The God of Science
- Thread starter 786
- Start date
Here is your response, I already said I would respond on the weekend...
I think I agree with GeoffP, the default position it to assume every unexplainable factor as random, this is what I meant by "assumption of randomness at the beginning"- since it would be the default position.
True, but I'm not just talking about humans.
I would agree that God is an unnecessary hypothesis but that is why I was trying to use physical laws as the control, not God. Also I would have to argue that "control" is more simple than "randomness" because from the outset the randomizing force is basically unknown, but control can be explained under the physical laws.
Actually a "few" directed mutations can absolutely be NOT told apart from random mutations since they would have happened in the past. Suppose I caused the mutations between archea and bacteria and all the rest were random- science would label all of them random- because first of all you do not have the actual observational data (since its Millions of years ago event) to perform statistical analysis upon. Those single data points will- by default- be labeled random.
I wasn't arguing for creationism, and neither is this thread an attempt to prove God.
Well if you agree then you are agreeing that you can't prove 'true randomness' because our knowledge is almost always limited.
Yes my point is, as mentioned above, is that due to this relativity of randomness we can't show 'true randomness' to exist (or not to exist).
Well Bell's inequalities would only eliminate local hidden variables not the non-local. The Bohm interpretation is still valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Well, the fact we can't know the result of a coin toss is simply due to the unknown forces and their respective magnitudes- if we did then theoretically we could predict it. And secondly the fact we can't predict something doesn't mean its random. I don't think everyone could predict who will get kicked off American Idol, but it definitely is not random.
Agreed, all unknown factors can't be defined as random, but all random can be attributed as due to "unknown" factors. Similar to the relationship between a square and rectangle. All squares are rectangles but all rectangles are not square. In our case random is the square.
I agree that God and randomness are not exactly 'equivalent'.
Hmm... I think we're playing with words here. I don't think you can say something is 'non-random' either. All you can say is something is 'predictable' and something is 'not-predictable'. By the logic you are using to "falsify random" then the argument as follows would also be true: We can say something is not supernatural- So supernatural is a falsifiable argument- This doesn't automatically mean that supernatural exists? (As you would assume random to exist because of the same logic)- And if one equates supernatural with God then God becomes falsifiable also...
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
No I wouldn't say that, but I do agree in the context of what we are talking about here, it is an extra assumption.
Peace be unto
So, if randomness were non-random: then what? Is God in these small details? But why would He be? If all random variance is ultimately pseudorandom (that is, explained by natural factors), then that absolves God of any involvement. It's strictly, by your own definition, naturalistic. Brownian motion is the sum of small electrostatic interactions, for example: not really random, but the sum of natural but unpredictable physical vectors. So nothing is really unexplained in your hypothesis. How, then, can one draw any inferences about God from all variance being pseudorandom? Isn't one required to have something that isn't naturalistically explained in order to conclude that God has a hand in it? By explaining away all truly random variability, you aren't giving God anything to work with.
Lol.
Good question, although this thread was not meant to be about God but I guess I'll answer you.
The following is only a hypothesis-
It is true that everything if not random would be naturalistic, but then we go back to the actual origin of the universe and how physic's laws actually came to being. One could hypothesize that God created the laws and everything like gravitons and what not and made all the conditions meet so that the universe came out this way.... in other words the initial conditions of the creation of the universe were set and prepared by God, and everything after that became self-determined (God created the greatest code
). So the whole universe, and how it 'self-creates' is an amazing creation by God. Its kind of like God made the letters A-Z and the laws that govern these letters, and he made the conditions as such that through the simplicity of A-Z and the laws that guide it- these letters produced some of the best literature ever known to mankind (i.e the universe). So this way everything is created by God- as he set all the initial conditions so that it would lead to 'this product'.Then the second question follows is: If the universe was created in such a way then whats the point of God now- as the universe is self-creating without Him?
I think the universe is self-creating, that is that the laws that were set initially can bring up everything but I don't think the universe is self-sustaining. That is the conditions must be kept in a balance for the universe to continue self-creating- and that balance is kept by God. In other words the conditions for the self-creating universe are sustained and controlled by God- One of my biology professor said was "Life works against entropy" - don't know if it is true or not but it is possible that God allows a system to be less chaotic ("life") to form while the overall universal entropy increases- so he's sustaining this balance.
In other words everything in nature is controlled by the natural laws (which God created) but the very 'first condition' that is part of the cycle of 'self-creation' is controlled by God. Everything else about the universe simply follows through and becomes 'deterministic' due to the initial condition.
And lastly God could potentially self-direct, in other words force the conditions in nature, which otherwise would be impossible, to create something. But because the conditions do occur (as they are forced) then the nature follows its rules and ends up creating something- but only thanks to the initially forced condition- (I guess abiogenesis could be like this- all conditions for it were forced- that could explain an otherwise impossible to explain phenomenon)
In other words God could create, sustain, force 'initial conditions' of the universe or certain events (i.e abiogenesis) and then let the nature play it out.
So there is still room for God even though everything plays out through nature.
Peace be unto you
Lol.
Good question, although this thread was not meant to be about God but I guess I'll answer you.
The following is only a hypothesis-
It is true that everything if not random would be naturalistic, but then we go back to the actual origin of the universe and how physic's laws actually came to being. One could hypothesize that God created the laws and everything like gravitons and what not and made all the conditions meet so that the universe came out this way.... in other words the initial conditions of the creation of the universe were set and prepared by God, and everything after that became self-determined (God created the greatest code
Well, why? The orderliness of the universe can - as you point out - be explained by simple natural laws: electromagnetism, radiation, etc. If even the actions of the minutest atom occur without real randomness, then it simply means all matter obeys simple natural vectors. I can't hypothesize God in this case since there would be no need for Him; everything is running smoothly without Him. Or more directly: I can't hypothesize unnecessary elements without more a priori evidence. Simple physical law would suffice.
Or, what is actually observed is nature simply plays itself out without the need for your extra level of unnecessary confusion and contradiction. You can pretend your sky daddy waved his magic hand to make it all happen, but all that means is that you wouldn't have to grow up and stop pretending.
May ignorance leave you.
if god is the creator, then god is law. what did you think god was?
Hmm... I thought I was clear, anyways. In terms of 'matter obeys simple natural vectors'- true, but the initial vector (the thing that started it all so to speak) must have had a magnitude and direction (which a vector has by definition)- both the magnitude and direction were forced/created by God- everything else plays out automatically because of this force vector interacting with the rest. So again I'm talking about the initial conditions, not present conditions in which nature plays out.
But the initial conditions must be maintained in order for it to continue. That is its kind of like how the action potential in our bodies works. The action potential dies out unless it is re'amplified' along the path- in other words the process must be maintained. So 'natural laws' could account for the whole process from one synapse to another- but it is God that is making the connection between the synapse- if that is not maintained then the action potential dies out- Or if the whole system isn't maintained then you can have 'tetanus'. So natural laws are controlling everything- but it is God that maintains it.
BTW, I never said anything about everything being 'non-random', the point of this thread was only to show that we can't say 'either'.
Peace be upon
Seems more like the point is you trying to inject the concept of god where no gods are required, observed or hypothesized. You appear to be under the delusion that you can inject this concept to events that happened billions of years ago and then come up with the conclusion, 'we can't say either.'
What would be the big difference in whether your god waved his magic hand or the universe simply unfolded by itself.
Of course, it would automatically make your god irrelevant and non-existent if you actually did admit the universe unfolded on it's own, but that would go against your cult doctrines and indoctrination.
That's silly, natural laws do not require maintenance or enforcement. They follow from the concept of point of view invariance.
I don't think I said anything about maintaining natural laws, but the system.
Peace be unto you
God isn't "the creator" or law.
You were quite clear; and so was I. Your argument seems to be altering to the "Big Bang" issue. Beginnings and so forth. (Are you stipulating to there being no evidence for God in 'natural vectors' in the present era?)
But there's no further evidence for God's hand in the Big Bang either. I cannot discount God in such a process, but neither can I count Him; His alleged influence cannot be detected or rejected, barring astounding evidence to the contrary. Nor is there any requirement for a 'potential' to be maintained along a 'synapse' in such a case; we have known laws of potential action, and the assignment of a proportion of every physico-chemical interaction to heat. Is God then heat? Stochastic or standard loss of energy to disorder? Again, how could we test this?
Peace be upon
And unto you.
Not exactly.... creation of life itself is against predicted outcome of natural vectors- but again it did happen due to natural vectors- (which is what we observe) - what enabled this impossibility is that all natural vectors had the exact conditions required for life. So there is indirect evidence. But I agree there is no direct evidence of God, but there is no direct evidence for a lot of things, some things are implied by observations- gravity was implied before there was any proof of it.
Agreed.
There is no evidence to the contrary, but there is no evidence for it either- so I agree with you here.
Wait... are you talking about potential in the physiological sense (in the body) or with respect to the universe?
That is an interesting thought..... But I would think not because if he was simply heat then he would be a derivative of the natural vectors and not the creator of the vector.
And I'm stipulating that he created the vectors, while heat is simply a derivative of an interacting vector so to speak.
In terms of physics I guess. If the Universe was a closed system and that the reactions of each vector result in everything- then every force vector must have had an equal and opposite force vector- so if it was all internal and its a closed system then the Net force of system would be 0 at all times.
Going back to the beginning then- if the system had net force of 0 before the first interaction then I would have to think the initial vector had 0 force to begin with because it is a closed system- and if the net force is 0 and then the force before the interaction must be 0 for the vector in order for the the Net force of the system to be 0- otherwise it would be non-zero. With 0 force nothing can be done- so the initial force must be supplied from an external source so which would supply the system with an initial force to the vector- which with the interaction will yield a net force of 0 to the system as well.
Now if the universe was eternal that would be another story, also if the universe was a real perpetual motion machine - which would break the first two laws of thermodynamics- then the above physics can be disregarded- (since all current physics would have to be re-wrote if this were true)
Peace be unto you
Last edited:
That is not evidence for God. There are likely to be trillions and trillions of planets in the universe, and life would only arise in those few suitable for it to arise. All life forms would find themselves on a planet uniquely suited for life!