No, Atheist Scientists Are IncompetentLawrence Krauss' claim -- all scientists must be "militant atheists" -- conveniently fails to address the universe's origin.
|
September 25, 2015 - 6:17 pm
|
Recently, a “physicist” by the name of Lawrence Krauss claimed that “all scientists should be militant atheists.” On the contrary, any scientist who is not a theist is incompetent.
Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity. To see this, unpack the definition of “God.” The word “supernatural” literally means “above nature,” or outside of space and time, and not subject to the laws of physics. “Super” just means “above,” and the meaning of “nature” is clear if we use the Greek work for nature: “physis.”
The initial cosmological singularity is not in space or time, but rather it is the origin of space and time, the origin of all that is, seen and unseen. The cosmological singularity cannot be in space or time, because it is intrinsically infinite, and anything in space or time, and subject to the laws of physics, must be locally finite. To put it another way, the cosmological singularity is the cause of everything that exists, but is itself uncaused.
The cosmological singularity is the uncaused first cause, which is how Thomas Aquinas (“The Five Ways”) and Maimonides (“The Guide for the Perplexed”) defined “God.” All competent Christian and Jewish theologians have known for the past 2,000 years that God in His essence is not an old man wearing a white gown. One of the greatest Christian theologians, John Chrysostom, said that no created being can see God as He really is. So He appears to us in a form we can comprehend, often as an old guy wearing a white sheet.
So now that we know that God is the cosmological singularity, the question of God’s existence is now a question of physics: Does the cosmological singularity exist?
If we accept the laws of physics, the answer is yes.
The Einstein equations of gravity — the equations of general relativity — tell us unequivocally that if gravity is attractive, at least at high density, then the cosmological singularity is there at the beginning of time.
If gravity is combined with quantum mechanics, then the cosmological singularity is present somewhere, whether or not gravity is an attractive force. This is because quantum mechanics, as Richard Feynman showed, is mathematically equivalent to a “sum over all histories”; quantum mechanics asserts that all possibilities exist. (Feynman was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for proving this.)
One possibility is a history in which reality begins in a singularity. So quantum gravity necessarily contains a cosmological singularity. If quantum mechanics is correct — and it is — then the cosmological singularity exists. The cosmological singularity exists even in Stephen Hawking’s quantum cosmology, though he denies it in his popular books. If you read his technical papers, the singularity exists in all his models. The mathematics gives no alternative: God exists.
Quantum mechanics also demonstrates that the cosmological singularity controls all of space and time, and determines exactly what occurs throughout all history, past, present and future. (See my paper published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and my forthcoming paper in Inference if you want a rigorous mathematical demonstration of this.) The bottom line: the cosmological singularity is indeed the cause of everything, which is to say the cosmological singularity is God.
The laws of physics apply to everything in nature, without exception. Period, end of discussion. Lawrence Krauss is a physicist in name only. I’ve debated him in the past, and I know he does not understand either quantum mechanics or general relativity. All scientists worthy of the name accept that the laws of physics apply to everything in the natural world; any who do not accept physics are not scientists. Any “scientist” who is not a theist is ignorant and incompetent.
Also read: No More Big Ideas? Try These On for Size
"Lets define God as the supernatural being who created the Universe. That is, God is the cosmological singularity. To see this, unpack the definition of God. "
So, what you're saying is let's start the debate by choosing a definition which effectively ends the debate from the start. ::slow clap::
* Theism -- I believe at least one god has existed at some time and/or exists today
* Agnosticism -- I do not know if any god has ever existed
* Weak atheism -- There is insufficient evidence to support that any god has existed. If someone wants to present clear and convincing evidence that god exists, I'm willing to evaluate it at that point, but it's going to need to be really good evidence.
* Strong atheism -- The idea of god is incoherent from the start. By definition, nothing can exist outside of the universe, since the universe necessarily includes all things.
I've ran into a number of strong atheist in my life, but I find their position unsupportable, as it is playing around with semantic games. I'm much more in the weak atheist camp -- if you want to prove to me that a deity exists *and* your proof is such that it does not also equally demostrate the existence of an all powerful, completely undetectable alien (who in my head happens to look remarkably like the Great Gazoo), then I will gladly change my mind. Until then, there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a deity, and I expend no more faith on the precept that I do on the proposition that unicorns exist. Or midichlorians in the blood that make The Force work for Jedis.
Although I believe God is Spirit, and Spirit is not in matter, there's a physical mystery to consider: how do our bodies keep energized, considering we're not ever plugged into a physical power source like cell phones getting recharged? And when we're in the unconscious state of sleep, what keeps our circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems working?
Consider the possibility that God can be experienced within, with certainty, and that human beings have received proof through mystical experiences of devotion or meditation, or years of mind training, but not in a way that can be measured with a scientific instrument.
Spiritual teachings and practices (not necessarily the same thing as organized religion) lead to a direct experience of the answer.
Also consider that our senses deceive us, and it's this physical world that's fake, that's not what we think it is.
You do eat, right? Like the rest of us? That's your physical power source.
"And when we're in the unconscious state of sleep, what keeps our circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems working?"
The brain. The brain is still very active when you're asleep, and it controls the heart, respiration, and parts of digestion.
That's why if your brain dies, the rest of the body follows.
"How do our bodies keep energized, considering we're not ever plugged into a physical power source..." We do, however, eat food. Zero mystery there.
"And when we're in the unconscious state of sleep, what keeps our circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems working?" The brainstem. The same systems that keep you breathing/digesting/heart pumping *right now* without you having to think about it. Google is your friend.
Lots of things might be undetectable and yet still real. Even more things are undetectable and absolutely not real. Until you have something that conclusively divides from the other -- e.g. something that is detectable -- it's an academic philosophical discussion -- and that is at best.
The brainstem? What keeps the brainstem working? Is it plugged into a power source? Did you provide your own brainstem?
What are the things that are undetectable and absolutely not real? How are they "things"?
I agree with you that it's an academic philosophical discussion, and truth cannot be ascertained on this level. God has to be--and is--found with certainty through direct experience.
And what if my hands were butterflies, and flew away?
Automatic body functions are automatic. Willpower is not relevant.
The brainstem question is restating the original question.
Things that are undetectable and not real -- Xenu. The Force. Dinosaurs at the center of the Earth. Harry Potter.
Please provide examples of such direct experience. That sounds remarkably like proof.
Now, some atheists affirm the belief that there is no God, but that's certainly not "involved" in atheism.
#theanswermightbeno
It goes beyond a mere lack of belief on the part of many athiests who assert as if they know without a shadow of a doubt that there is no God or gods despite the fact that no one has provided proof that this is the case. When presented with the question "What if we had the capacity to prove the presence of God, a deity or creator, then what?" They are left with little else than their faith at that point or they are just being disingenuous.
And of course there is no evidence that conclusively proves there is no God or gods, if for no other reason than the definitions of gods being so varied.
Thank you for those kind words. When I get my mind wrapped around the notion that we have no purpose, that we're just here by chance & that there is no creator, I well up with complete dismay & become somewhat distraught. I cannot let go of hope........
That doesn't mean we have no purpose at all, of course. Enjoy life, help others, love one another, learn new things.
We're not here by chance, exactly, we're here by contingency. There's an element of chance to evolution, of course, but to a large extent we are as we are because our Universe is as it is.
Four limbs, five fingers, eyes and ears and an inquiring mind aren't random things; if you read the work of Steven Jay Gould (Eight Little Piggies, for example) he discusses this a lot.
Life is short and sometimes painful, but it's beautiful too.
Even if it were all flowers and beautiful things, these things deteriorate and are lost forever, so that would be utterly tragic as well.
But "be of good cheer." It's all a scam. The great Hindu sages taught that this world is "maya" (illusion); Jesus taught the same when he said this world is not really our home.
God in His Mercy offers us a way out, beginning with this universal teaching that this world is no more than a kind of dream. Even a person who retains doubts can begin to consider that maybe Jesus, Krishna, and other spiritual giants know more than us, at least on this subject.
We can wake up from the bad dream. It takes mind-training, beginning with realizing that we've been wrongly taught and know almost nothing. "When you erase your words, you will see His."
This world is the only one we have any evidence for. This life is, as far as we can tell, the only one we will live. Make the most of it. It's too small a world and too short a span of years to waste it chasing fables.
That's just it. They don't know & there is nothing they can come up with to show that they do know. There is just no way anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a creator does not exist.
Perhaps the day will come that our technological advances will reach the point that we will have the capacity to find the answers; why athiests refuse to give any credence to this notion is beyond me. They spend way too much time & energy running around trying to discredit any religious what they call "dogma" while they work very hard at wiping all displays & practices of any religious sort from the public square. It's as if they are saying "We don't believe & you shouldn't either!!"
When someone simply says "I don't believe your claim" it is not incumbent on providing proof of anything.
Easter is cancelled. They found the body.
The problem I have with Christianity is that its two most important events, the virgin birth and the resurrection, on which the entire faith depends, are so unlikely to be true, as to not be worth taking seriously.
Apart from the blindingly obvious alternative explanation for the "virgin" birth, there are numerous more likely explanations than divine resurrection for an empty tomb, too, from grave thieves to people lying or just being wrong, or the whole story being fiction from the start, invented long after the contemporary events.
The "two most important events" of Jesus's birth and his resurrection are hard for you to believe, eh?"
The article that began this whole mess has several flaws, in my opinion. Many posts here have detailed them, so I won't pile on. But.... One of the things that the article does deal with quite well is the idea of the supernatural.
That is why I have such an issue with the Skeptical Thinker above.
If the idea of a supernatural God is not hard for you to believe, then the two supernatural events of the virgin birth and the resurrection should be a piece of cake.
If God is literally "beyond nature," then how could you possibly have a problem with Him going beyond the laws of nature to accomplish His own goals?
The virgin birth and the resurrection would be no stumbling block at all if you accept the existence of a super-natural God.
I think THAT would be the idea on which "the entire faith depends." If you accept THAT idea, then everything else is--if not immediately believable--at least logically consistent.
The second part certainly doesn't disprove a supreme being exists, but i was speaking about christianity in particular.
It's the teachings that are beautiful and liberating. (I'm not a Christian, so I can be fairly objective about this.)
But they are singular events, so the word "unlikely" does not apply. They either did, or did not happen. It's either 100% or 0%. The word "unlikely" is really only a statement about yourself, not about the external reality at all. It is a statement about your difficulty in believing.
You cannot come to belief through your own efforts at all. All you can do is prepare your mind for belief. Belief comes by God's grace. It is in God's hands, not yours. You seek, God will respond when it is time. A good way to prepare yourself is to pretend to believe - and don't give up.
If God had a plan to send the Word to Earth in human form, then it would not be unlikely, would it?
Congratulations: you managed yo prove that, if you assume by blind fate that A is true, you can prove it's likely that A is true.
There seems to be a slight flaw in the argument, however.
I'm not sure which of the Greek or Roman gods you're referring to, but they're not an issue anymore. No one believes in them, but some atheists seem to have an obsession.
I only believe what is proven to me. Through many years of searching (rather than automatically believing what I was taught), I explored the teachings of the most revered spiritual masters. I learned to go within through meditation. I'm training my mind to listen to the Holy Spirit's voice rather than the ego's. ("A Course in Miracles" is a brilliant masterpiece that's teaching me this. It defines a miracle as a change in perception, not a physical miracle.)
Anyone who follows the spiritual path (and there's more than one path) will increasingly receive answers from the Holy Spirit and experience God's Presence in meditation ("peace wihich passeth understanding").
To answer your other questions: The experience of God's nature is an increasing Love that is also our nature, so God's Will is not to kill infidels. And as for God's Name, God, by definition, is beyond names and forms; not God of a particular religion, race, gender, etc.
I've found that the rewards to be gained are greater than the payoff gained by mocking the more close-minded, bigoted Christians or the questionable parts of the Bible.
"I only believe what is proven to me."
"I believe...."
"I explored...."
"I learned...."
"I'm training...."
The self-satisfaction and hubris just come oozing out in the words of the writer.
The emphatic nature of his delivery, the dogmatism of his personal stance, and the denigration of those who disagree with him are all hallmarks of a faith at least as close-minded, bigoted, and questionable as those which he claims to rise above.
Maybe I should apologize for some of my language, especially "I only believe what is proven to me" and "I explored...." I feel like I said the N-word or something. I didn't mean to be offensive.
Kindly point out where I displayed any "denigration of those who disagree with" me, as well as where I adhere to any "dogma," and all the other things you ascribed to me without any proof. These things are true only in your imagination.
And as far as dogma goes--you claim it to be incontrovertibly true that there is more than one path to God. You claim--based on your own belief--that God, by definition, is not one of the types or forms of a particular religion. You imply that you are superior to less-thoughtful people because you didn't fall for the trap that ensnares the gullible--that of "automatically believing what I was taught."
Because you are so certain of the rightness of your own position, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in saying that perhaps you did not mean to be dismissive. But your words, and the attitudes they portray show an intellectual dismissal of some quite widely-held dissenting opinions. Imaginary? I think not. I'll try to meet you halfway, though, and go for "unintentional."
2. All claimed historical events either happened or not. This hardly means we cannot assign them probabilities. I either won the lottery yesterday, or i didn't. Which is more likely? The resurrectiion is, i think, far less likely than winning the lottery.
3. Even if it were true that without god there is no justice, that at most would show it is a good thing if god exists. It gives absolutely no weight to the probability that he does.
1. Your imposition of the circular reasoning criticism on this topic is more an evidence of your intended point than it is of a Christian fallacy. Your understanding of the nature of "miracles" is flawed. Christians do not need miracles to believe in the existence of God. They have a pre-conditioned faith that God DOES exist. If a Christian sees a miracle occur in God's name, he responds with, "Hey. Pretty cool there, God. Thank you for re-inforcing my belief with this tangible display." If an atheist sees a miracle done in God's name, he responds with, "Well now, THAT goes against my belief in the way things work. Maybe I should re-think things a bit." The atheist view of God is irredeemably harmed by the evidence of miracles (if they exist). The Christian view of God would not be harmed at all by their absence (if they did not exist).
2) Your first point is ABSOLUTELY true. Congrats. Our view of history is entirely constructed on what is most probably true for every event that we did not personally experience. You got that part right. The analogy of winning the lottery is less well-constructed, though. The act of ascertaining whether or not you actually won the lottery yesterday is fairly easy to accomplish. The act of ascertaining the truth of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is a bit murkier. To be fair to Christianity, however, by any method you choose to establish the historicity of any similarly-murky ancient event, the tales of the end of Jesus's time here on Earth measure up very well. Which is more likely---the resurrection or the battle at Therrmopylae? Using the same metrics to determine "probabilities" of historicity, you'll find that the resurrection stories stack up pretty well. If you think that the supernatural quality of the event of the resurrection makes it less likely, then you are arguing from a philosophical stance, not a historical one.
3. I agree with your assessment. That particular argument can be presented by logicians and philosophers, but as an evidentiary argument, I find it lacking, too.
No, it doesn't. Christian doctrine holds that there is no evidence of God but through faith. The whole point is that one has to have faith, not proof.
Call me a doubting thomas, but i try to believe based on evidence, not on lack of it. Proclamations of faith cut no ice with me; they are no more convincing than banging on the table or using ALL CAPS online.
If for no other readon, and rhere are nany other reasons, the fact that thiusands of contradictory religions all demand belief thriugh fsith without evidence is a bit of a problem. Why choose jesus over zeus - or over the great juju who just revealed himself to me?
No, i cannot prove thd great juju exists to nonbelievers. The great juju's dogma says the only way to realize his existence is through blind fate.
How... Convenient.
Because Jesus is the religion of the world's most successful civilization (that's what did it for me). Atheism is the religion of one of the world's most horrible "civilizations". I thought, "if Christianity works better than not-Christianity, how odd it would be if believing something false led to wild success and believing something true led to something inferior".
That's no "proof" of course. As in most things, we make decisions without proof that the decision is right. But it is a reason, or evidence, to think that Christianity is right. It's more than the unicorn's got, more than the tooth fairy has, and more than atheism has.
You might figure this out from what I've been writing: I'm not trying to prove something. You can be a solipsist if you want. Certainly nothing can be "proven" except the events you experience, and those can't be proven to me.
Furthermore, why not just surrender on everything? Why are you involved on a political site since you can't prove that your politics is right?
Do you think there is some kind of brilliance in repeatedly claiming that, "that doesn't prove ... duh ... that doesn't prove it."
It doesn't make the claims irrefutably true, but if consequences consistently turn out the way a viewpoint predicts they will, then it DOES in fact lend credence to that viewpoint.
Argument from consequence is NOT conclusive, but it is not weightless either.
If there is no such thing as Truth, then all attempts to believe in it or discover it are equally flawed.
If Truth actually exists, though, then it is quite possible that one group might discover it and others might mis-interpret or intentionally bastardize it.
Your complaint should not be about religions believing themselves to be true while all the others are false. This is consistent with the faith-based premise.
Your complaint should be that religion exists at all. If no Truth exists, then ALL faiths are worthless.
Feel free to not believe in anything. Absolutely fine. But to judge the logic of others' positions based on a premise that they do not share with you is poor practice.
It's up to you.
But here's a reason.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "Justice delayed is justice denied"?
Well there's also, "Justice never served is justice non-existent."
If justice is anything more than just a make belief idea, then it has to be served. If one person dies a victim without just recompense, then it must be given after death, or justice is just a farce and we might as well forget it. If things are not set right about the innocent who died in death camps, and the victimizers who killed them, then let's stop pretending and become the animals we are capable of being, since justice would be every bit the delusion that you perhaps feel is anything beyond materialism.
Believe in a God of love so you can believe in justice. That was my first reason for believing, long before I became a Christian.
And in the meantime, the Jews he tortured and gassed? They did not accept Jesus, so they go to hell?
It's not that simple. A man can be in jail for committing a crime and yet either be forgiven or not forgiven by his victim.
So we sin.
There is a finite penalty to pay. But after it is paid, we are still stained by the sin and not fit to be eternally with God. God can make it, if we seek it, as if the sin had never happened so we can achieve the end of perfect happiness in the presence of God - that's God's mercy or forgiveness.
Here's an answer, in brief, that will get me into trouble with everybody. The Jews accept truth. Jesus is the Word - Truth. The Holy Trinity is Existence, Truth, Love. These are all part of the Jewish religion.
There is also Luke 6:21
"... Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh."
This will not likely be read by anyone as it's too late. Also I'm feeling sick.
Blaise Pascal had an answer, a good one, not necessarily mine.
Start with theism. Seek understanding with sincerity and patience.
Another thing that concerns me: you're assuming there was even a singularity in the first place. I can't see how we KNOW that to be the case. It seems to be implied, but if we can't even model such a situation 100% correctly, how can we even be sure?
More, you seem to have personified something that may not be in any way, shape or form a conscious thing. You equated "God" with this singularity you assume existed, but how do you know? What if it's like lightning, or wind? Just another physical thing that happens?
Of course, I happen to be a Deist/Pantheist of sorts, so I'm not entirely against you on this. It is JUST AS PRESUMPTUOUS for them to assume no God of any kind. But that's just it: both sides are being rather presumptuous. How do any of us know? For all we know, this universe is a computer program and "God" is some idiot grad student in some other universe.
The scientific method isn't a philosophy or a religion, it's a tool. You might as well say all carpenters must believe in God or not because they use hammers.
Empiricism is different. That's a philosophical choice that says in he absence of evidence I'm not buying, but the debate closing fascists on both sides aren't interested because they both want exclusive control of science because it's so powerful and so over marketed.
Theists who try to make arguments to Atheists based on the assumed rules that Atheists live under are wasting their breath.
Atheists who try to argue with Theists based on the Theists' basic assumptions are behaving in similarly futile ways.
The two ideas are not completely un-debatable, but they do appear that way at times when both sides are more interested in scoring points with those in attendance whose pre-suppositions match their own.
;-)
The answer was, "No, because He's not an idiot."
It was a dialogue about God, not the Greek or Roman god you speak of, but the principle is the same.
1. Define your terms.
2. Build a predictive model.
3. Test it against reality.
4. Modify or discard it if it's wrong.
5. Repeat.
There are complexities, of course, but it's illuminating that nothing else actually does this. Why did we need to give a special name to systematically checking that our ideas about reality are actually true? Because we'd spent so long muddling along without doing that.
It was Chrystostom who excused the murder of millions by claiming it was G-ds will. That such a diseased mind be lauded taints this otherwise interesting article.
People accepted the Bible at face value for thousands of years as there was no other standard to measure statements and timelines against. it was acceptance or burn in hell for eternity, and heaven help you if you challenged a single word.
Today we have unearthed writings of Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonians, the city of UR, the codes of Hammurabi and far earlier...written thousands of years before the stories and characters in the Bible existed and source of much of bibles traditions.
In Turkey we have found Gobekli Tepe, which dates back 12,000 Years. This is 6,000 years before "Adam and Eve" walked the earth, and reveals the first religious observances humanity practiced. Am sure we ill find earlier remnants soon in other countries.
From these sites sprang forth what becomes the Bible, stories and fables discussed around fires which the Phoenicians spread through the Mediterranean thousands of years later, which was written down and ends up as the foundation for what we call the Old Testament.
We can trace these events just as surely as evolution of computer, airplane, and telephone. There is no more uncertainty where the Bible comes from, seek the truth as Christ implored.
Maybe God is just waiting for us to grow up.
You believe the Tepe proves a certain date. Some others would simply disregard it as another example of the flawed scientific method of dating ancient materials.
You believe the Chauvet cave paintings are evidence of a civilization more artistically advanced than previously known. Some others would simply disregard it as another example of the flawed scientific method of dating ancient materials.
You believe that archaeology and chemistry have proven that certain other cultures in the world pre-date and preclude the tales from the Bible. Some others would simply disregard it as another example of the flawed scientific method of dating ancient materials.
Getting the idea?
You continually come up with more anecdotes, more evidence, more examples and treat this new evidence as conclusive. If your opponent refuses to accept your premise as valid, then showing more logical outgrowths of that same premise is an exercise in futility.
Never understood why people accept what they read without researching for themselves, it takes very little time to read about Gobekli Tepe, which by itself eviscerates biblical timelines.
The writings of Sumer and Phoenicians describe stories and fables that reappear hundreds and thousands of years later in the Bible, this is common in Humanity's history, borrowing religious figures and rituals from earlier cultures and re-labeling them to suit the new rulers ( meet the new boss, same as the old boss).
This does not negate the message of Bible, but it does call into question the manner scholars and the rest assembled and organized various books to reflect particular agenda.
Computers are great for cross checking materials.
The Noah's flood thing may be even older. Pitman and Ryan make a case that it's a Black Sea inundation of the part of the Danube that used to be in the basin. That's why every culture surrounding it has flood mythology.
Much easier to buy than the marsupials catching a ride to Austrailia.
How dare he show us how the one true God could ever be in touch with His creation, that the singularity is God by definition. I AM that I AM.