applies to event horizons you know?

So science can't explain away everything yet anything it can't explain in its relative youth stemming from finite minds, must by default be "supernatural".

There's a difference between "science can't currently explain" and "science will never be able to explain." I don't call something we can't explain at present supernatural. I simply would say we are ignorant at the moment regarding this thing we can't explain...but with time we will most likely find a theory which works as a possible explanation. All of science is subject to refinement.

There is a difference between not knowing something and ignoring it in favor of the outcome you desire. And preconceived notions and personal motives can play a part.

All I'm saying is nature does not compellingly point to a creator, but neither does it point away from a creator...it simply does not point in any direction regarding a creator.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That there is a creator is a claim, but it is a claim which is not necessarily pointed to by nature (which is what I have been getting at).



There's a difference between "science can't currently explain" and "science will never be able to explain." I don't call something we can't explain at present supernatural. I simply would say we are ignorant at the moment regarding this thing we can't explain...but with time we will most likely find a theory which works as a possible explanation. All of science is subject to refinement.



All I'm saying is nature does not compellingly point to a creator, but neither does it point away from a creator...it simply does not point in any direction regarding a creator.

The word compelling is what I have issue with, but I agree. Take out that word and I would disagree.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

The word compelling is what I have issue with, but I agree. Take out that word and I would disagree.

If something is not compelling, then it lacks the power to objectively inspire conviction.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That there is a creator is a claim, but it is a claim which is not necessarily pointed to by nature (which is what I have been getting at).



There's a difference between "science can't currently explain" and "science will never be able to explain." I don't call something we can't explain at present supernatural. I simply would say we are ignorant at the moment regarding this thing we can't explain...but with time we will most likely find a theory which works as a possible explanation. All of science is subject to refinement.



All I'm saying is nature does not compellingly point to a creator, but neither does it point away from a creator...it simply does not point in any direction regarding a creator.

One last thing to consider while we're attempting to speak logically; how much sense does it make to think all this came from chance or chaos? Is chance or chaos readily observable or is there evidence supporting either?

Peace with sincerity.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkFL]

One last thing to consider while we're attempting to speak logically; how much sense does it make to think all this came from chance or chaos? Is chance or chaos readily observable or is there evidence supporting either?

It really makes no sense at the moment to make any positive claims regarding how the universe came into being. We just don't know. Imposing a "creator hypothesis" with no supporting evidence or a theoretical framework where this is necessary isn't science.

However, I wish to reiterate that all I am saying is that we do not know from nature that there is a creator, nor does nature tell us there isn't a creator. Nature, as we have observed it thus far, is silent on the matter. That is the only point I wish to make.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...


All I'm saying is nature does not compellingly point to a creator, but neither does it point away from a creator...it simply does not point in any direction regarding a creator.

Nature's existence is a mystery which Christians say is revealed by God as an act of creation brought about by his spoken Word. But Nature cannot tell you whence it came or what/who caused it beyond telling you that it began to be. That is significant. Many reason that once we reach the "big bang" all bets are off because the law of causation cannot be demonstrated to be valid at the big band and the idea of "before" appears not to apply to whatever may or may not have been "before" the bang. It is honest to admit that one does not know these things because one cannot measure them or test them. Christian theology does not assert any tests or measurements. Theology asserts that God spoke and it was created.

Intellect and will as well as the affections point to God even if measurements do not.

The holy scriptures testify that without faith, it is impossible to please God. For whoever approaches God must believe that he exists, and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)