Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
Yesterday at 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#13623 - 12/22/05 11:14 PM Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?

If we are the creatures of intentional creation why wouldn?t our Creator use all means available to do it, including obscure as well as obvious methods of what we call science? How else could it be done?
jjw

Top
.
#13624 - 12/23/05 06:21 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Good question.
Why cant creator simply come up and say I created it..
Well I say .. I created it.
Now will you believe me...?
You will ask for a miracle...
I will say you are living a miracle.
You will ask me scientific question.
I will give you a scientific answer.

Its obvious the problem is not with the creator.

Top
#13625 - 12/23/05 10:33 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
What a creator would or would not do is not amenable to scientific examination. Science was hobbled until it delineated how it was different from mere philosophy. (This is called the problem of demarcation.) Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.

Top
#13626 - 12/25/05 06:31 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Why am I repeating myself again? Science is the study and explanation of how everything works. Therefore, jjw004, there is no such thing as an 'obscure' method of creating something. So that I do not have to repeat myself yet-again, I would like to emphasise the HOW 'EVERYTHING WORKS' in the last sentence.
You can't disagree with me on the fact that everything has a logical explanation, even though 'we' as humans in our present stage may not be able to understand it (e.g. nothingness), but you must admit that everything, i repeat, evrything has an e-x-p-l-a-n-t-i-o-n. So let's take your 'creator', this, like everything else in existence (I'm not saying your 'creator exists') is explainable by some form of logic.
To explain what I meant by some form of logic, I was not implying that there are different versions of logic in different reigons of space or whatever, I'm saying there is only one set of rules, one way things can be, one logic; and how we interpret everything is dependant of our current knowlege of this logic (unless you are religious and choose to ignore logic). Take maths, we know a lot, but there's a lot still to be discovered.

Top
#13627 - 12/26/05 05:31 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.
DKV: Can you disprove the theory that I created it?I say I created the Entire Universe.
Now go aghead and disprove me.

Top
#13628 - 12/26/05 09:39 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Rob says, in part:

?To explain what I meant by some form of logic, I was not implying that there are different versions of logic in different reigons of space or whatever, I'm saying there is only one set of rules, one way things can be, one logic; and how we interpret everything is dependant of our current knowlege of this logic (unless you are religious and choose to ignore logic). Take maths, we know a lot, but there's a lot still to be discovered.?

Jjw: I have no creator to offer the world. My question was simply a hypothetical one intended to respond to those of you that appear to think that every scientific discovery is some proof that there was no creator. I consistently fail to see why any scientific discovery can be offered as proof that there was no creator and I can say that even though I do not accept the creationists? offerings.

My Post suggests that at first all things were obscure to humanity. Reasons for observed phenomena were slowly discovered as we learned more. What was obscure to us originally was slowly disclosed as understandable. The truth was there all along. Science, in some cases by simple observation, exposed the answer. Science did not create the answer. All the knowledge of science has been there for us to discover and use to our benefit. So, I ask why wouldn?t this basic knowledge be built into the system if it had been created? If our science was not there before us we would have had nothing to discover. I sometimes get the impression that those avid evangelists of science think that they are creating physics as if it was not a natural part of existence.

So, I repeat, if there was a creator involved in our origins, why would not that creator incorporate all the essentials of our existence, gravitation, geometry, physics and all else that we have been able to discover? I think logic says he would do so to make it function so we would eventually learn to understand it. Just a trifle.
jjw

Top
#13629 - 12/26/05 10:35 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"why wouldn?t this basic knowledge be built into the system if it had been created?"

Not this again! Ok look, let's say I were to create a simulation of the laws of physics (known to me) on my super computer (let's also say that I owned one). And also created life (an AI system) within this simulation. I have, essentially, 'created' a universe. I am God. This computer simulation that exists independantly of the 'real' world (where I am) is still operating on the laws of physics of the real world. For example, if I were to get annoyed and smash the CPU the world I created would cease to exist. So, when talking about creators one can always ask the question; who created the creator? The answer is always somebody -till we reach the truly real world that is not a simulation, but a real thing. The answer to who created this world is no-one, It just plain exists. 1+1 can equal 3 in any simulation you like, but in the real world 1+1 will equal x, and that's the only way things can be, and those are the real laws of science.

Top
#13630 - 12/26/05 11:22 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.
DKV: Can you disprove the theory that I created it?I say I created the Entire Universe.
Now go aghead and disprove me."

Having hired a private detective to give me an account of your entire life from the moment you were a single cell I can clearly see that you, indeed, did NOT create the universe. Just to be sure I contacted the best group of scientists in existance (from various feilds) to convert the time in which you were alive on earth into mathematics. The mathematics show no anomalies in the particles surrounding you etc...
Obvioulsy since you are allegedly the 'creator' you have control over the factors that may give you away as a creator. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, you are not the creator. The evidence proving you are not outweighs by far the evidence to show you are.
Next time you see a friend of yours, why not PROVE that they are not a, as DA would say, purple rhinoceros. Why take the time out of your day to prove something so obvious?

Top
#13631 - 12/27/05 05:40 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Science did not create the answer. All the knowledge of science has been there for us to discover and use to our benefit.
DKV: I agree to this.All the knowledge was there there for us to discover it.And it is there without doubt. The very mind which creates doubt ,also gives answers.Thus all answers were available as function of Thinking Power and Time.
Imagine a person who wants to fly in the 1st Century.
What questions he will generally ask ?
I wish to fly. But what is I?Is it my body or my conciousness (which generates experience and understanding)?
Most likely during those old days he will end up with an Answer saying I am completely attached to my body.Conciousness has no independent existence. He will never give a thought to Conciousness Compression on a small size body for the benefit of his desire.
In short Becoming a Bird will be a complete stupidity in order to achieve the goal.Becuase essentially he wants to carry much more information.He wants all the physical self to carry itself in the air.Not only that he wants to be recongnized to the observers.His desire remains to be known with all his accomplishements so that he may fulfill some other part of his desire like getting close to a Superman with medals..
Thus he will try to conquer the concept of Flying.He will work hard to keep his physical body and mind is sync with his desires.
Interestingly he will get all his inspiration from Nature.He will look at Birds who achieved it without caring for the Scientific Methodology.
Interesting isnt it. A concept so complicated gets Naturally manfactured by keeping a simple desire with conviction.Obviously What Birds accomplished doesnt get a mention in the Who's Who but this fact can not go unnoticed from the eyes of a keen observer.Greater the number of desires you have greater the energy you will require to accomplish it.And anything can be accomplished by playing around your the number of Desires within you. This is the Qunatum Definition of Budhha's TEaching.
By this example it becomes obvious that Knowledge lives within us. We discover what we need.When we need all we need to find all...Within us.
And we are not talking about simulation here.
We have distinguished between Simulation and Real world in "Anomaly in Randomeness".
===============================================
ROB:Having hired a private detective to give me an account of your entire life from the moment you were a single cell I can clearly see that you, indeed, did NOT create the universe.
REP:Thats crazy you never saw.I am enclosed within the facade of physical body and desires.
=========================================
Just to be sure I contacted the best group of scientists in existance (from various feilds) to convert the time in which you were alive on earth into mathematics. The mathematics show no anomalies in the particles surrounding you etc...
REP: Give them an option of describing me in the Real Space time with respect to the Origin of the Universe.Whatever was before anyone was like a movie in a smaller dimesnions.I mean before I was born nothing was true it was all scripted in a Lie... A truth has been realized only with me.
From now on the Life begins for real for those who know me.I am a moment of creation in the Highness of Truth.
==============================================
Obvioulsy since you are allegedly the 'creator' you have control over the factors that may give you away as a creator. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, you are not the creator.
REP: Thats your approach to truthness.Having a control over everything is not a requirement in
my quest to be called the Creator :-))
==========================================
The evidence proving you are not outweighs by far the evidence to show you are.
REP: The evidence whatever you have needs to be shared with me in order to have a real discussion.
=======================================
Next time you see a friend of yours, why not PROVE that they are not a, as DA would say, purple rhinoceros. Why take the time out of your day to prove something so obvious?
REP: This is no Joke. Proving a Rhinoceros is far more easier than proving me worng.

Top
#13632 - 12/27/05 01:33 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
OK, so you've proved your point that nothing can be proved 100%. So what?

Top
#13633 - 12/27/05 06:06 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Rob says in part:
?The answer is always somebody -till we reach the truly real world that is not a simulation, but a real thing. The answer to who created this world is no-one, It just plain exists. 1+1 can equal 3 in any simulation you like, but in the real world 1+1 will equal x, and that's the only way things can be, and those are the real laws of science.?

Rep: There is an old expression that, some one, cannot see the forest for the trees. You might also use it to disclose being focused on the forest to the exclusion of the individual trees. Your apparent impatience with my comments suggests that you are so entrenched in your views that discussion is beneath you. That view would be in error.

We are here and all the known laws of nature are here with us. You argue that this all came about by chance, some unknown but natural circumstance, and I am willing to consider that likelihood but I will keep an open mind on the issue. You speak of the ?real world? as if I do not. First of all I did not ask ?who created the world? and secondly I find your argument that ?it just plain exists? to be meaningless- we know that and the existence of the world is not at issue. Science has discovered the basic elements of nature, it did not create them. Science has discover, ala Newton, the basic physics of the Universe, it created nothing. These and all else was there waiting for us to discover them. My point is very simple. If you are willing to chalk all of this up to mere chance why are you so closed minded when someone suggests that the identical existence could exist if it came about as a result of creation. Can?t you see this?
jjw

Top
#13634 - 12/28/05 12:26 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob,

Your arguments are emotionally driven. Shake your fist at it all you want - but you are still not in a position to categorically state that the universe was not the work of a creator.

Just accept the fact that you simply don't personally believe it, as is your right, and your faith.

Just because you cannot conceive of a creator outside of time and matter, does not make it impossible, much to your chagrin. Your assertions that something cannot come from nothing (even though that is not what is on offer), and that a creator would be explainable by logic (or more to the point, your thought processes) just show to me the limits of a finite, temporally bound mind.

God may well be explainable by logic, but we cannot reference all of the variables. We simply don't have the whole picture.

You find the 'existence of an intelligent entity that just exists and has created this universe and revealed Himself through history' inconceivable, unnecessary and unbelievable.

I find the idea that 'I am here as a freak occurrence because millions of coincidences led to a random chain of events that ended with my consciousness seated within a brain of breath-taking complexity looking out at this incredible universe and feeling that it cannot believe that I am here as a freak occurrence because of millions of coinc....' as inconceivable, unbelievable and ridiculous.

I believe that it is simply what you choose to accept - and then you use science to rationalize it, when in fact science cannot even touch it - full stop.

You said you were going to think of a proof of God's non existence. How has it gone?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13635 - 12/28/05 04:46 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Having the heard the various arguments and comments it gives me great pleasure to share some more 'facts' with you.
What real question is the Science asking?
It is asking for underlying laws which govern the Universe.Lately we have even gone to the extent of proving that there is No Underlying Law at all!!
Since both answers are not found we wonder what is going wrong and where...
Most of the questions are centered around two main events ... The Creation Of Universe as if it was never before some time.Second Creation of Man.
Before going into deep waters let us discover some more facts about ourselves..
:
Btw , if any one has any doubt may still raise the questions.
:
Thinking of Lies let us be frank enough about it. Where actually it lies? What is it that moves us towards truth?
It is in the Understanding but not the Experience.
The understanding of every Experience changes the moment we just try to explain to ourselves why we felt that way.
The reasoning itself brings the flaw due to the suction of Experince into delibrate Understanding.
The lost Infomration is the Experience .. no matter how much we try to simulate we dont find the same exact Experience(Quantum Gravitational State).The Gained information is
Linearized Knowledge in some kind of storage....Which is Multidimensional like a Book or or your screen or a Mountain or a temple or a church.Please note that we assume World to be fractal in Nature Spatially or Timely.This can be called Linear Interpretation of Knowledge or Dimensional Interpretation of Knowledge.

Top
#13636 - 12/28/05 08:17 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"My point is very simple. If you are willing to chalk all of this up to mere chance why are you so closed minded when someone suggests that the identical existence could exist if it came about as a result of creation. Can?t you see this?"

For the last time, because of the question, 'how did the creator come into existance?'

"You said you were going to think of a proof of God's non existence. How has it gone?"
Terribly.

Top
#13637 - 12/29/05 08:58 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


how did the creator come into existance?
First and Last came together in Space. Now ask me the question again.
This is called Graviton.

Say Cheers

Top
#13638 - 12/29/05 09:17 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


If you promise me forgiveness then I can tell you how to detect a Graviton.

Top
#13639 - 12/29/05 08:11 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
how did the creator come into existance?
First and Last came together in Space. Now ask me the question again.
This is called Graviton.

Say Cheers
Utter non-science. Pull yourself together and get on topic. This is not "mysticism-a-go-go". More Science less spiritualism, please, or I will edit your non-relevant essays.

Top
#13640 - 12/29/05 09:13 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Rob:

I see we are not making progress so I will accept your concept. The creator came into existence by mere chance, a spontaenoious event, in the same manner as your Universe. See, we agree.
jjw

Top
#13641 - 12/31/05 03:51 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
well, not exactly. a creator can't spring into existance because to be sentient it would need a brain and a complex biological structure which can only be acheived by evolution. And so matter and the rules of science including forces would have to exist before an entity that could 'create' them, therefore rendering the notion of a creator useless.

Top
#13642 - 01/01/06 12:27 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
ROB: a creator can't spring into existence because to be sentient it would need a brain and a complex biological structure which can only be achieved by evolution.

REP: This is an astonishing statement. You have called me Brain-Washed - I have to say on the basis of what you have written above that you display the thought capacity of a child. Just like your question - 'Can God create a rock he cannot lift?' - which you actually seemed to think was meaningful and worthy of serious consideration, you now show that you are completely limited in your ability to think clearly about the issues that surround the debate you want to engage in.

Even if you are not making any admissions about a creator, are you really saying you cannot even conceive on a purely conjectural level that there could be anything that exists outside of physical constraints?

You can say you don't accept that it is the case, and I would respect your thinking.

But to say that a postulated intelligence that could create the universe would need a physical brain and a complex biological structure which can only be achieved by evolution is ridiculous. In fact only someone with God-like knowledge could make that assertion.

This creator would be outside of your universe and all of its rules. To assert that the laws of this universe would have to apply to Him is like saying that the programmers of a Simulation Program would have to be bound by the laws operating within that program.

You seem to be incapable of thinking outside of the box you have created that works on the premise that there is no truth other than that which can be empirically proven. Well you are welcome to your faith, but you should recognise it as such.

You are figuring these things out with a brain that has probably, at best, about 6 terabytes of storage space, so it obviously has its limitations. It doesn't surprise me that the full force of people's reasoning ability leads them to the conclusion that "all we can see is all there is". This is why the creator has to reveal himself, because our reasoning doesn't lead us to Him.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.