Another 'What if'? .....
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
I haven't been to these forums in years (the last time I was here this "Brain Box" didn't even exist), but I randomly decided to pop in for old time's sake and this topic intrigued me.
I have to strenuously agree with Tshaka's post on the last page, but let me expound with a few thoughts of my own.
Let's say we prove that the universe "created" itself. And I'll take that to mean, we've discovered the mechanism by which the universe assembled itself from its component parts. Okay, so what is the universe made out of? Well, let's see, at the simplest level, we have matter and energy. Near as we can figure, matter and energy were released in an explosion so powerful it flung them across huge swaths of nothingness and created the fabric of space - the universe. Well and good. But back it up a step. Where did matter and energy come from? If one begat the other, where did the first come from? If they spontaneously assembled themselves from something that existed before matter or energy, what was it, and where did that come from? Back it up enough steps and you eventually inevitably come to a point where you have to acknowledge one of two things: Either A) that something came from nothing, or B) that something has always existed and therefore had no beginning. If that sounds familiar, it should: those are characteristics traditionally ascribed in religions to the supreme being. So regardless of whether you acknowledge it as a deity or not, you believe in something that defies natural explanation; something supernatural. A god without the title. Given that fact, proving conclusively that the universe "created" itself would change nothing for either the religious or the non-believer. The religious will continue to ascribe the unknowable - the spontaneous creation of something from nothing - to their deities, and the non-believer will continue to ascribe the unknowable to some mysterious anomaly of a self-created "nature" or "universe". You've created a false dilemma.
I have to strenuously agree with Tshaka's post on the last page, but let me expound with a few thoughts of my own.
Let's say we prove that the universe "created" itself. And I'll take that to mean, we've discovered the mechanism by which the universe assembled itself from its component parts. Okay, so what is the universe made out of? Well, let's see, at the simplest level, we have matter and energy. Near as we can figure, matter and energy were released in an explosion so powerful it flung them across huge swaths of nothingness and created the fabric of space - the universe. Well and good. But back it up a step. Where did matter and energy come from? If one begat the other, where did the first come from? If they spontaneously assembled themselves from something that existed before matter or energy, what was it, and where did that come from? Back it up enough steps and you eventually inevitably come to a point where you have to acknowledge one of two things: Either A) that something came from nothing, or B) that something has always existed and therefore had no beginning. If that sounds familiar, it should: those are characteristics traditionally ascribed in religions to the supreme being. So regardless of whether you acknowledge it as a deity or not, you believe in something that defies natural explanation; something supernatural. A god without the title. Given that fact, proving conclusively that the universe "created" itself would change nothing for either the religious or the non-believer. The religious will continue to ascribe the unknowable - the spontaneous creation of something from nothing - to their deities, and the non-believer will continue to ascribe the unknowable to some mysterious anomaly of a self-created "nature" or "universe". You've created a false dilemma.
Doc, I might be wrong but a few of us were posting about this very subject in another thread somewhere but I never really saw it as a false dilemma, I appreciated it for what it was, an inevitable derivative of rational thinking.
This reductionist line of thinking will always grind to a halt whether we have a self-generated universe or not .... I would however try to resist telling everybody they have just indulged themselves in a false dilemma.
I'd like to think we tried to set out the limitations of just how far we can take a rational line of thought when looking at the creation of the universe.
You can of course disappear up yer own ass very quickly if you ain't careful but I'd like to think we can maybe nudge the envelope a little further back rather than falling foul of what you describe as a false dilemma, implying some sort of paradox or cul-de-sac for rational thought.
Do a bit of nudging Doc and you'll impress me, this return post of yours is smelling kinda smug to me and I'm sure you didn't intend it that way.
Scientific theory of creation can never be 100% proved, changes as time goes by and will always be a theory
Religions are based on beliefs which also change over time and cannot be 100% proved
What's the difference between a theory and belief, not a lot really
So is the scientific theory of creation, just another religion?
Religions are based on beliefs which also change over time and cannot be 100% proved
What's the difference between a theory and belief, not a lot really
So is the scientific theory of creation, just another religion?
Er ... DW, did you graduate in 'Stating the fackin obvious'?
Theories are faith based until conclusive proof is forthcoming ... the point being, science is always looking for those proofs and adjusts accordingly.
Religions are always faith based and never look outside their own particular doctrine and thus can never attain the status of truth, merely religious truth which for the most part is meaningless.
And remember here, when faith begins, knowledge ends ... if it wasn't this way, it wouldn't be described as faith, it would be seen as knowledge.
As to your last question of the scientific theory of creation being just another religion?
Science is always looking to nudge boundaries, religion is always looking to maintain them .... a scientific theory can never be a religion, science isn't that arrogant.
Robbo,
Certainly no smugness intended, just throwing in my inflation-diminished 2 American cents
If the "what if" scenario is stretching the bounds of scientific possibility to state that we've indeed discovered with full understanding how something came from nothing spontaneously - how to create matter and energy themselves (remember that our current physics is still stuck on the axioms of conservation of energy and matter - they can't be created or destroyed, they just change form), well then maybe you've got a religious identity crisis on your hands as we'll have learned how to do something hitherto impossible, ascribable only to God or some one-time-only supernatural phenomenon. As I said though, that scenario is pushing the bounds of scientific possibility. Some scientific philosophers would say that it defies the bounds of scientific possibility. It certainly would defy the known laws of physics and turn everything we know about science on its head. In that sense, this is not really a natural derivative of rational thinking (in terms of "rational" science, which I would take to mean "orthodox" science), but a highly irrational speculation.
But if that's the scenario, perhaps the bigger implication than the moral/religious one is that we consequently will have given ourselves the ability to create new universes. Can there be more than one? Would the knowledge itself end up leading us to destroy ourselves with it?
And even at that, I'm still not sure the believer or the non-believer would really shift much in their beliefs. The believer would ascribe to God the guidance that led to the knowledge, and the non-believer would only have his faith in the natural strengthened. For the truly faithful, God is beyond science, and consequently science will not change their belief. If you don't believe there's a God or a God-given moral code, then morality is relative and this discovery wouldn't have an impact one way or the other.
Certainly no smugness intended, just throwing in my inflation-diminished 2 American cents
If the "what if" scenario is stretching the bounds of scientific possibility to state that we've indeed discovered with full understanding how something came from nothing spontaneously - how to create matter and energy themselves (remember that our current physics is still stuck on the axioms of conservation of energy and matter - they can't be created or destroyed, they just change form), well then maybe you've got a religious identity crisis on your hands as we'll have learned how to do something hitherto impossible, ascribable only to God or some one-time-only supernatural phenomenon. As I said though, that scenario is pushing the bounds of scientific possibility. Some scientific philosophers would say that it defies the bounds of scientific possibility. It certainly would defy the known laws of physics and turn everything we know about science on its head. In that sense, this is not really a natural derivative of rational thinking (in terms of "rational" science, which I would take to mean "orthodox" science), but a highly irrational speculation.
But if that's the scenario, perhaps the bigger implication than the moral/religious one is that we consequently will have given ourselves the ability to create new universes. Can there be more than one? Would the knowledge itself end up leading us to destroy ourselves with it?
And even at that, I'm still not sure the believer or the non-believer would really shift much in their beliefs. The believer would ascribe to God the guidance that led to the knowledge, and the non-believer would only have his faith in the natural strengthened. For the truly faithful, God is beyond science, and consequently science will not change their belief. If you don't believe there's a God or a God-given moral code, then morality is relative and this discovery wouldn't have an impact one way or the other.
With all due respect I'd have to disagree with your assessment of "religious truth." I'd actually label it spiritual truth as I find religion often shackles man more than it frees him. Anywho, spiritual truth gives great meaning to a great many people, thus it isn't meaningless in the least. From the positive side of things it gives people something higher than themselves to believe in which is very much needed because without that, I believe people have a great potential to do unspeakable things to each other. Just look how they've perverted religion to do those very unspeakable things. Now take away a "final judge" and watch what people do to each other when left to their own devices and desires.
In terms of knowledge and faith, I'll say again as I've said it before, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive and neither are faith and knowledge. One may posses a profound understanding of the natural world around oneself while maintaining a deep reverence for the notion, or even belief in a higher being. We must remember that science only deals with what we can touch. It only deals with reproducible results. Of course there's always theoretical sciences but those take quite a bit of faith to pursue (ie, dark matter) and just as much faith to believe as the notion of a divine Creator.
Ok, it's late...bed time for me.
My apologies then Doc, it must have been the oft-viewed limitations of web-speak rearing its ugly head again.Robbo,
Certainly no smugness intended, just throwing in my inflation-diminished 2 American cents
I'd agree in part, forefront thinkers know full well we hit the wall when we ponder such imponderables and that wall is the realisation we are not equipped to look past the question we construct.
What masquerades as paradox or even 'false dilemma' is merely the limitation of our intellect, it's just that some people refuse to acknowledge there is such a limit, presumably predicated upon an idea that 'imagination knows no bounds' unleashing the possibility of 'a prori' discoveries.
This knowledge is gained independent of experience exampled par excellence by Einstein when pondering his relativity dalliance.
Sorry Doc, but this is hogwash mate, the fact we might be able to pry open the possibility of innumerate universes isn't necessarily gonna give rise to self-destruction ..... your ponderance seems a little skewed here because there are a million and one other questions I'd wanna ask before thinking about a baseless self-destruction consequence.
I agree for the most part, I think for most people, religious or not, the fact we might have self-created would fall on stoney ground.
However, for the thinker who might be religious, it would cause some dilemma for obvious reasons ... but, science already acknowledges its own limitation which is really not so much the limitations of the natural laws that permeate our universe but our ability to frame and understand them; at this point, science itself looks toward a god creator and then we have an ironic parallel between science and religion, both acknowledge or conclude, god is outside of this universe and most certainly not bound by any of its conventions.
Nice post Doc, you made me think which is a bit of a rare occasion in my life
I have just seen and read thsaka's post above which needs responding to ... I got a headache coming
I agree, religion does shackle men and that's exactly why I used that descriptive.
I think tshaka, because you have revamped religious to spiritual, it is pretty pointless in me responding here because I am rebutting a point i never made, you actually drew a distinction between religious and spiritual but my original usage still stands accordingly mate and makes any rebuttal from me to this part, academic.
If you maintain my original usage, then religion and science are perhaps not mutually exclusive but they sure are strange bedfellows, if not at times, estranged.
Tshaka, in changing my usage, you have argued a point that I would tend to agree with anyway but if you look at what I wrote, I hope it now makes more sense to you ....
Mr brain hurts and it's looking much like beddy byes time to me..... zzzzzzzzz