The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[The Barbarian]

For whatever reason people might ascribe, humans are wired to seek a higher being. There are certainly evolutionary and personal benefits to such a trait:

As far I know, no other animals have evolved to seek a higher being. So, interestingly we humans have "evolved" to believe in supernatural higher beings when only naturalistic processes have guided our evolution.

As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, divine providence can use contingency as easily as necessity. So we have that. IDers might say that nature was "front loaded" to produce us. Maybe so. But it's not a necessary condition.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #785]

Is there any way to "identify, observe, measure" other universes or other dimensions?

Possibly. In the late 1700s Charles Messier and others observed "fuzzy" stars and didn't know what they were. Some people did postulate that they could be "island universes", external to our own galaxy, but most people didn't believe that and thought they were nebula or clouds of gas within the Milky Way. It wasn't until the 1920s when Hubble measured the distance to some of these objects using the latest technology of the day and showed that they were indeed outside of our own galaxy. Messier had no such technology so the people of his day could only guess and offer up hypotheses that galaxies might be real things. History is full of discoveries enabled by new technology, and I don't think you can make a claim at this point that other universes or dimensions cannot, possibly, exist or can't ever be observed. Until they are they are just concepts suggested by mathematical models, but that doesn't mean thay cannot exist as real things.

As for inference, I do not agree that is a way to determine if something is natural. There are many things we can infer, but that does not mean they are natural.

No argument there. By "infer from measurements or observations" I meant things like dark matter, for example. We don't know what that actually is, but can infer the existence of something that behaves like mass that holds stars together in galaxies. When it became possible to model with reasonable accuracy the net behavior of a galaxy like our Milky Way, or the Coma Cluster, as far as the collective gravitational interactions of the visible stars, the rotation of the galaxy, etc., it was found that there isn't enough mass in the visible objects to explain the stability of the system. Dark matter is just a term used to describe this "something", but that doesn't mean it isn't natural and real or won't be shown to be one day. We may find another explanation such as a lot of dead stars in some heretofore unknown form that are not visible so we missed them all, and they account for the missing mass, but they would also be real things if discovered.

They are both - hypothetical and non-natural. They are separate and distinct concepts. Things can be hypothetical and also be natural.

Agree ... things can be hypothetical and then classified as natural once sufficient evidence is accumulated to resolve the hypothesis. This would apply to multiverses, extra dimensions, dark matter, etc. They start as hypotheses, and remain that way until shown to be valid (or not).

How can one do an observation and experimentation to demonstrate other universes exist? Or even strings exist?

No idea ... but I don't believe that allows us to claim that other universes, or tiny vibrating subatomic sized "strings", don't exist or can't exist simply because we don't have the technology or ideas to solve the problem now. If and when these things are confirmed to exist, or confirmed not to exist, we can't rule them out as being natural, genuinely existing, things. Most of the ideas in physics to explain things that are not yet shown to be correct do arise from some kind of analysis or modeling, or observations, that led to the idea being proposed. Ideas pulled from thin air without some sort of basis in known physics and mathermatics usually don't get very far.

[otseng]

In the late 1700s Charles Messier and others observed "fuzzy" stars and didn't know what they were. Some people did postulate that they could be "island universes", external to our own galaxy, but most people didn't believe that and thought they were nebula or clouds of gas within the Milky Way. It wasn't until the 1920s when Hubble measured the distance to some of these objects using the latest technology of the day and showed that they were indeed outside of our own galaxy. Messier had no such technology so the people of his day could only guess and offer up hypotheses that galaxies might be real things.

Those were due to limitations of observational technology and would be theoretically possible to eventually observe according to known physics. Other universes are a different matter. These would be theoretically impossible to interact with given our current understanding of physics.

Until they are they are just concepts suggested by mathematical models, but that doesn't mean thay cannot exist as real things.

I'm not even sure a multiverse is a mathematical model. Can you show what math is involved?

As for inference, I do not agree that is a way to determine if something is natural. There are many things we can infer, but that does not mean they are natural.

No argument there.

By "infer from measurements or observations" I meant things like dark matter, for example.

Dark matter and dark energy are things we cannot measure, detect, or even identify. So, I cannot see how they are considered to be natural given your definition of nature as "something we can identify, observe, measure."

We don't know what that actually is, but can infer the existence of something that behaves like mass that holds stars together in galaxies.

Sure, we can infer it. But again, an inference does not automatically mean the explanation would be natural.

but that doesn't mean it isn't natural and real or won't be shown to be one day.

Again, I sense special pleading when you say "shown to be one day". I maintain until that day comes, if it ever does, it is a non-natural explanation.

We may find another explanation such as a lot of dead stars in some heretofore unknown form that are not visible so we missed them all, and they account for the missing mass, but they would also be real things if discovered.

Actually, I believe the fundamental problem is the assumptions of cosmology, rather than there's a bunch of matter and energy that we cannot detect. But, don't want to get into that since that's not the thrust of my argument. Even if these explanations are "temporary holders" until a naturalistic explanation is found, these all qualify under your definition as being not natural.

How can one do an observation and experimentation to demonstrate other universes exist? Or even strings exist?

No idea ... but I don't believe that allows us to claim that other universes, or tiny vibrating subatomic sized "strings", don't exist or can't exist simply because we don't have the technology or ideas to solve the problem now.

Actually, I have no position on whether they actually exist or not. All I'm pointing out is they are not natural explanations.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #783]
My own aphorism, variously phrased is The human unconscious is so brilliant and profound we mistake it for God.

That's actually also very profound in another way :
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #793]

Other universes are a different matter. These would be theoretically impossible to interact with given our current understanding of physics.

Right, but our current understanding of physics is far from complete and subject to changes as we learn more. I'm not making any claim that there is more than one universe and its the one we live it, but arguing the possibility that there could be, and if so they'd be real/natural.

I'm not even sure a multiverse is a mathematical model. Can you show what math is involved?

The Wikipedia article on Multiverse has several subsections and many references to some of the mathematics behind multiverse-type interpretations from quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. The list of "Brian Greene's Nine Types" has some examples, and there are lots of references to formal science papers but many are behind paywalls (eg. Phys. Rev. Letters articles). There are also, as usual, different interpretations from the same mathematics and physics, which is common when the problem is open and unsolved ... if/when there is a resolution the bad ideas are tossed out.

Dark matter and dark energy are things we cannot measure, detect, or even identify. So, I cannot see how they are considered to be natural given your definition of nature as "something we can identify, observe, measure."

Or infer the existence of through the behavior of things that we can observe (galaxies being held together when the mass of the visible objects isn't sufficient, the universe expanding faster than expected, etc.). There are experimental efforts to figure out what dark matter and energy are (those being placeholder terms for the proposed real, natural "things" that are responsible for the effects):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matt ... e_Explorer

https://theconversation.com/arrakhis-th ... -of-194839

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... ter-better

And physicists are trying to come up with theoretical explanations of what may compose dark matter:

https://www.science.org/content/article ... imps-simps

If these efforts are successful at identifying what dark matter and dark energy are, they would fall into the same category as other known, real "things" and probably get name changes as well ... no different than many other discoveries in science in general.

Again, I sense special pleading when you say "shown to be one day". I maintain until that day comes, if it ever does, it is a non-natural explanation.

Take the example of the Higgs boson, just to pick something relatively recent. This was predicted to exist from the standard model of physics, and the theoretical work of Higgs and others in the 1960s. We didn't have the technology at the time to search for it in particle accelerators as its mass was too high to be reached. It was theoretically-predicted but was not a non-natural explanation. There was some basis for its prediction, just like dark matter and dark energy. The Higgs boson was experimentally confirmed in 2011-2013, and the "shown to be one day" event happened. It did not transition from non-natural to "real", but from a hypothetical real thing to a confirmed-to-exist real thing. There's no reason dark matter and dark energy can't follow a similar path and be confirmed to exist as real, natural things one day. Science has done this kind of thing too many times in the past to assume it can't do the same for dark matter and dark energy.

... these all qualify under your definition as being not natural.

I disagree ... a hypothetical particle, force, or other "thing" that cannot yet be directly observed or measured (or inferred from direct observations, eg. dark matter) is not necessarily non-natural. It is simply postulated to exist as a natural thing and doesn't get confirmed until it is then shown to actually exist. Dark matter is not "non-natural" because we cannot yet describe what it is ... it is postulated to exist based on other direct observations.

Actually, I have no position on whether they actually exist or not. All I'm pointing out is they are not natural explanations.

I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this. You seem to be classifying things as "non-natural" if they are postulated to exist (even as potentially real things) but are not yet confirmed to exist by direct observation and measurement (eg. dark matter). I'm classifying these kinds of things as hypothetical, but natural, waiting on confirmation via direct observation and measurement. A mathematical model such as string theory isn't itself "real" as far as a physical, touchable thing, but is meant to describe reality. I'd put that into the same category as calculus or General Relativity as a mathematical framework to solve problems within, as opposed to the real, physical things or effects (nature) they describe.

[otseng]

You seem to be classifying things as "non-natural" if they are postulated to exist (even as potentially real things) but are not yet confirmed to exist by direct observation and measurement (eg. dark matter).

I'm going by your definition of natural that you had posted:

How would you define "natural"?

I would define natural as something that can be shown to exist in the world we can experience. It could be matter, or energy, photons, EM fields, etc., but something we can identify, observe, measure, infer from measurements or observations, etc.

If we rule out the inference part, the only part left in your definition is "something we can identify, observe, measure" that exist in the world we can experience. If something cannot fall into this, then it would not be natural.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #796]

If we rule out the inference part, the only part left in your definition is "something we can identify, observe, measure" that exist in the world we can experience. If something cannot fall into this, then it would not be natural.

But my definition did explicitly include the inference part. Maybe a better way to say it is that something inferred from direct observation is a candidate to fall into the category of natural, pending bona fide identification and characterization of it via measurement, observation, etc. Dark matter and dark energy both satisfy this requirement as they are inferred to exist from the behavior of objects that are natural, and directly observed and measured. Something that behaves like mass is holding galaxies together, and whatever you want to call it it can't be claimed to be non-natural unless that can also be shown to be the case.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #796]

If we rule out the inference part, the only part left in your definition is "something we can identify, observe, measure" that exist in the world we can experience. If something cannot fall into this, then it would not be natural.

But my definition did explicitly include the inference part. Maybe a better way to say it is that something inferred from direct observation is a candidate to fall into the category of natural, pending bona fide identification and characterization of it via measurement, observation, etc. Dark matter and dark energy both satisfy this requirement as they are inferred to exist from the behavior of objects that are natural, and directly observed and measured. Something that behaves like mass is holding galaxies together, and whatever you want to call it it can't be claimed to be non-natural unless that can also be shown to be the case.

And the god of the Old Testament does not fit this definition... OR can Oliver and other believers make the case they can infer the existence of their god, or the God from what we can observe? I suggest we cannot so infer and I suggest that is why theists fight so hard against the hard facts of science that show evolution is not just a theory but a fact.

I suggest that is why they defy the facts of Carbon dating and other radiometric dating technologies, and so many other facts science has uncovered. These discoveries show we don't need a God or gods to account for existence. I suggest this tears away at the innards of their faith, a faith that almost solely derives from nothing but tradition, the teachings of their fathers so much that they dismiss objective sources like those that Wikipedia uses, and almost exclusively resort to highly biased sources like AIG and the various anti-science creation blogs.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to otseng in post #796]

If we rule out the inference part, the only part left in your definition is "something we can identify, observe, measure" that exist in the world we can experience. If something cannot fall into this, then it would not be natural.

But my definition did explicitly include the inference part. Maybe a better way to say it is that something inferred from direct observation is a candidate to fall into the category of natural, pending bona fide identification and characterization of it via measurement, observation, etc. Dark matter and dark energy both satisfy this requirement as they are inferred to exist from the behavior of objects that are natural, and directly observed and measured. Something that behaves like mass is holding galaxies together, and whatever you want to call it it can't be claimed to be non-natural unless that can also be shown to be the case.

And the god of the Old Testament does not fit this definition... OR can Oliver and other believers make the case they can infer the existence of their god, or the God from what we can observe? I suggest we cannot so infer and I suggest that is why theists fight so hard against the hard facts of science that show evolution is not just a theory but a fact.

I suggest that is why they defy the facts of Carbon dating and other radiometric dating technologies, and so many other facts science has uncovered. These discoveries show we don't need a God or gods to account for existence. I suggest this tears away at the innards of their faith, a faith that almost solely derives from nothing but tradition, the teachings of their fathers so much that they dismiss objective sources like those that Wikipedia uses, and almost exclusively resort to highly biased sources like AIG and the various anti-science creation blogs.

Where gods fit the facts, praise the gods. Where they don't, dang the facts.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #796]

If we rule out the inference part, the only part left in your definition is "something we can identify, observe, measure" that exist in the world we can experience. If something cannot fall into this, then it would not be natural.

But my definition did explicitly include the inference part.

You agreed later that an inference does not lead to a natural cause...

As for inference, I do not agree that is a way to determine if something is natural. There are many things we can infer, but that does not mean they are natural.

No argument there.

Maybe a better way to say it is that something inferred from direct observation is a candidate to fall into the category of natural, pending bona fide identification and characterization of it via measurement, observation, etc.

Of course it is a candidate to be natural, but it is likewise a candidate to be supernatural. So, "inference" is not an objective method to determine if something is natural.

Something that behaves like mass is holding galaxies together, and whatever you want to call it it can't be claimed to be non-natural unless that can also be shown to be the case.

That something doesn't even need to be postulated. Like I mentioned before, it could be the assumptions of cosmology are incorrect. Only if the assumptions of modern cosmology are true would things like dark energy and dark matter need to be introduced.