quote: I have often heard the terms "science" (or "real science") and "pseudo-science" bandied around with creation-evolution discussions. What do they mean? If you can't provide a totally objective definition of either, then what does it mean to you?
To me, science means theories that are based on the observable data. These theories agree (mostly) with the observable data, and have been logically tested to see if they are not true (falsification). The reason we believe that science provides objective truth is because he has a good track record for finding objective truth and for uncovering objective truth that was previously unsuspected. In other words, it usually gives a far more precise explanation of the world, and leads us to discover aspects of the world we never suspected (such as relativity and quantum mechanics).
Of course, all scientific theories are subject to revision as new data is discovered, so they are all somewhat tentative. But those that stand the test of time are usually more reliable, because there have been so many people looking for data to disprove them. And, believe me, nothing makes a good scientist more happy than to show that he’s smarter than everyone who came before him.
What science really is to me is a method of gathering data, analyzing it and coming to a consensus about what it means. I believe it to be a superior method than any that has come before it, primarily because of some of the dramatic results of utilizing it. It may not be a very good way to find The Truth, but it seems to be an excellent method for discovering Weak Ideas and Falsehoods.
The reason creationism, especially Young-Earth creationism (which you seem to be a proponent of, Avin), is considered pseudo-science is because its theories do not meet the standards required for a good scientific theory. Sometimes it is because there is significant data that contradicts it (such as the theory the Earth is less than 15,000 years old, which is contradicted by radioactive dating of rocks, among others). Sometimes it is because there is no way for the theory to be falsified (like the current Intelligent Design theories, which have no way testing them to see if they might be false). Sometimes there is no direction the theory provides for further research.
Of course, this is all in the realm of science, which has certain foundational assumptions, such as the assumption that laws of the universe are the same throughout space and time, or that we actually can observe things. Without many of these assumptions, science could not function, because observation would be meaningless. But there is nothing in science that proves that these assumptions must be true.
So when you reject evolution and such, you need to specify whether you are doing so scientifically or not. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God and completely inerrant, and that nothing that we can observe can override this truth, then that’s fine. You have a biblical-based worldview, one where faith overrides all else. I may disagree with such a worldview, but that is my choice, as it is yours.
However, if you say science says that evolution and such are false, and the world is a mere 15,000 years old (or whatever), then you must play by science’s rules. Which means you have to meticulously gather the data, rigorously show how it supports your theory, and show how your theory can be falsified by further research. And you have to do this very carefully, because it will be judged by others knowledgeable in the field, who love nothing better than to show how they are smarter than you are.
Creationism, in all its various guises, has not been able to do so, which is why you see it being promoted in popular venues, and not in the rigorous, peer-reviewed arenas where real science takes place. This is why it is considered pseudo-science.
Whether it is true or not is another story, depending on your faith in scientific methodology and your philosophical outlook, for which YMMV.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:(...) I started thinking about what the point of it all was. I was majoring in Mathematics and Computer Science, and was having a hard time seeing what exactly I could do that would be so great. Making the most money was clearly not a great goal in life, neither was any academic pursuit I could think of. The stuff I was the most interested in was the most abstract mathematics and least practical to help people in their daily lives. What good would that do? And I even began to think, even if I had pursued more practical sciences and cured diseases or made people's lives better, what was still the point of that? What was really the point in saving lives? They would die anyway. What was the point of making people happy? People will always have something to gripe about. I was in a spiral that was drawing me dangerously close to complete nihilism and apathy about absolutely everything, except for the fact that I did still cling to the idea of God existing somewhere, and having some sort of solution to this dilemma.
That's primarily the reasoning that drove me to accept a literal interpretation of creation according to Genesis.
This is a prime example of why creationists are usually considered, um, sub-optimally informed. You are basically arguing that if evolution were true, there wouldn't be any point to life, so it can't be true. Surely, if you're 'trained in logic', you can see the fallacy here. Wishful thinking is not a good argument in a factual debate.
Moreover, so what if there's no Cosmic Grand Purpose (tm)? Your life is what you make of it. Falling back on a desperate belief in an outside force because you are incapable of coming up with a good meaning is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AndrewR, having thought further about the lightspeed and deay rates issue, I'm no longer certain decays would slow down. I stand by the analysis in my previous posts, but there's a further effect I neglected to consider : If lightspeed is faster, the atomic radius is effectively smaller; that is, you can transfer information from one edge of it to the other in a smaller minimum time. Hence the helium nucleus would knock against its edges more often in a given unit of time, so the probability of a tunneling event per unit time would go up.
Basically, I'm going to have to say that I don't know whether the decay would speed up or slow down. I've reached the edge of what can be done with intuitive, qualitative arguments. You would have to sit down and do some serious math to find out which effect prevails - in principle, they might even cancel out, though that seems a bit unlikely.
In the absence of time and inclination to do such a calculation, I'm willing to take TalkOrigin's word for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13 and AndrewR, it sounds like you are both saying I reject evolutionary ideas because of a philosophical basis and not a scientific one. I think that is absolutely true. However, AndrewR, you state that science is theories that are based on the observable data. While I agree with this too, I have to point out that this is where I started my seeds of doubt in the mainstream scientific agenda, because this definition is not sufficient to show this "works". You've got data, which is collected by observation of some sort. Now you form theories about this data. Do you see what assumptions we've already been making? We have assumed that the data we have collected is accurate based on the accuracy of observation. What makes us think that observation gets us anything that is true? There has to be a reason why we can observe things and know them to be true. You can make an argument that our observational capacity has evolved and natural selection favored organisms who had more accurate observational skills. Or you can say God created reality orderly and also created us with the ability to observe it. Either way, this is not a result of any belief system, it is a part of the belief system itself. Using any existing belief system to "prove" the fact that our observations reflect reality is circular logic: there has to be a starting point.
So there's one assumption you have to make, but most people don't state it, because they think it's too obvious. I think it makes a huge difference.
Second, once you have data, what then? How do you make a theory based on data? In other words, what guarantees that logical, deductive, or inductive, or any other form of reasoning will lead to new truths? Similarly, you have to make another assumption.
Now, I never seriously questioned that either of these two assumptions were wrong, and I don't think anyone without mental illnesses has reason to. But that does not mean that there don't have to be valid reasons for these assumptions, and these reasons have to be taken on faith in some way, because you can't reason your way to proving reason. My point with this is that philosophy undergirds any reasoning, and I now think that to dismiss scientific or pseudoscientific theories or results because they include certain assumptions that a certain group of other scientists deny, is rather unfair.
In the branch of mathematics known as Set Theory, there is a proposition known as the Continuum Hypothesis (CH) which states (as simply as I possibly can, although I don't know how many people reading this will understand it) that the size of the set of all real numbers (the continuum) is the next highest "size class" (cardinality) from the set of natural numbers. It is well known that the Continuum Hypothesis can neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms of standard set theory (ZFC). Now, some people might prove theories assuming that CH is true (i.e. using the axiom system ZFC+CH). Other people might prove theories assuming that CH is false (using the axiom system ZFC+~CH). All of these theories would be equally valid, however, because their proof would state the assumptions of which axiomatic system they are working in, so that although they may never be true in the same system, their reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, I most highly respect scientific studies that most clearly state their assumptions. Since creation science usually states the assumption of starting with a literal biblical worldview, I now have much more respect for it than I once did, especially since I now happen to think their assumptions are true. I also still have much respect for naturalistic scientists that state they have an a priori commitment to naturalism. I do not agree with their assumptions, but I respect their reasoning based on their assumptions. Most of the conclusions I see then, I can agree with, although I am more careful to see where our conflict in assumptions would create conflict in conclusions. What I find most distasteful, however, is science that claims to be objectively true or only "based on evidence". This in my opinion, is more pseudoscientific than anything.
Anyway, AndrewR, you make the comment about creationism being pseudoscientific because it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be viable, but it does not. However, what it seems like you are actually saying is that it must argue on a naturalistic ground. And that defeats the purpose. However, I do recognize that I have seen several attempts of supporters of Biblical creation trying to do just what you suggest. And it still does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I often find that Christians who try to prove the literal biblical accounts using mainstream science do a disservice to both, using both inconsistent theology and biblical interpretation as well as illogical reasoning in their science. I'm sorry to see so many people fall into this pitfall. I do think though, that there are Creation Scientists and ministries out there that also explicitly say they have a philosophical basis for their beliefs in creation, and use science to build from that, not to prove it.
King of Men: I was not trying to argue that my belief was true because I wish it was. If you notice, I was not trying to prove anything - in fact, I would claim that this is something that cannot be proven. Even now, I do not logically deny the possibility that God does not really exist and that evolution is true. Even though my experience and observations and reasoning lead me to think God does really exist, I cannot exclude the possibility that all these factors are inaccurate and I am completely delusional. I also cannot exclude the possibility that God exists, but created us via theistic evolution, for similar reasons. However, I see no point in living nihilistically and even less meaning in worshipping a God that I could not bring myself to care about. So instead, I chose to trust the God of the Bible, which I have found to be the most reasonable of all available choices.
Oh, and yes, I do feel that I am incapable of coming up with good meaning apart from a loving creator external to myself. And if that means by your standard I am intellectually and morally bankrupt, then so be it. Personally, I find myself to be far more intellectually and morally fulfilled than before I came to these beliefs, but I won't stop you from thinking otherwise.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avin, Conversion stries like yours give me the willies. From a faith/values perspective, I've got no justification for saying that you're wrong, but from a psychological standpoint, you're echoing nearly all of the masochistic cult/facist conversion stories I've read.
If it works for you and gives you meaning, then hey, there you go. But in my opinion, desperation and the idea that "If this isn't true, I have no meaning." form a terrible basis for belief.
---
edit: I really did try to keep that as non-offensive as I could. I'm serious about the cult thing. It reads just like it. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily falling prey to the same thing, but it's enough to give me the willies.
posted
By the way, Avin, how old are you now? You mentioned being fifteen at the time you first started thinking about this.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm 20 now. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to make this all about me - I do genuinely want to know what other people who do not have the same views about science as me think about what science is and more importantly, WHY it works, and WHY what they dismiss as pseudoscience does not work, in their opinion. AndrewR's response has elements, but I'm hoping to delve further than "it works because experience has shown it does". This response does not make an exclusive definition of what science really is, in my opinion. I have never posted my views about creation online before this, mostly because I always saw these discussions degenerate into points and counterpoints citing different websites that successively disproved each other by citing different scientific evidences. However I have seen people here be willing to discuss more philosophical issues related to science, and I am still hoping I can find people here who have consistent justification for their views of science.
MrSquicky: No offense taken. I think that the only time that anyone would really seriously call into question their foundational assumptions is when they are driven to points of desperation in some way - not necessarily the same as mine (which was a search for meaning), but there has to be some reason, nonetheless. The danger in that is that once at that point, people are more vulnerable and can be willing to get caught up in something that could be harmful to them, like a cult. So your concern is definitely legitimate. To be wary of such a danger is always a good thing. Personally, I would not consider what I believe "cultish" because I believe in a book that people have believed in for thousands of years. I am part of a mainline protestant denomination (Episcopal) that has widely varying views on all sorts of doctrinal issues. However, if you consider Christian self-denial (i.e. holding moral values that discourage over-indulgence in sensual pleasures, service of others, etc) "masochistic," then I can't argue against that. I just will have to disagree.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about Judaism? Its technically older and a more friendly religion its not the "converting" type which is why I respect it so much, they also hold the beleif that you can go to heaven even if you don't believe in god and there is no concept of hell (from what I hear). I would convert but I don't take the idea of a god seriously enough so it would be in my mind an insult to the religion by putting it almost of the same page as some kind of club.
Now what happens if aliens invade and say that their religion is truer then ours? Dilemnas, dilemnas...
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, this is not my account, but a friend of mines who knows Sid Meyers here, and I wanna make it clear that I don’t necessarily believe in this article’s arguments. He came to me and told me that he couldn’t read it cause it `went against his beliefs of evolution and I respected that with a slight hint of irony. But then he came back a few months later because it was apparently bothering him a whole bunch. He ASKED ME to dig it up for him. I said I would, but he pushed for me to do it then and there. I eventually found it again and gave it to him. I’m happy he’s refuting it or whatnot, but I really don’t care. While I like a good debate as much as the next guy or two times more , I don’t like being called an “Ignorant Religious Wako who should never be listened to again” . While I am admittedly not a super uber science freak, I am a Jesus freak, and I am surrounded by science all the time seeing as my dad is a science teacher, and we have more text books in our house on science than you could count. I thought this was interesting, and I have tried to follow the posts so far, but I can’t keep up with this `Jargon`` all the time, it’s pretty hard to. Also I haven’t looked at science for a good bit of time now, so it’s familiar, but it doesn’t hit home with me. But there does seem to be some seriously arrogant people here, although some have `covered their tracks` very nicely I might add, along with those who are rationally discussing this as a question. Bottom line is that I am a Christian, and for those who can respect it, that’s cool, for those of you who can’t take that, lock yourself in a box… `we are everywhere ! Anyways, what I want to find out is not what people see evidence for or want to religiously believe, as important as that may be, it’s not quite pertinent to the question at hand. What I want to know is if the speed of light could theoretically, but by scientific laws, be slowing down, and if that could possibly account for our current scientific methods of calculating, or more importantly our interpretations of the calculations we receive, be off by a long shot? By the way, good job Skillery, I like you already .
One last time, I`m not even using my account here, just a friend of mines account, we both know Sid.. So he just had to join this forum, along with I was the one being attacked at the beginning.. and I’m not ignorant, I’m just tired of hearing Sid’s arguments and refuting them, then hearing the same ones again the next day as though I hadn’t said anything. Oh well, Posts: 1 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, because clearly being a Christian means you must reject evolution, and all those Christians who don't (including the late pope) are really fooling themselves about their Christianity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I rather suspect I could knock down any (edit: scientific, I don't much care about the others) argument you cared to put up. Just so's y'knows
And on a structural issue, I think you'll find your response rate to be higher given a more structured post.
quote:there does seem to be some seriously arrogant people here
Don't let that keep you from learning something. (What else are we here for?)
quote:good job Skillery, I like you already
Don't be too quick to choose up sides; my opinions on this matter are still in flux.
Mr. Squicky, fugu13, and King of Men like to give us believers a hard time, but they know their stuff. Ultimately they'll do us good because in my opinion, faith propped up by bad science is worse than blind faith. On the other hand, as OSC has shown, scientific speculation based upon one's faith is a heckuva lot of fun.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have assumed that the data we have collected is accurate based on the accuracy of observation. What makes us think that observation gets us anything that is true?
Descartes wound up addressing this at some length. Cogito ergo sum and all that; what it really boils down to is that one perceives, and one is aware of perception, and that awareness validates existence for a given value of existence. In the same way, perception validates the existence of perception; in other words, if you perceive something, there is something that caused you to perceive it -- be that an actual event, a delusion, or whatever. You didn't perceive it for no reason at all.
Science makes an additional assumption: that which happens can be perceived, provided you know how and where to look. This is one of the three basic axioms of science. In my opinion, these axioms are considerably simpler than the axioms required to accept any given religion.
----------
"Anyway, AndrewR, you make the comment about creationism being pseudoscientific because it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be viable, but it does not."
You're misquoting AndrewR. His point is that creationism is pseudoscientific because, while it it must argue on a scientific ground in order to be valid science, its followers do not actually understand scientific principle. This does not mean that creationist "theory" cannot be true without being scientific, but it does mean that it's absolutely impossible to discuss creationism from a scientific standpoint without holding it to scientific standards. And that's where creationism breaks down: it fails every single test of scientific theory, every one.
quote: Accordingly, I most highly respect scientific studies that most clearly state their assumptions. Since creation science usually states the assumption of starting with a literal biblical worldview, I now have much more respect for it than I once did, especially since I now happen to think their assumptions are true.
Avin, stating assumptions is not enough to garner respect. A great scientific paper will start off with few assumptions and generate general results with wide applicability.
The broader the assumptions, the weaker the theory.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most current research in biology assumes evolution for the same reason physics assumes gravity.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there's evidence all over the freakin' place (that the theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution we see, just as the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity we see).
It could, for instance, be angels moving everything about, and so long as one doesn't think that's science its a scientifically acceptable belief (funny, that). But that doesn't make it science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, because science is not demonstrated by positive evidence but instead by lack of negative evidence, the important bit is that there is no evidence against evolution today.
We can't say the same about the theory of gravity.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I could really trash any theological arguments in favor of "CreationScience". The most obvious being that it is blasphemous to assume that the Omniscient&Omnipotent must use scientific means to Create.
Ya wanna believe in Creation -- even a Creation of seven human-subjective days -- that is fine: it is contradicted by neither evolution nor logic. Nor does a literal Creation contradict anything which can be addressed by science. However, "CreationScience" is a real can of tapeworms which runs afoul of science, logic, and Christian theology.
quote: Ya wanna believe in Creation -- even a Creation of seven human-subjective days -- that is fine: it is contradicted by neither evolution nor logic. Nor does a literal Creation contradict anything which can be addressed by science.
Yes, it does...
The order, the timeframe...
How are you associating a literal six day creation as stated in Genesis with anything that science has found?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science, indeed, cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago, complete with our memories of it. However, that would contradict Christian theology, in that it means the creator would be lying to us.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, this is turning into a theological debate. Anyways ya I was a bit disrepectful of my friend before so ya I apologized to him both in email and in person. However apparently its said (by a source that shall remain nameless) that evolution was created by a french person to attack the church and contradicts (supposedly) the first 6 chapters of I forget the bible or genesis I don't remember.
But ya I myself have no problems with religion and my thanks to OSC for widening my viewpoint of other cultures. However, I am a democratic/socialist person and a humanist. I have problems with the whole debate between creationists and evolutionists because so many of their arguements tend to be be barely hiding scorn and insults for the other party. Is it so hard to accept the possibility of BOTH being true? Like possibly God (which one it is you decide) created a rough "skeleton" of the universe in the big bang? And from their everything else happened according to scientific law? For example theres this one girl who joined in a debate about evolution and I felt like leaving the room, she simple didn't believe in the possibility of evol. and laughed it off as something ridiculus that only idiots would believe. Sometimes evolutionists do the same to creationists I'm also disgusted (though I'll be honest and say not as much) with their behavior. If scientists are confident then they can just simply cite the evidence and how their hypothesis hasn't been disproven and can hold their ground as such and not resort to name calling. Creationists also can do the same thing and can try to prove it by as OSC said by constantly failing to disprove their hypothesis.
posted
You don't understand that the debate is not between Creation and Evolution; those two ideas are not mutually exclusive -- in dact, science says nothing at all about 'Creation'.
The debate is between Evolution and Creationism, in all its forms: ID, YEC, OEC, Gap, etc.
In that way, yes, it is impossible for both Evolution and, say, YEC to be true.
Evolution and ID could be true, but ID fails as a science.
The point is that Evolution does not say there is no creator and no creation, it simply describes the as-of-yet only scientific way that the diversity of species that we see today arose.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science, indeed, cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago, complete with our memories of it. However, that would contradict Christian theology, in that it means the creator would be lying to us.
But if it were 10,000 years ago, that wouldn't be the case.
posted
I disagree. We observe stars at more than 10000 light-years' distance. If those events never occurred, but a creator is envertheless showing them to us, then that is a lie.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is our human interpretation that makes that "information." The travel of light is a natural phenomenon. Just because we traditionally interpret that as a record of an event doesn't mean that someone is telling us the event happened. There isn't any question of "lying."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if the creator created in such a way that it appears to us that an event ocurred that never actually ocurred, it isn't deceiving?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, that's just ridiculous. If I create a Photoshop movie of you committing a murder, (and we will suppose that there is no contradictory evidence, and that I am so 1337 that the fake is totally un-spottable) and you are convicted on that basis, am I lying?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you are. But suppose you make a movie with an absolutely convincing scene of me murdering someone. The movie has a disclaimer at the front ("this is not real"). Years later, the film is discovered. Amazingly, the disclaimer is misinterpreted - the word "not" is not noticed when the film is examined.
posted
Well, I suppose if you're going to make up a creator you can make up disclaimers while you're at it. But really, I think only a lawyer could consider a disclaimer in tiny print and grey ink at the bottom of a five-hundred-page contract to be non-dishonest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point isn't that there is a disclaimer - the point is the people who viewed the film didn't have all the information needed to correctly intepret it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That just puts us in the realm of a meta-lie : The evidence is presented as though it is all there is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, blame the victim. It is the responsibility of the presenter-of-evidence to make sure that all the information is included, is clear and accessible, and that his audience understands it as he intended. If the indications that 'this is not all there is' are obscure to the point of non-existence, even to the best minds of the audience, then that is a lie on the part of the presenter.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the responsibility of the presenter-of-evidence to make sure that all the information is included, is clear and accessible, and that his audience understands it as he intended.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the intent wouldn't be to present information at all, but rather to create a universe.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we have excellent and sufficient reasons for doing so. To present such a view, with so many self-consistent details, without a single indication that this is not the real truth - that is a lie.
We are going around in circles on this; unless you can come up with something new, I'm going to drop the discussion before my arguments degenerate into insults.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I'm concerned about is how fast this affects the speed of Superman. Is Superman slowing down? Will he be able to get that plucky Lois Lane out of danger in the future? I am troubled.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Dag. A speed of light sufficiently variable to give a ten-thousand-year-old Universe with the events we see in it would also change the laws of physics so much that stars would not form - so we wouldn't see those events. Of course, you can postulate that God holds those stars together with Deep Magic, but then we're back to lying again.
And I didn't claim that science could prove Creation false, I claimed that it could prove that either Genesis is wrong or Yahweh is lying to us.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, Dag. A speed of light sufficiently variable to give a ten-thousand-year-old Universe with the events we see in it would also change the laws of physics so much that stars would not form - so we wouldn't see those events.
More hubris. We don't know the laws of physics. We certainly don't understand what changes to them are possible and which ones aren't.
Like I said, I don't believe in a young universe myself. But you're kidding yourself if you think the tiny bit of physical understanding of the Universe our brightest minds possess can disprove such a theory.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, but you speak from ignorance. Using only the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes - we can impose quite strong constraints on what physical laws are possible. And we have quite a good understanding of the physics of stars, thank'ee kindly.
Moreover, you started with just
quote:Look, the mere possibility of a variable speed of light makes this possible with no lying.
and now, one post later, you are introducing additional changes to the laws of physics to compensate. Indeed, if a god is going to all that effort to make lighspeed variable, but changing the other laws of physics to create stars which are in every particular what we would expect from our current understanding of physics - then once more I can only call him a liar.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, but you speak from ignorance. Using only the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes - we can impose quite strong constraints on what physical laws are possible. And we have quite a good understanding of the physics of stars, thank'ee kindly.
Until VSL, the thought of anything travelling faster than the current speed of light was pretty much scientific heresy. Now it's considered, at least serious enough for publication in peer-reviewed journals, an alternative to inflation. Every time we look, we find out the universe is more complex than we thought. We also happen to have a great big gaping hole in our understanding of gravity.
quote: Indeed, if a god is going to all that effort to make lighspeed variable, but changing the other laws of physics to create stars which are in every particular what we would expect from our current understanding of physics - then once more I can only call him a liar.
Fine. Then you have a meaningless definition of liar and therefore this is pointless.
You don't understand the universe. You don't understand the limits of what's possible. I guarantee you someone is going to discover something that was once thought impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of physics is actually possible. Will God be lying then, too, because he didn't take into account the sheer arrogance of humans who think their understanding of the universe should limit what's possible?
quote:the assumption of causality - that effects do not occur before their causes
We're talking about thermodynamics, right?
This could be an interesting topic, because in the LDS faith we do have an example of the effect preceding the cause: people were able to obtain forgiveness of their sins before Christ had actually wrought the atonement.
It would be analogous to kids getting ice cream from the ice cream man before he even drives down the street. The power for this amazing feat would be derived from the surety of the ice cream man's word and the trust that he puts in the kids. He says he's going to drive down the street, and so sure is his word, that something clicks in the universe, and the timing of his visit is no longer a factor. His trust in the kids' willingness to pay for the ice cream also overcomes or satisfies some law, allowing the kids to enjoy the benefits of the ice cream before paying.
Sure this is in the theological realm of reasoning, but it may also lead to some interesting scientific speculaton. If you had sufficient power and knowledge at your disposal, you could undo and redo effects, satisying the law of thermodynamics, without any regard for time or causality. (To state that such a being actually exists is another matter altogether.)
Are there any examples in quantum mechanics of the effect preceding the cause? Quantum tunneling perhaps...where the mere possibility, however unlikely that something will happen, means that it will happen?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I see we are not going to get anywhere on this.
skillery : In quantum mechanics, yes, but that's because quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. In quantum field theory, which takes special relativity into account, there are no such effects. Moreover, causality doesn't apply just to thermodynamics - I'm not sure where you got that idea. It applies to anything you can think of.
In fact, I think it even applies to your example of forgiveness, because the cause of forgiveness is not the atonement, but God's decision that he's going to permit atonement.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, KoM, Dag does not. He knows exactly what you mean. What he's trying to point out is that God could easily have created the whole universe -- with conditions as we see it now -- for reasons of His own, and the fact that evidence we now see suggests another origin is a by-product of that choice, not a direct intention. In other words, God felt like creating light in transit (to use one example); He didn't do it to fool us, but we have been fooled by it. There is no way for science or philosophy to dispel this possibility.
Skillery, note also that the LDS God was already aware that the atonement was going to happen. In this case, causality is preserved, since He was the one offering forgiveness in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Tom, that's much clearer than I've been able to articulate.
Let me reiterate, I don't think he actually did this. Everything I know about cosmology and evolution is compatible with my faith, and I think there's actually a spiritual beauty to both theories as mechanisms for creation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
. While I am admittedly not a super uber science freak, I am a Jesus freak, and I am surrounded by science all the time seeing as my dad is a science teacher, and we have more text books in our house on science than you could count. I thought this was interesting, and I have tried to follow the posts so far, but I can’t keep up with this `Jargon`` ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
all the time, it’s pretty hard to. Also I haven’t looked at science for a good bit of time now, so it’s familiar, but it doesn’t hit home with me. But there does seem to be some seriously arrogant people here, although some have `covered their tracks` very nicely I might add, along with those who are rationally discussing this as a question. Bottom line is that I am a Christian, and for those who can respect it, that’s cool, for those of you who can’t take that, lock yourself in a box… `we are everywhere ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
! Anyways, what I want to find out is not what people see evidence for or want to religiously believe, as important as that may be, it’s not quite pertinent to the question at hand. What I want to know is if the speed of light could theoretically, but by scientific laws, be slowing down, and if that could possibly account for our current scientific methods of calculating, or more importantly our interpretations of the calculations we receive, be off by a long shot? By the way, good job Skillery, I like you already ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
and I’m not ignorant, I’m just tired of hearing Sid’s arguments and refuting them, then hearing the same ones again the next day as though I hadn’t said anything. Oh well, ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
