The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

[Tuuvi]

It's a version of "God of the Gaps".

But isn't God of the Gaps looking for areas/phenomenon that haven't been able to be explained by science yet and attributing God to them in an effort to find proof that he exists? I'm not looking to find proof of God, I'm only speculating on how his power might work. Plus I'm not looking at occurrences that can't be explained by science, but the opposite.

It's really not all that complicated.

Natural Law is what we generally call the underlying structure of the universe - if God wants to change something after the Creation he has to interfere with those laws.

For example - Jesus walked on water according to the Gospel but the surface of water does not have the tensile strenth to support the weight of a fully grown man. I have heard all the nonsense explanations you care to put up, but the simple fact is that the only sensible one is that Jesus violated the laws of physics.

I understand now thanks. Looks like I'm going to have to give up this line of thought as far as miracles are concerned, it's obviously wrong from a Christian perspective.

[Papewaio]

God of the Gaps... Is not a strong strategic position.

Sure 10,000 plus years ago while munching on a woolly mammoth steak there were plenty of Gaps. Those Gaps have decreased over time. So on trends I wouldn't use the gaps as anything to base a religion on. The gaps are where science goes to explore for answers.

Also gaps do not define which god/s would be their ruler. Gaps are not proof of a particular god. We talk about the Christian one because that is the one most of us were raised by. Our parents cultural choices do not determine how the world was created.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tuuvi, you have had some excellent answers already.

But here is mine: When you start defending your belief with arguments that "God" might be something quite ordinary, you at the very same time weaken your very own position, as it will be very hard to then defend why it wouldn't just BE something ordinary.

You can see God in a baby's smile. Most people will just see a baby's smile, without referencing it to a book written 2000 years ago.

When you talk about smiting, eternal fires of hell, creation... You will start to get my agnostic attention.

[Beskar]

But here is mine: When you start defending your belief with arguments that "God" might be something quite ordinary, you at the very same time weaken your very own position, as it will be very hard to then defend why it wouldn't just BE something ordinary.

It is more the problem which "Religious Moderates" face and which is why this issue tends to polarise people. I symphase to what Tuuvi is going through, as I went through something similar. He comes into the argument attempting to refute an assertion I am making about definitions of "god" then ends up being told by "both sides" as I say "a god is defined as supernatural and infalfisible, thus there is no god" and he has PVC on the other side going "God is God because he suspends reality and inflicts his will upon it, violating its very fabric". He then finds himself in a situation where he grows more sceptical as what he attempted to counter was in fact correct, or he decides to start moving towards PVC's position seeing being sceptical as a negative direction, or they simply run away from the entire debate and pretend it never existed. Funnily enough, I did the second option at first, I went "more religious" in a desperate attempt to 'consolidate my faith", well, you can pretty much guess how successful that was, trust me, pantheism isn't a great alternative either.

But back to the "God of the Gaps", to expand upon it a little problem as to the polarisation, the issue with this is, Science keeps constructing the understanding of the universe and in expanding in this knowledge, which like Pap hinted at, back many many many years ago, there were lots of gaps, now there aren't as much, so in an essence, "god" keeps getting pushed back and back into ever growing smaller gaps. This poses a philosophical issue for the concept of "god", as "god" is on the 'run away from progress' and is effectively an "argument from ignorance".

To add to that point about ignorance though, some people argue because "god" cannot be "disproved", that their holy book is correct. Which when you think about the thousands of different religious books there are, it would be pretty safe argument to state that it is most likely not the case to be true. (the books within the bible contradict enough by themselves...)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But isn't God of the Gaps looking for areas/phenomenon that haven't been able to be explained by science yet and attributing God to them in an effort to find proof that he exists? I'm not looking to find proof of God, I'm only speculating on how his power might work. Plus I'm not looking at occurrences that can't be explained by science, but the opposite.

Yes, but if something is explained by science it has not intentionality, so how can you tell such a "God given" occurence from the normal progression of the universe?

Of course, at it's most basic a "miracle" might just be a highly unlikely natural event, which would still be impossible to identify but we might infer its miraculousness from its sheer unlikelyness.

I understand now thanks. Looks like I'm going to have to give up this line of thought as far as miracles are concerned, it's obviously wrong from a Christian perspective.

don't put too much stock in Tiaexz's view of the world though - you don't have to believe in miracles to believe God created and ordered the universe and everything in it because Creation is outside Science, which only deals with created things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, and I'm not going to discuss "God the Gaps" because we all agree it's silly - beyond saying that the "First Cause" does not qualify because it occured "beeforee time began", which is an oxymoronic statement, thus proving the question is outside thee scientific remit.

[Papewaio]

First Cause is also susceptible to Occam's Razor.

If a theory comes along that is a better fit then requiring a first cause event then so be it ;)

[Sigurd]

Be careful not to cut yourselves on Occam's razor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First Cause is also susceptible to Occam's Razor.

If a theory comes along that is a better fit then requiring a first cause event then so be it ;)

No it isn't - because it would have to be a formal explanation to be suscesptable.

If you were to insist I could simple say that all things which are created have causes and as the universe is a created thing (it has a beginning) it therefore has a creator.

Of course, that falls down because I don't actually know the universe was created - I merely infer it from the apparent beginning of time.

On to of that, William Ockham saud the razor could not be applied to God - and this from a man who used it to "prove" the body and blood of Christ were his physical body and blood in substance as well as spirt (transubstantiation) but without the attendant accidents.

[Kadagar_AV]

No it isn't - because it would have to be a formal explanation to be suscesptable.

If you were to insist I could simple say that all things which are created have causes and as the universe is a created thing (it has a beginning) it therefore has a creator.

Of course, that falls down because I don't actually know the universe was created - I merely infer it from the apparent beginning of time.

On to of that, William Ockham saud the razor could not be applied to God - and this from a man who used it to "prove" the body and blood of Christ were his physical body and blood in substance as well as spirt (transubstantiation) but without the attendant accidents.

I think M-theory is pretty cool, and it goes well beyond the BB theory without a need for a biblical god.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

True. This is the basic problem with trying to apply the razor in any shape or form: it doesn't actually simplify things (yet).

M theory still doesn't explain why there is matter or energy in the first place. M theory is great at explaining how the universe came to be as it is, in the same way the Goldilocks zone is great for explaining why we came to inhabit Earth and not Venus. But then the question remains "how did M-verse" come into being? Where did that stuff come from?

Then again neither does any theology deign to explain where their first thingies/beings/causes come from. For instance Christianity is pretty good at explaining how the universe came into being, in principle: "because God made it". Unfortunately it doesn't explain why there is a God, how God came into being, what God is made of, what the universe was made of/how God made the stuff he needed to make the universe, or even how God made the universe with that stuff.

So in the one case you rephrase the question in a "higher order", more general form (M-theory); in the other you simply add yet another inexplicable "term" to the "equation" and the equation still does not answer the key question of "why". That is, working backwards, you cannot explain why creation ended up the way it is, purely because you cannot explain yet why the universe is how it is. M theory can at least do that, but it adds the big presumption that other universes are likely to exist and also does not explain why any universe should exist at all.

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.

I think we need to take a step back here and look at what the razor is, and what it isn't:

The razor is not proof, merely an indication of likelyhood.

The razor does not prefer the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation when all explanations are equally plausible.

What this means is that in order to apply the razor to a Divinely ordained universe you first have to have some measure of how plausible that is compared to a universe that ordered itself, "just because".

M-theory may explain the mechanics of how the universe came to be, but that isn't a "why" explanation, so it isn't in competition with any God hypothesis. The biggest problem with M-theory is like many theories of the last 10-15 years is that it tries to use multiple universes to get around the problem of unlikleyness.

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To the best of my understanding, you have that rather the wrong way round. What M theory allows for is that there is more than one configuration which leads to a universe (not necessarily the same as ours). In fact, 100s of thousands of possible configurations. Thus the odds of a universe "happening" improve, by many orders of magnitudes.

Which is to say that while our universe may be considered to be the result of pure chance, a lucky draw in M theory, the existence of at least one universe is less so. The key here is that if you believe in one universe then you must assume numerous "constants" in physics to be axioms rather than part of our good fortune (we would not exist if they were not "just so"). With M theory you no longer require such values to be axioms, much like how carbon based lifeforms dependent on liquid water is not a given on every planet but pretty much the defining characteristic of Earth.

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

So the idea that our universe is the "lucky" one among an infinite number is actually no more likely than it being the only one. In fact, it is probably less likely because we knowthis universe exists, but we have no evidence for other universes except for a piece of pseudo-science that claims they are necessary for the "anthropomorthic" universe.

Let's look at that concept for a moment - a universe ideally fitted to us? Odd? No, not at all because we were created for and by it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you misread me somewhat.

My point is, that what is good enough for the best brains we have is good enough for me. I am not educated enough in either theology or abstract physics to have a clue.

My observation is based on the characters supporting the various theories, not on the theories themselves.

I also base my observation on my main choice of study - history. And throughout history, whenever science has come to grips with the church, science has won. History also shows that science does not seek political advantages or have agendas, whereas the same can not be said about the church, That makes me skeptical towards the church.

I hope that cleared up my viewpoint

I get it - I picked you to quote because I didn't want to just repeat myself for everyone else.

The difficulty is in knowing who the "best" minds are.

Scientists are no better at theology than theologians are at science (except Newton).

In fact, science is politicised all the time - look at the Big Bang, Fred Hoyle refused to accept it because he was an atheist and the Jesuits loved it because it brought God back into the creation game in a BIG way.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah, no - I do not have it backwards.

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely, two is therfore even less likely, and 100 even less likely.

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

[Papewaio]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No you are looking at a specific number of universes, whereas M theory posits any (unknown) number of universes such that there is at least one.

For example, you falling in love when you look at someone at first sight may not seem terribly likely, right now. However it could happen. But the odds of such a crush happening exactly once in your lifetime are stacked against you even more than the odds of this happening at least once. That is not to say you are more likely to fall in love at first sight 5 times rather than just one, instead you are more likely to do so either one, two, three, four or five times than just the one time.

Yes, but it's more likely I will fall in love once than five times - by introducing multiple universes you are asking two questions instead of one and needlessly complicating the issue. More universes are not more liely than fewere - therefore more univeres do not make this one more likely.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tellos, Pape, awesome answers, thank you :)

Tellos example is actually kind of spot on.


However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

What we, as somewhat intelligent beings can do, is look at what people are defending what ideas, and then use the razor on that observation.

We had a guy back when I was in school who was sooo brilliant, not just in math, he just... got stuff... I never thought myself stupid, or even on par intelligence, but I can tell you I openly admit his intellect brushed mine away.

Now, the people HE will listen to and learn from, are the people I will sign of under.


Then there was this other quirky guy, you know the type, the one you want to be nice to but just find it so hard - when he continues to shower in his underwear and gets all sweaty during sexual education... Well he went on to be a priest.


Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming we are unique has a trend if being wrong.

We are not in a system where the sun rotates around the Earth and the stars set on crystal shells around us.

We are not the centre of the universe, Or galaxy, or solar system. Our sun is an ordinary main sequence star.

Everytime we find out that we aren't that unique.

So I would be wary to state we are the only universe as probably will go the same way as heliocentrism.

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

[Kadagar_AV]

I did not say that were were the only universe, I said that we have evidence for no others. The addition of multiple universe is used as a "crane" to explain away or own universe.

As a theory that makes it suspect.

"... and yet it moves."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

However, to return to you PVC, do you seriously claim that the people going into theology is as brilliant as those going into science? You are of course correct that we can't apply the razor to the ideas, and what I mean with that is that WE can't, other more suited people probably can.

...

Don't get me wrong, I met this absolutely wonderful priest the other week, I know that type also exists. Just... Oh well, I think you get my point already.

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"... and yet it moves."

He never said it, and he was wrong.

Making the look an idiot Pope when he gives you a commission to investigate heliocentrism will not go well.

Compare with Keppler, the Protestant.

[Kadagar_AV]

Richard Dawkins can't grasp basic theological concepts, he just can't, Christopher Hitches struggled (not a scientist, but extremely clever) to understand the mindset and the cecepts - he declared them totally absurd despite the testimony of his own brother to the contrary.

Scientists are mechanically brilliant - that doesn't mean they have anything to say about any other field.

Socrates described the delusion, that because the doctor can treat illness he believes he can tell the shipwright his trade.

Tellos is extremely clever, but he and others here including yourself, and I say this with great respect, often fail to grasp what are to myself and others in my field consider basic concepts. Do not mistake me, I do mean "fail to grasp" and not simply "dissagree".

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's because there is no "basic" theological concept except: "I have a belief that what someone or something told me is true". Then from that basic concept, people build new concepts. Then they borrow concepts from each other, strengthening each others views, from that union springs a more advanced concept - and so on.... To the extent of there not only being a hell, but there are theological discussions about different circles of this said hell. The debate in the mind of the christian has turned to understanding the different finer variations rather than questioning the very fundamental facts.

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.

Richard Dawkin's can't grasp your basic theological concept, because he, just like I, question the VERY basic basic theological concept, and if you do that, you per automatic brush away every concept springing from it.

This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Science proceeds from a similar belief - that we live in an ordered universe, a belief borrowed from Christian theologians.

The Greeks, not even the Jews, concieved of the linear progression of time in the West before the Christians. Christianity arguably invented out concept of time, that the world had a beginning and an end.



This is not true - I know atheist theologians who are able to function very well. Belief is not a prerequisite to understanding. I have a working understanding of Islam, but I don't believe a word of it.

That is just plain wrong. We see evidence for a ordered universe, but we have no belief in it. Heck, we can't even make our physicist macro theories fit with our micro theories. Even though both theories seem to work on their own, they also seem more or less mutually exclusive. M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

And what say's time is linear? From what I know time = space, no? And we by now KNOW that things can move in a set space in no time... Again, hence M-theory.

So if we can change space we can change time, or maybe the other way around, or maybe a third way around I don't get.



As to your second argument, I have a working understanding of Christianity, but I don't believe a word of it. You however seem to lack a working understanding for science at large, and most definitively for the m-theory in particular. For the latter I dont' blame you, I can appreciate it but I don't get it either, i do however get enough of the stuff leading up to it to think it's worth giving a shot.

And your example had nothing to do with what I said. Again, I and dawkin's question the very very very principle of christianity, that there is a god. Thus we also brush away any concept springing from it. isn't that kind of natural?

Just like YOU yourself question the basic principle of, say, the Nordic religion, thus you also question anything sprung from it.

You don't believe in Yggdrasil, thus you don't care what is on what branch and how that supposedly should affect our daily choices. You brush THAT off just as I brush you off. There are a plethora of basic theological concepts just like that, that you choose to brush off.

The ONLY thing all religions can have in common is a belief in science, that science, as it is based on what we observe and can test, hopefully one day will agree with them. I for one think that is very unlikely, but hey, Might be that the Branes from the M-theory are just carpets and science eventually do find out that the universe came to be because Jesus sitting on his fathers shoulder one day did spring cleaning and gave them a good old shrug, thus they rippled, collided, and we got the big bang creating the universe and later us with some dinosaurs and stuff in between. And jesus were like "opsie, my bad" and came down to clear up his mess (through a virgin birth) only to then be killed.

It COULD happen, it just isn't very likely.

[Montmorency]

The spontaneous creation of one universe seems unlikely

On what grounds do you state this?

[Sigurd]

M-theory is our best shot at it, but it is a very young theory, and still takes a lot of work and even more importantly TESTING (you know? No you don't, testing has never been very important in faith, has it?).

You do realize that M-Theory is not a theory per say? That it is just a collection of ideas, hopes and aspirations.
Hawkins never intended this to be more than that. And its hardly science. How would you go about testing something that is not observable? I am calling reverse Aquinas fallacy on this one.