Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Science and the arguments for/against the existence of God. Cosmology and Cosmogony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Science and the arguments for/against the existence of God. Cosmology and Cosmogony

    I differentiate Cosmogony from the science of Cosmology, as the philosophical and theological epistemology of the 'origins' of our physical existence. Cosmology in general is the physics of the physical existence of our universe and all possible universes. I will emphasize the Cosmology of 'origins' of our physical existence prior to the one plank time of the expansion of our universe when comparing it to cosmogony.

    Natural Laws we use to understand our physical existence are a product of our sciences. Science over time develops the human Natural Laws to explain and understand our physical existence as approximations of the ultimate Laws that determine everything which are only known by God, or in the case as some believe god(s) do not exist, the ultimate nature of our physical existence without god(s). For the purposes of my view in this thread is that both views are possible based on the scientific evidence at present which is neutral.

    Science, at present, cannot explain nor determine whether our physical existence is finite/temporal or infinite/eternal, nor the nature of the ultimate 'origins' of our physical existence. Nor is it likely that science can ever determine the existence/nonexistence, nor the nature of the Divine worlds of God. Even though I do not put limits on what science can ultimately explain, I do not believe that science can ultimately answer these questions.

    I believe that the present barrier of the one planck's time of the expansion of the universe is the present barrier between the physical science knowledge of our universe, ie the expansion of the universe, and the cosmology of origins, and theological cosmogony of 'origins,' before this time. In the science of cosmology the present knowledge of science is based on 'possible' models and theorems falsified by our knowledge of the Quantum world and theories like Relativity. Pretty much most models are based on the existence of something like a gravitational singularity prior to the expansion of the universe, therefore the expansion itself is not the beginning. At this point possible models propose such things as the collapse of a black hole, collision of two branes using string theory, and possibly M-theory where multiple universes form from Quantum fluctuations. One alternative without a singularity is the Loop Quantum Gravity model. The above referenced are possible models and theorems for the nature of our universes, and picking one model or selectively citing material form one model is not good science.

    I personally believe that the infinite/eternal, or the Hawking timeless view, of the nature of our physical existence are the best present possible conclusions based on the models and theorems concerning the possible existence of the multiverse Quantum World.

    The next post I will discribe the problem between the philosophical 'absolute nothing,' and the Quantum Zero State world sometimes described as 'nothing' by some scientists and layman.

    Unknowns and unanswered question concerning our physical existence are the driving force behind the Methodological Naturalism methods search for answers.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-03-2014, 05:04 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Good essay, Shuny! But, bad boy, Shuny. "Planck," not "plank." "Brane," not "bran," what some people eat for fiber. And, I'm not sure, it's "Planck's Time," taking the possessive form.
    Last edited by Truthseeker; 08-03-2014, 12:24 PM.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Good essay, Shuny! But, bad boy, Shuny. "Planck," not "plank." "Brane," not "bran," what some people eat for fiber. And, I'm not sure, it's "Planck's Time," taking the possessive form.
      You have shown the light on my weaknesses grammar and spelling. I corrected it. I prefer to use 'one planck as a unit like using 'one inch.'
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, Shuny, we have "Planck's Length," "Planck's constant," as well as "Planck's Time." You are being ambiguous.
        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          No, Shuny, we have "Planck's Length," "Planck's constant," as well as "Planck's Time." You are being ambiguous.
          Thank you for the assistance!
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            I differentiate Cosmogony from the science of Cosmology, as the philosophical and theological epistemology of the 'origins' of our physical existence. Cosmology in general is the physics of the physical existence of our universe and all possible universes. I will emphasize the Cosmology of 'origins' of our physical existence prior to the one plank time of the expansion of our universe when comparing it to cosmogony.

            Natural Laws we use to understand our physical existence are a product of our sciences. Science over time develops the human Natural Laws to explain and understand our physical existence as approximations of the ultimate Laws that determine everything which are only known by God, or in the case as some believe god(s) do not exist, the ultimate nature of our physical existence without god(s). For the purposes of my view in this thread is that both views are possible based on the scientific evidence at present which is neutral.

            Science, at present, cannot explain nor determine whether our physical existence is finite/temporal or infinite/eternal, nor the nature of the ultimate 'origins' of our physical existence. Nor is it likely that science can ever determine the existence/nonexistence, nor the nature of the Divine worlds of God. Even though I do not put limits on what science can ultimately explain, I do not believe that science can ultimately answer these questions.

            I believe that the present barrier of the one planck's time of the expansion of the universe is the present barrier between the physical science knowledge of our universe, ie the expansion of the universe, and the cosmology of origins, and theological cosmogony of 'origins,' before this time. In the science of cosmology the present knowledge of science is based on 'possible' models and theorems falsified by our knowledge of the Quantum world and theories like Relativity. Pretty much most models are based on the existence of something like a gravitational singularity prior to the expansion of the universe, therefore the expansion itself is not the beginning. At this point possible models propose such things as the collapse of a black hole, collision of two branes using string theory, and possibly M-theory where multiple universes form from Quantum fluctuations. One alternative without a singularity is the Loop Quantum Gravity model. The above referenced are possible models and theorems for the nature of our universes, and picking one model or selectively citing material form one model is not good science.

            I personally believe that the infinite/eternal, or the Hawking timeless view, of the nature of our physical existence are the best present possible conclusions based on the models and theorems concerning the possible existence of the multiverse Quantum World.

            The next post I will discribe the problem between the philosophical 'absolute nothing,' and the Quantum Zero State world sometimes described as 'nothing' by some scientists and layman.

            Unknowns and unanswered question concerning our physical existence are the driving force behind the Methodological Naturalism methods search for answers.
            Nice post shunya, but my question to you would be where other than from ignorance does the concept of God enter into the picture? There is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural from out of nothing. There isn't even any evidence of nothingness or of no place from out of which something could arise. It boggles the mind to even contemplate the notion of nothingness. That things within eternity have a beginning doesn't mean that that from out of which they arose had a beginning or was itself created out of nothing and so by what reason should we assume that it did? Of course we are ignorant as to exactly what lies beyond our ability to see, beyond that which light has had time to reach us, but why on earth should we assume that there is nothingness there, that the universe came from out of nothing and is expanding into nothing, created by a supernatural being who apparently lives somewhere beyond that nothingness? It may not be illogical, but there is certainly nothing logical about it, if i can put it that way, whereas the concept of an eternal and natural existence doesn't have these apparent oddities to overcome.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Nice post shunya, but my question to you would be where other than from ignorance does the concept of God enter into the picture? There is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural from out of nothing.
              Good question Jim.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Nice post shunya, but my question to you would be where other than from ignorance does the concept of God enter into the picture? There is no evidence of a supernatural creator of the natural from out of nothing. There isn't even any evidence of nothingness or of no place from out of which something could arise. It boggles the mind to even contemplate the notion of nothingness. That things within eternity have a beginning doesn't mean that that from out of which they arose had a beginning or was itself created out of nothing and so by what reason should we assume that it did? Of course we are ignorant as to exactly what lies beyond our ability to see, beyond that which light has had time to reach us, but why on earth should we assume that there is nothingness there, that the universe came from out of nothing and is expanding into nothing, created by a supernatural being who apparently lives somewhere beyond that nothingness? It may not be illogical, but there is certainly nothing logical about it, if i can put it that way, whereas the concept of an eternal and natural existence doesn't have these apparent oddities to overcome.
                This thread is not an argument for or against the existence of a 'Source' some call god(s). The purpose is to put the problems of traditional arguments based on science in perspective of the problems Judaism, Christianity and Islam over the Millennia.

                Basically the arguments and evidence for the existence, nor the non-existence of a 'Source' some call god(s) does not enter the picture as the evidence and the human knowledge of science is concerned. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism' which is Neutral to the issue. If anything is evidence against the ancient worldviews of God. Specific other arguments I would use for the existence of God are not the subject of this thread.

                Yes, we lack definitive knowledge prior to the one planck's time to base these Cosmogony arguments on the existence of God. Though we are not totally ignorant.

                Yes, there are no oddities to overcome that would indicate that God Created physical existence any way other then Naturally. I consider any consideration of the supernatural in Creation a contradiction based on the evidence, and God Created Naturally.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-04-2014, 07:45 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  Yes, there are no oddities to overcome that would indicate that God Created physical existence any way other then Naturally. I consider any consideration of the supernatural in Creation a contradiction based on the evidence, and God Created Naturally.
                  But nothing would exist without God creating it - correct? Creation is dependent on God, i.e. without an act of God creation would not exist - right?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    But nothing would exist without God creating it - correct? Creation is dependent on God, i.e. without an act of God creation would not exist - right?
                    OK, but not really the subject of the thread.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      OK, but not really the subject of the thread.
                      Ok, in that you agree? But let me ask, if everything is the result of natural cause and effect then there would be no evidence for God being involved - so why pose God? Jim's question is valid.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Ok, in that you agree? But let me ask, if everything is the result of natural cause and effect then there would be no evidence for God being involved - so why pose God? Jim's question is valid.
                        From the theist perspective, everything is not a result of natural causes. This would be a Metaphysical Naturalist view. My view God is simple based on the consistent scientific evidence that God used natural laws and methods to Create. There is no evidence of oddities in conflict with science or a supernatural explanation for Creation.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          From the theist perspective, everything is not a result of natural causes. This would be a Metaphysical Naturalist view. My view God is simple based on the consistent scientific evidence that God used natural laws and methods to Create. There is no evidence of oddities in conflict with science or a supernatural explanation for Creation.
                          So there is no actual evidence for God, if everything can be explained by natural law. Adding God to the mix would be unnecessary as Jim suggested.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            So there is no actual evidence for God, if everything can be explained by natural law. Adding God to the mix would be unnecessary as Jim suggested.
                            No. Please cite me properly based on my posts. There is no actual physical evidence for the existence of god(s).

                            Science cannot, provide evidence,nor address questions of the existence nor non-existence of God.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-04-2014, 01:11 PM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No. Please cite me properly based on my posts.

                              Science cannot, provide evidence,nor address questions of the existence nor non-existence of God.
                              Is it your view that 'revelation' provides some kind of nonscientific 'evidence' for the existence of God?
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                              15 responses
                              120 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X