Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[JohnA]

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

You're the only one who is continuing to make attempts at slander.

So evidently you're a very poor looser.

And last time I checked, I was the only one giving sources.

Sources for what?

Every source you offered only proved my position.

Ok.

You win.

Krauss and Hawking lied.
Krauss lied in the interview source I posted: his nothing reverts to as you say; a space filled with a field. He also lied in his video when he said science does not say the universe is mystical.
Hawking lied about the no boundary proposal, lied about his logic for the beginning of time when he wrote the articles (the ones I referenced).

Your understanding of proof is beyond math and clearly refers to whisky. Assertion of un-evidenced claims are clearly facts, no need for evidence according to your whiskey proof.

The real question is: so what? The evidence is in our posts, open for any reader to read.

I can now understand your mystical claim: you anchor your faculties in it. Am impressed.

[olavisjo]

.

Krauss lied in the interview source I posted: his nothing reverts to as you say; a space filled with a field.

I agree, with you, that he was being very dishonest about calling the quantum vacuum "nothing" when it clearly is "something".
It seems to me that selling books is more important to him than doing science.

[JohnA]

.

Krauss lied in the interview source I posted: his nothing reverts to as you say; a space filled with a field.

I agree, with you, that he was being very dishonest about calling the quantum vacuum "nothing" when it clearly is "something".
It seems to me that selling books is more important to him than doing science.

Actually, am pretending to obfuscate similar to some obscurantist here.
Krauss' nothing is lack of space, time, particles and 'DI fields'. He uses physics to explain the logic. DI is upset about this, he wants Krauss to use nothing to explain nothing, using physics to explain how nothing results in everything is not mystical enough.

I posted a source where Krauss explain quite clear that he does not refer to a quantum vacuum when he refers to 'nothing'.

Who is the better obscurantist?

[keithprosser3]

Who is the better obscurantist?

I'd say DI does it with less obvious effort.

All I can say is that DI's version of mysticism does nothing for me. DI's posts strike me as having 'superficial depth' (a real oxymoron, a word DI uses rather loosely).
Full of deep sounding questions, empty of any actual content. If anybody feels differently, good luck to them.

[Divine Insight]

Hawking lied about his logic for the beginning of time when he wrote the articles (the ones I referenced).

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of that then YES, Hawking isn't being careful when he speaks about the beginning of time as we know it.

In fact, I would love to sit down with Hawking himself ad discuss this very topic because he is indeed making an error here.

1. Hawking admits to starting with QM.
2. Quantum Mechanics demands that things change.
3. Things cannot change without time being a component.

Therefore, Hawkings universe is not the beginning of time as he claims.

In fact, Hawking should know. He most likely does know better. And this is why I would like to sit down and discuss this topic with him. I'm sure that once I explain my views he will agree with me on the details.

Here's my view.

In the Quantum World time is non-entropic. That is to say that it is not tied up with entropy. It can't be. There is no entropy in the Quantum World. But there is change. There may not even be such a thing as "space" in the quantum world. That is a more difficult thing to know. But if there is such a thing as "space" in the quantum world it is not tied together with "time" (i.e. with change).

Now when the macro world comes into being time and space because intimately entwined. They become dependently entangled. And we end up with Einstein's observation of what we call a "fabric" of spacetime. Spacetime has a property of entropy. In other words, the time (or process of change) that has become entangled with space has become entropic time (change that is dependent upon entropy).

So Hawking is actually wrong if he claims that "Time" began with the Big Bang. This is, of course, absolutely true if he's starting with the postulate that the laws of QM are already in place. Which is indeed one of his foundational premises.

So he's starting "time" (things changing) in the quantum realm. And "time" (things changing) does not begin with the Big Bang. But what does happen during the Big Bang event is that "Time" (things changing) becomes entangled with space in a way that produces a fabric of spacetime that has entropic properties (i.e. it obeys the law of entropy).

If Hawking wants to be more precise in this description he should say that "Entropy" began with the Big Bang. Not that time began with the Big Bang.

So yes, I do have a bone to pick with some of Stephen Hawking's claims and jargon. And I think if I sat down with him and explained my concerns he would see where I have a point. He might then be more careful in his claims.

It's not necessarily that he outright wrong. He's just not paying attention to the subtle details and he's being sloppy in his language and claims.

I hold that the following conditional statement is true:

IF a person begins with the postulate that a Quantum Field of potentiality exists (which Hawking does) THEN they cannot say that time came into being with the Big Bang, they can only say that an interdependent fabric of spacetime arose.

In fact to be more accurate what they should really be saying is that entropy came into being with the Big Bang. Not time. Time was already postulated to exist when the postulate of a Quantum Field of potentiality was included as a premise. It just wasn't yet entangled with space in a way that produces entropy.

~~~~

Personally I find this particular observation to be quite interesting because it begs the question of whether or not the very concept of space itself has any meaning in the quantum realm at all. Do space and time both exist in the quantum world but they are simply not yet entangled to create entropy? Or is there no space in the quantum realm at all? Perhaps it's only space that is created in the Big Bang. And as it is created it is created in such a way to make it intimately dependent upon time (change) so that it must then unfold in a way that obeys the thermodynamic law of entropy.

So for me, this is a very interesting scientific question in general. One that hasn't truly been address insofar as I know. I do know that Paul Davis touched on this in his book "About Time". But that book is fairly old now and the concepts that Paul Davis addresses in his book need to be re-visited.

Other people have addressed these idea too in passing. I think Lee Smolin addresses this in his book "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity". And Sean Carrol might address it also in his book, "From Eternity to Here". But non of them address it in great depth. Possibly because there simply may not be any way to get at the answer scientifically.

[Divine Insight]

Krauss' nothing is lack of space, time, particles and 'DI fields'. He uses physics to explain the logic. DI is upset about this, he wants Krauss to use nothing to explain nothing, using physics to explain how nothing results in everything is not mystical enough.

I don't expect Kruass to explain how nothing results in everything. All I expect from Kruass is an open confession that he's not starting with nothing. He does confess this in the fine print, but he sweep this fact under the carpet as though it's trivial. He also proclaims that we need to "Change our views of what nothing means". In other words, he has personally accepted that in modern physics, the term "nothing" has come to mean "Quantum Fields of Potentiality".

I posted a source where Krauss explain quite clear that he does not refer to a quantum vacuum when he refers to 'nothing'.

Who is the better obscurantist?

That's not true.

I posted a quote from your very link where Krauss himself confesses that he is indeed starting with Quantum Field Theory.

Here it is again:

"In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University, published A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory."

This comes from the article that you linked to here: Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?

Krauss openly admits that he's presuming Quantum Field Theory.

Now if you want to talk about and obscurantist Kruass is a prime example of this.

Here in this same article he is confronted with this question directly:

Excerpt from the Article:

It sounds like you're arguing that 'nothing' is really a quantum vacuum, and that a quantum vacuum is unstable in such a way as to make the production of matter and space inevitable. But a quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing?

Krauss: That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever, I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying the laws of quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum. That's a later stage.

Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing, you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality. And if the "nothing" of reality is full of stuff, then I'll go with that.

But I don't have to accept that argument, because space didn't exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created; they were created along with the universe, at least in the multiverse picture. The forces of nature, the definition of particles---all these things come into existence with the universe, and in a different universe, different forces and different particles might exist. We don't yet have the mathematics to describe a multiverse, and so I don't know what laws are fixed. I also don't have a quantum theory of gravity, so I can't tell you for certain how space comes into existence, but to make the argument that a quantum vacuum that has particles is the same as one that doesn't have particles is to not understand field theory.

Krauss makes all manner of excuses for having started with Quantum Field Theory and acts like it's nothing. But it's not. And this is the crucial point that I disagree with Kruass on.

Krauss also confesses that he doesn't yet have the mathematics to describe a multiverse theory and so he doesn't know what laws are fixed and what laws are not fixed. (highlighted in blue in his own words above)

Krauss also confesses that he also doen't have a quantum theory of gravity, so he can't tell you for certain how space comes into existence (highlighted in brown in his own words above)

He's basically confessing that much of his own theory is nothing other than speculation based upon faith-based hopes and dreams that current hypotheses might someday potentially offer answers to question that he can't even currently address.

Krauss just confessed that he can't say for certain how space comes into existence!

Yet this is precisely what he claims in all his books and lectures. He proclaims that he can show how a universe can come into being from nothing, and right here, IN HIS OWN WORDS, he confesses that he can't even say for certain how space comes into existence.

Talk about a fruitcake. Krauss takes the cake.

[Divine Insight]

Who is the better obscurantist?

I'd say DI does it with less obvious effort.

All I can say is that DI's version of mysticism does nothing for me. DI's posts strike me as having 'superficial depth' (a real oxymoron, a word DI uses rather loosely).
Full of deep sounding questions, empty of any actual content. If anybody feels differently, good luck to them.

But that's just it right there Keith,

I'm not claiming to have ANSWERS.

All I claim to have are QUESTIONS.

My only point is that my questions have NOT yet been answered by science, nor have they been ruled out as being impossible.

They are questions that still have potential answers that could be plausible.

And that's ALL I'm saying.

If you think I'm saying anything more than this, then you are making assumptions about my claims.

I remain AGNOSTIC.

What I am saying is that these claims by people like Krauss, Dawkins, Harris, and other atheist extremists are way overboard. They act as if science and reason has basically ruled out any possible "mystical" or "magical" essence to reality, when in truth they are WRONG. Science is nowhere near having made such a profound conclusion.

This is all I'm saying.

I'm not claiming that any form of mysticism is necessarily TRUE.

All I'm saying is that some forms of mysticism are indeed quite plausible considering everything we currently know in science.

To act like anyone who still entertains these possibilities is a total nut case who refuses to accept science and reason is baloney.

Science and reason has NOT ruled out a mystical reality. And science has NOT established the conclusions that Krauss, Dawkings, Harris, and others are jumping to.

They MIGHT be right. But they act like their case is sign-sealed-and-delivered. And that's baloney. It's not.

And that's really all I'm saying.

I can offer mystical scenarios for reality that cannot be refuted by current scientific knowledge and are indeed plausible and could be true based on everything we currently know.

And that is ALL that I'm saying.

I'm not claiming that mysticism has to be true, only that it MAY be true.

It's a LIE, that our current scientific knowledge has ruled it out.

That's simply not true. And that's ALL I'm saying.

[JohnA]

Who is the better obscurantist?

I'd say DI does it with less obvious effort.

All I can say is that DI's version of mysticism does nothing for me. DI's posts strike me as having 'superficial depth' (a real oxymoron, a word DI uses rather loosely).
Full of deep sounding questions, empty of any actual content. If anybody feels differently, good luck to them.

I agree with you Keith.

DI has offered nothing.
Krauss has a solid argument and honesty. DI has mystical anchored in obscurantism. Krauss says the logic he uses its backed up by science. DI does not want science to explain it. He wants nothing other that HIS own mystical to explain it, which DI can not explain. Mystical-of-The-gaps based on ignorance is what DI offers.

DI claims to know the math, yet he can nor show where Hawking went wrong all DI say is that it is wrong with no explanation referencing where the math is wrong. And the irony is that other scientists have a everything from nothing logic as well - some backed up with math.

DI has chanced his position so much so many times, but Ironically he sill says that Krauss uses some field to get to nothing. That is just an error and straw manning Krauss.

DI debated his own arguments, be has almost completed his own circle. scourge99 was spot on as well (on page 1 & 2) with the obscurantist and you confirming DI has no content (just empty claims that these scientists are saying things they they are not).

As you say, these posts are open for all to read, if anyone feels different then so be it.

[Divine Insight]

Who is the better obscurantist?

I'd say DI does it with less obvious effort.

All I can say is that DI's version of mysticism does nothing for me. DI's posts strike me as having 'superficial depth' (a real oxymoron, a word DI uses rather loosely).
Full of deep sounding questions, empty of any actual content. If anybody feels differently, good luck to them.

I agree with you Keith.

DI has offered nothing.
Krauss has a solid argument and honesty. DI has mystical anchored in obscurantism. Krauss says the logic he uses its backed up by science. DI does not want science to explain it. He wants nothing other that HIS own mystical to explain it, which DI can not explain. Mystical-of-The-gaps based on ignorance is what DI offers.

DI claims to know the math, yet he can nor show where Hawking went wrong all DI say is that it is wrong with no explanation referencing where the math is wrong. And the irony is that other scientists have a everything from nothing logic as well - some backed up with math.

DI has chanced his position so much so many times, but Ironically he sill says that Krauss uses some field to get to nothing. That is just an error and straw manning Krauss.

DI debated his own arguments, be has almost completed his own circle. scourge99 was spot on as well (on page 1 & 2) with the obscurantist and you confirming DI has no content (just empty claims that these scientists are saying things they they are not).

As you say, these posts are open for all to read, if anyone feels different then so be it.

Everything you stated here is a lie John.

You are make false strawman accusations against my position.

Clearly you must be utterly terrified of a potential mystical reality to become so dishonest in your arguments against the mere idea that it could even remotely be plausible.

I've never seen an atheist so extremely possessed by fear.

I doubt very seriously that either Krauss or Hawking would react with such fear to my observations. On the contrary, they seem like fairly honest gentlemen and I imagine they would discuss things rationally rather than going the route making false strawman accusations against me.

Everything I said concerning the positions of both Krauss and Hawking is true and has been confirmed even by their own articles.

Why do you have such extreme fear of a potential mystical reality?

Have the Abrahamic religious folk driven you beyond the edge of reason?

I can halfway see that happening. But really, you shouldn't let them get to you that bad.

[otseng]

Who is the better obscurantist?

I'd say DI does it with less obvious effort.

All I can say is that DI's version of mysticism does nothing for me. DI's posts strike me as having 'superficial depth' (a real oxymoron, a word DI uses rather loosely).
Full of deep sounding questions, empty of any actual content. If anybody feels differently, good luck to them.

I agree with you Keith.

DI has offered nothing.
Krauss has a solid argument and honesty. DI has mystical anchored in obscurantism. Krauss says the logic he uses its backed up by science. DI does not want science to explain it. He wants nothing other that HIS own mystical to explain it, which DI can not explain. Mystical-of-The-gaps based on ignorance is what DI offers.

DI claims to know the math, yet he can nor show where Hawking went wrong all DI say is that it is wrong with no explanation referencing where the math is wrong. And the irony is that other scientists have a everything from nothing logic as well - some backed up with math.

DI has chanced his position so much so many times, but Ironically he sill says that Krauss uses some field to get to nothing. That is just an error and straw manning Krauss.

DI debated his own arguments, be has almost completed his own circle. scourge99 was spot on as well (on page 1 & 2) with the obscurantist and you confirming DI has no content (just empty claims that these scientists are saying things they they are not).

As you say, these posts are open for all to read, if anyone feels different then so be it.

Everything you stated here is a lie John.

You are make false strawman accusations against my position.

Clearly you must be utterly terrified of a potential mystical reality to become so dishonest in your arguments against the mere idea that it could even remotely be plausible.

I've never seen an atheist so extremely possessed by fear.

I doubt very seriously that either Krauss or Hawking would react with such fear to my observations. On the contrary, they seem like fairly honest gentlemen and I imagine they would discuss things rationally rather than going the route making false strawman accusations against me.

Everything I said concerning the positions of both Krauss and Hawking is true and has been confirmed even by their own articles.

Why do you have such extreme fear of a potential mystical reality?

Have the Abrahamic religious folk driven you beyond the edge of reason?

I can halfway see that happening. But really, you shouldn't let them get to you that bad.

Moderator Comment

These series of posts are getting too personal.

Also, I'm not so sure if this topic is even a debate topic. I don't see a question for debate.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.