Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    IIf they considered and rejected the possibility that God had intervened in the operation of the universe they should discuss this belief and explain why they reject it. Instead they simply appear to take for granted that the universe developed entirely as a result of physical processes and there was no intelligent intervention.
    There is no accepted scientific theory the the universe was created without intelligence intervention.

    The issue of intelligent design vs. non-intelligent design, as far as I know, is completely unsettled. They don't have the necessary evidence to support either theory.

    And therefore neither theory is accepted by science. And therefore the Intelligent Design theory is not accepted.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Theo
    Some of those who reject creation have already made up their minds before examining the evidence.
    Let's look at this again. This is a flat out irresponsible speculation. You have absolutely no evidence they did not consider the evidence first. You embellish what you know to make it look more evidential. That is not evidence because you made it up.

    Carl Sagan rejected the idea of creation but did he base it one the evidence? His famous television special, Cosmos, began with these words: “The cosmos is all that is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be.” In other words, he didn't believe God existed. Starting with that belief he had to reject creation and believe that the universe evolved over a period of billions of years. Many of those who reject creation do so because they are atheists, not because of evidence.
    Carl Sagan was a PhD who worked for NASA. How do you know what belief he started with? He may have given the matter great consideration. He had plenty of time to do so before beginning his TV series. To say that "some people do this" means absolutely nothing. It is not in any way a reflection on the logic of a philosophical position.

    ---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is no accepted scientific theory the the universe was created without intelligence intervention.

    The issue of intelligent design vs. non-intelligent design, as far as I know, is completely unsettled. They don't have the necessary evidence to support either theory.

    And therefore neither theory is accepted by science. And therefore the Intelligent Design theory is not accepted.
    Excellent point. All one has to do to be an atheist is be undecided. That makes you a non-believer. Apparently, intelligent design frowns upon an open mind.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Your say so is not a very good support. I, for one, reject it out of hand.
    And you understand that this isn't a very compelling objection right? After all Theo is relying on a relatively standard definition of God when he makes that claim, to reject the relatively standard definition requires a bit more than an out of hand comment.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Excellent point. All one has to do to be an atheist is be undecided.
    Not really. Someone who is really on the fence would be considered an agnostic. An atheist does hold the belief that there is no God but can have room for doubt. Likewise a theist can hold the belief that there is a God and likewise have doubt.

    So it's really a spectrum, starting with those who are absolutely convinced that there is a God to slight doubters to fence-sitters to serious doubters to those who are absolutely convinced that there is no God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Apparently, intelligent design frowns upon an open mind.
    A theory doesn't have an opinion on people's beliefs regarding it.

    And as an agnostic, I'm open to the possibility that the universe was intelligently designed but as I recognize that there is no valid scientific theory showing that that is the case, I cannot promote ID as something that should be taught as science.

    But I'm all for keeping on open mind on the notion that ID might be true or that non-intelligent design (NID) might be true. It's okay to admit ignorance when you don't have the evidence.

  5. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  6. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And you understand that this isn't a very compelling objection right? After all Theo is relying on a relatively standard definition of God when he makes that claim, to reject the relatively standard definition requires a bit more than an out of hand comment.
    It is a silly argument to say that the universe needs a creator, but the creator does not need a cause. The universe cannot just "be", but God can just "be". This is the argument I reject out of hand. There is nothing outside the universe because the universe is, by definition, everything. Standard definitions mean nothing when used as a claim that is unsupported.

    ---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is no accepted scientific theory the the universe was created without intelligence intervention.

    The issue of intelligent design vs. non-intelligent design, as far as I know, is completely unsettled. They don't have the necessary evidence to support either theory.

    And therefore neither theory is accepted by science. And therefore the Intelligent Design theory is not accepted.
    Intelligent Design is not a theory. A theory is a scientifically based postulation to explain facts, intended to be the most plausible explanation based upon the facts at hand. There is nothing plausible about intelligent design. It is a religious parable misinterpreted as fact. Science accepts the theory of evolution regarding life because the predictions have been verified, the preponderance of evidence supports it. Intelligent Design, being metaphysical in nature, cannot come from the summation of supporting facts.

    ---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Not really. Someone who is really on the fence would be considered an agnostic. An atheist does hold the belief that there is no God but can have room for doubt. Likewise a theist can hold the belief that there is a God and likewise have doubt.
    By the common usage of words that is true, however, philosophically it is incorrect. Theist means someone who believes in deities. Atheist is theist with the prefix a, meaning without. Someone who is undecided is not a believer, therefore is an atheist. The word agnostic was misused for so long it has come to mean something other than what was intended, much like "Platonic". Agnostic literally meant someone who refused to consider the question seriously because it was not born of empirical facts. Therefore, it should not even be discussed. By that definition, given by the one who coined the phrase, Huxley, it is most definitely an atheist position. Because it was misunderstood by the public to mean someone who is undecided rather than one who refused to consider, it has come to have a new meaning that is philosophically meaningless. It's like being pregnant, you are or you aren't. There is no middle ground. You either believe in a deity or you don't. There is no fence to sit on.

    So it's really a spectrum, starting with those who are absolutely convinced that there is a God to slight doubters to fence-sitters to serious doubters to those who are absolutely convinced that there is no God.
    That is an absurd belief, but the definitions allow it. nu- cu- lar is an accepted pronunciation for nuclear, too. Only because enough people said it wrong to become common usage. Common usage does not consider philosophical meaning or grammar correctness.



    A theory doesn't have an opinion on people's beliefs regarding it.
    Theories do not pop up mysteriously, either. Someone needs to form it and put it forward. They do not exist independently of human beings.

    And as an agnostic, I'm open to the possibility that the universe was intelligently designed but as I recognize that there is no valid scientific theory showing that that is the case, I cannot promote ID as something that should be taught as science.
    That is the common usage definition of agnostic and not the actual philosophical position of agnostic. But that is a different debate. I see your point.

    But I'm all for keeping on open mind on the notion that ID might be true or that non-intelligent design (NID) might be true. It's okay to admit ignorance when you don't have the evidence.
    That is my entire point. How can ID even be a theory without any evidence? It is not. It is fictional fantasy.

  7. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Intelligent Design is not a theory. A theory is a scientifically based postulation to explain facts, intended to be the most plausible explanation based upon the facts at hand. There is nothing plausible about intelligent design. It is a religious parable misinterpreted as fact. Science accepts the theory of evolution regarding life because the predictions have been verified, the preponderance of evidence supports it. Intelligent Design, being metaphysical in nature, cannot come from the summation of supporting facts.
    Strictly speaking intelligent design could be an some other intelligent corporeal agent seeding life on earth or of course some master builder that in turn sets motion the universe in such a way that the desired outcome of life on earth is an inevitable desired result. I can certainly imagine both these and don't find any strict impossibility to them. Therefore they are at least plausible if not the most plausible.

    ID doesn't need to be metaphysical, though admittedly it almost always is. I think most of the approaches I've seen to seriously support ID were both earnest and at leas try to approach the topic from a reasoned line. There may be flaws in the reasoning and often they are not truly scientific since no experiment is proposed that could test the hypothesis, but in theory that would be possible.

    I don't think ID as we see it is generally science but I do feel that it could be treated that way if one were inclined to. I think one of the problems is that those motivated to try and support it are almost always bias towards the conclusion rather than critical in asking how it could fail as well as how it could succeed.

    The thing is, the challenge or it is immense. You need mechanisms to test supernatural claims as well as definitive definitions for something like intelligence. These things are incredibly hard and so far have not been realistically solved by the ID movement. That of course is not obstacle to them pursuing their claims.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #47
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    It is a silly argument to say that the universe needs a creator, but the creator does not need a cause.
    How so? One began to exist (P2) the other did not. Why would something that is eternal need an explanation of its beginning?



    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous
    There is nothing outside the universe because the universe is, by definition, everything.
    Well first, that isn't the definition, the definition is the total of all known objects and phenomenon (IE matter and energy). If it were "all things" then we just change the CA a bit to say:

    P1: All things that begin to exist have a cause.
    P2: The subset of the universe that exists in a material form began to exist.
    C: Therefore that subset has a cause.

    What you are doing is pure sophistry by trying to define yourself out of the problem.

    Second, your rebuttal there would be a begging the question fallacy. God cannot have created the universe, because the universe is all that exists. Do you see the obviously circular nature of your argument?


    Third, you "rejecting it out of hand" was precisely the point I noted wasn't particularly compelling. It isn't a coherent argument or defense of a claim, it is the slightly more eloquent version of two boys yelling "nu-uh" "is so" at each other on the play ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous
    Standard definitions mean nothing when used as a claim that is unsupported.
    Which claim is unsupported? We have about a dozen CA threads on this site, all with support for each of the claims and the structure.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. Likes theophilus liked this post
  10. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Strictly speaking intelligent design could be an some other intelligent corporeal agent seeding life on earth or of course some master builder that in turn sets motion the universe in such a way that the desired outcome of life on earth is an inevitable desired result. I can certainly imagine both these and don't find any strict impossibility to them. Therefore they are at least plausible if not the most plausible.

    ID doesn't need to be metaphysical, though admittedly it almost always is. I think most of the approaches I've seen to seriously support ID were both earnest and at leas try to approach the topic from a reasoned line. There may be flaws in the reasoning and often they are not truly scientific since no experiment is proposed that could test the hypothesis, but in theory that would be possible.

    I don't think ID as we see it is generally science but I do feel that it could be treated that way if one were inclined to. I think one of the problems is that those motivated to try and support it are almost always bias towards the conclusion rather than critical in asking how it could fail as well as how it could succeed.

    The thing is, the challenge or it is immense. You need mechanisms to test supernatural claims as well as definitive definitions for something like intelligence. These things are incredibly hard and so far have not been realistically solved by the ID movement. That of course is not obstacle to them pursuing their claims.
    Fort something to be a scientific theory it must have at least some supporting evidence. Any idea without a shred of supporting evidence cannot be considered a scientific theory. Then it is just a plot for an episode of Twilight Zone.

    ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How so? One began to exist (P2) the other did not. Why would something that is eternal need an explanation of its beginning?

    Prove the universe is not eternal.


    Well first, that isn't the definition, the definition is the total of all known objects and phenomenon (IE matter and energy). If it were "all things" then we just change the CA a bit to say:

    P1: All things that begin to exist have a cause.
    P2: The subset of the universe that exists in a material form began to exist.
    C: Therefore that subset has a cause.

    What you are doing is pure sophistry by trying to define yourself out of the problem.

    Second, your rebuttal there would be a begging the question fallacy. God cannot have created the universe, because the universe is all that exists. Do you see the obviously circular nature of your argument?
    The universe does not need to have a beginning to exist. This is not a given. Show evidence of a beginning, or of a beginning being needed before making such claims.


    Third, you "rejecting it out of hand" was precisely the point I noted wasn't particularly compelling. It isn't a coherent argument or defense of a claim, it is the slightly more eloquent version of two boys yelling "nu-uh" "is so" at each other on the play ground.
    Yes. That was intentional. I was mirroring.



    Which claim is unsupported? We have about a dozen CA threads on this site, all with support for each of the claims and the structure.
    All ID claims are unsupportable, and therefore, unsupported. Support would require evidence and there is no empirical evidence for ID.

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

    I would like to take a moment to clarify statements I have made. The theory of evolution works because it explains cause and effect and all that is necessary for the theory to work is enough time for natural selection to take place. There is no doubt that billions of years is long enough. Because we have an acceptable theory, any theory to replace it must explain the current fact base better. ID in no way even begins to mesh with the accepted fact base. Therefore, it can not in any way be considered a viable theory. It was not born out of a wish to explain the fact base, and it involves unprovable speculation. In cultures where belief is regarded as highly as fact, I can see how this is not a problem. Everyone has a right to their philosophy. But ID in no way begins to meet the criteria of the scientific method. It is conjecture not theory. As such, it should not be taught in science classes any more than science should be forcibly taught in church.

  11. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Fort something to be a scientific theory it must have at least some supporting evidence. Any idea without a shred of supporting evidence cannot be considered a scientific theory. Then it is just a plot for an episode of Twilight Zone.
    Well, to be fair I didn't say Theory specifically, and yes, it does not meet that bar, but it could be a Scientific Hypothesis seeking to become a theory when enough evidence is collected.

    Abiogenesis is likewise at this state a hypothesis rather than a theory and to be fair ID is on its good days focused on the creation of life rather than its evolution. On its bad days it rejects evolution out of hand and gets into all that micro-evolution mumbo-jumbo.

    Mind you my bet as always is that the naturalists will discover how its possible and have a theory before the ID folks, and likely they never will meet the bar.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Well, to be fair I didn't say Theory specifically, and yes, it does not meet that bar, but it could be a Scientific Hypothesis seeking to become a theory when enough evidence is collected.

    Abiogenesis is likewise at this state a hypothesis rather than a theory and to be fair ID is on its good days focused on the creation of life rather than its evolution. On its bad days it rejects evolution out of hand and gets into all that micro-evolution mumbo-jumbo.

    Mind you my bet as always is that the naturalists will discover how its possible and have a theory before the ID folks, and likely they never will meet the bar.
    It seems we have a consensus.

  13. #51
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,305
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Prove the universe is not eternal.
    As I pointed out earlier, there are already a dozen threads on that here on ODN, I would recommend this one: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...gical-Argument

    The OP there gives a detailed defense of that particular premise.

    Specifically:


    Premise 2

    The Universe began to exist.

    Prior to Einstein, the predominant view of the history of the Universe was that the Universe had always existed. However, in 1915, Einstein published Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation or The Field Equations of Gravitation. In this paper he laid out the equations for General Relativity, offering a radically different view of Gravity than that given by Newton’s equations. It is my hope that everyone here is at least familiar enough with Einstein and General Relativity that I don’t have give an account of the experiments and observations that were done to support it. Assuming that everyone possesses such awareness I will focus rather on the implications that this theory had and still has.

    In the 1920s a Russian scientist, Alexander Alexandrovich Friedman, and the Jesuit priest, Georges Lemaître, independently discovered solutions to Einstein’s equations that suggested an expanding Universe. Even more shocking, not only did these solutions suggest that the Universe was expanding, but if you reversed the clock the Universe shrank until it reached a point known as a singularity. Support for the concept of an expanding Universe came a few years later in 1929 when Edwin Hubble published his observation of the redshift in light from different galaxies. Lemaitre and Friedman’s theory formed the basis for what we know call the Big Bang, a term coined in derision by Fred Hoyle.

    Despite the evidence from Hubble’s observations, not everyone was immediately convinced by the Big Bang. Most notorious of the objectors was Fred Hoyle, who proposed his steady state model as an alternative. However, his theories were short lived when in 1964, Robert Woodrow Wilson and Arno Allan Penzias, discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB). This was quite literally the smoking gun of the Big Bang. Theorists had predicted prior to their discovery that remnant radiation from the Big Bang would permeate the Universe, an afterglow from first moments of the Universe. With the discovery of the CMB, the Big Bang rose to prominence as the model of the Universe, spelling the doom of the Steady State theory.

    I hope that the very brief and rough history I have given for how the Big Bang theory arose in prominence is sufficient for everyone here to accept. Just as it is my hope that it is unnecessary for me to lay out all the evidence and support for General Relativity, it is my hope that what I have given here is sufficient for the Big Bang and that everyone is familiar enough with the concept that I do not have to say more. The real question I think and what we should be spending the majority of our time on in this section is whether or not the Big Bang implies a beginning for our Universe or not. Of course it is my contention that the Big Bang does indeed represent a true and ultimate beginning for our universe, a beginning that is in need of a cause.

    First off, what does it mean when it is said that the Universe is expanding and what exactly is the singularity? The assumption is oftentimes made, erroneously, that the expansion of the Universe consists of nothing more than the movement of galaxies away from one another. That is not the case. What must be kept in mind is that this theory represents a solution to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. General Relativity is a theory of gravity that explains it in geometric terms. Gravity is literally the result of space and time curving around matter and energy. Since the expanding Universe and the Big Bang are theories derived from General Relativity, they too apply Space-time itself, rather than the matter alone. So the expansion of the Universe is the result of Space and Time literally expanding. The oft-touted example of this is of an expanding balloon with two dots on it. At low inflation the two dots are close together and possess specific positions on the balloon. As the balloon is filled with air, however, the space between the two dots grows, not because the two dots are simply moving away from one another but because the space itself between the dots is literally expanding. The position of the two dots on the balloon and in relation to one another remains the same, but the entire system has grown so that the distance has grown as well.

    When this is process is reversed the exact opposite happens. Now space-time itself contracts and the entire mass of the Universe becomes compressed to a point of zero size and infinite density, a state known as a singularity. At this point space-time itself has broken down, as well as the laws of physics. This is effectively time zero because time-dimension that is a fundamental part of our Universe has been compressed to a point of zero size. Space itself is non-existent for the three spatial dimensions that we know to be a part of our Universe have effectively broken down. As hard as all of this is for us to conceive, this is indeed the state of affairs for the Universe in the singularity and what a singularity represents is a starting point, time zero.

    At this point one can raise any number of objections, each one taking us in a very different direction. For instance one could argue that there was never an initial singularity and indeed many modern Cosmological theories have done exactly that. Such models conveniently circumvent the singularity and a Universe with a beginning. Another objection, that I am sure many are considering is the idea that our Universe arose from some sort of Quantum fluctuation or some other variation that still allows for an actual singularity. While the latter theories are certainly valid, they are not really of interest in this section, because these theories still incorporate the initial singularity and thus serve as causes for the Universe’s existence. In other words these latter theories accept the 2nd Premise that the Universe began to exist and so do not serve as arguments against this premise.

    Having said as much, I will instead spend my time in the rest of this section addressing the arguments that claim that no initial singularity ever existed, that in other words our Universe is past-eternal. By using the term past-eternal I imply that when one rewinds the clock of our Universe, there never is a point when T=0, rather the existence of our Universe extends infinitely into the past.

    The first oscillating theories for the Universe did just this by having the Universe expand and contract without ever actually reaching the singularity. Rather as the Universe contracted, matter and energy somehow passed each other by without actually coming to a point. As the matter and energy of the Universe passed by one another they would expand out until one again the Universe reached a point were the internal gravitation of the Universe overcame the expansion and forced it to contract yet again. However, this model was inherently flawed. Perhaps the most damning of the flaws against this theory was the fact that since the Universe never collapsed to an actual singularity, Entropy was preserved from one oscillation to the next. Dr. Novikov and Dr. Zel’dovich both pointed out in a 1973 publication entitled Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities that:

    The second possibility suggests the appealing picture of a cyclic universe, persisting indefinitely into the past and future. However there is a flaw in this picture. As Tolman (1934) pointed out long ago, every cycle involves irreversible generation of entropy. If the baryon number remains constant, the total mass and pressure must both increase from cycle to cycle, hence, the maximum radius must increase from cycle to cycle as shown in Figure 4. The multicycle model therefore has an infinite future, but only a finite past.

    Figure 4 from their paper does an excellent job of illustrating this fact:



    Sources: I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich (1973) Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys. 11 387-412

    As if that is not damning enough for the theory, there is also the fact that it lacked any physical mechanism for why the Universe should start expanding again in the first place. Furthermore, 3 years earlier in 1970, Dr. Steven Hawking and Dr. Roger Penrose coauthored a paper in which they showed that the existence of an initial singularity was inevitable for nearly every model of the Universe.

    The present paper carries these results further, and considerably strengthens the implication that a singularity-free bounce (of the type required) does not seem to be realizable within the frameworks of general relativity.

    Sources: S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose (1970) The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314. 1519. 529-548.

    Despite all this, the cyclic model of the Universe has managed to be resurrected in light of Dr. Edward Whitten’s discovery of M-theory, which united the 5 different string theories and allowed for the existence of structures called branes. Originally it had been my intention to deal with this theory in a later section, but as we are currently discussing cyclic models of the Universe, I feel it is best to at least touch on the basics here and address some of the issues.

    Modern physics has gone a long way from the early days in unifying the fundamental forces of nature. As of right now the Standard model of Particle Physics manages to unify the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Electromagnetism all within the framework of Quantum Mechanics. However, it fails to include in this framework the fourth fundamental force, which is gravity. The prevailing view of gravity is given by General Relativity. However, at the quantum level General Relativity breaks down, making a synthesis of the two so far impossible. String theory arose as an attempt to solve this problem and to unify both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. While standard particle theory attempts to explain the matter and energy in terms of 0-dimensional particles, string theory attempted to explain this in terms of 1-dimensional strings. However, research in this field resulted in the formation of 5 different and seemingly incompatible theories. But in the 1995 this changed when Whitten managed proposed that each of the 5 different string theories was really a different aspect of a greater underlying theory called M-theory. In M-theory, the fundamental make up of the matter and energy is really multidimensional membranes or branes and the strings of string theory are nothing more than 1-dimensional sections of these branes.

    Sources: The Elegant Universe, 1999 and The Fabric of the Cosmos, 2005 by Brian Greene.

    If a lot of this doesn’t make sense, I apologize. This argument is already long enough and entire books have been written on string theories. For a quick synopsis check wikipedia:
    Introduction to M-Theory and String theory

    I have given this brief overview because as previously mentioned cyclic models have seen a resurrection in the face of M-theory. Dr. Paul Steinhardt and Dr. Neil Turok of Cambridge proposed the Steinhardt-Turok model in which two 3 dimension branes exist in parallel to one another. These parallel 3-dimensional branes collide with one another in a periodic cycle and it is this collision, the interaction of these two 3-branes, which generates the Big Bang and the 4-dimensional Universe which we observe. Our own Universe is located on one of these 3-branes which gives rise to our 3-spatial dimensions. The interaction of the two 3-branes provides the fourth time dimension. Furthermore, according to Steinhardt and Turok, the fate of these two branes is forever connected in this eternal cycle. This cycle was illustrated on the cover of Science:



    Sources: Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok (2002) A Cyclic Model of the Universe Science 296 1436 - 1439 and The Fabric of the Cosmos 2005 by Briane Greene

    However, in a 2003 paper Dr. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that that the exact same issues of entropy that plagued earlier cyclic models still plagued Steinhardt and Turok’s model and that while it was possible for the cyclic model to be eternal into the future, it had to have a definitive beginning in the past.

    In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion. For null geodesics each cycle is identical to the others, except for the overall normalization of the affine parameter. Thus, as long as Hav>0 for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then Hav>0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would imply that the geodesic is incomplete.

    When the authors say past boundary, they imply an initial starting point. The same is implied by saying that the geodesic is incomplete, which means that it is incomplete in past-directions (again a definitive starting point).

    Sources: Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (2003) Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions Physical Review Letters 90. 15

    Brian Greene puts it in a much more comprehensible manner:

    [I]The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings. As with Tolman’s model, consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model’s cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started.

    Sources: The Fabric of the Cosmos 2005 by Briane Greene

    Keep in mind the paper I have just cited by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, for it implications apply not only to brane models, but also to all models that have inflationary cosmology (it is interesting to note that Alan Guth is considered the father of Inflationary Cosmology). As it so happens, nearly all-modern models incorporate inflationary cosmology in some fashion. Inflationary cosmology refers to a model of the early universe in which, shortly after the big bang, the Universe underwent exponential expansion, before leveling out to current levels of expansion (overview of Inflationary Cosmology). While not the standard model per se, Inflationary Cosmology dominates within the field because of its enormous success in explaining such things as the homogeny of the Universe. This of course includes both the Brane Cosmologies I have just described as well as the Oscillating model mentioned earlier.
    This camp includes even multiverse models, such as brane cosmology, those theories where new Universes are born out of the singularities of black holes, or where regions of space undergoing inflation then give birth to new regions of space that undergo inflation as developed by Dr. Andrei Linde (sometimes referred to as the Bubble Universe). While all such models are indeed infinite to the future, they are not infinite in the past. Always they return to the need for an initial singularity and an ultimate beginning.

    I have, so far, mentioned and examined several prominent theories of the earlier Universe, all which tried to avoid the conclusion of an initial singularity, of an ultimate beginning. All such attempts have failed, in each case requiring the very thing that they set out to avoid. This drive to avoid the initial singularity, to avoid a true Big Bang Cosmology, has been going on ever since Friedman and Lemaître showed that Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicted an initial singularity for the Universe in the 1920s and 30s. 80 years later, no progress has been made in avoiding their prediction. In fact, so successful has Big Bang Cosmology been that it is now often referred to as the Standard Model of Cosmology.

    Based on all evidence we must inevitably conclude that the Universe did indeed begin to exist.



    Or I would also offer the shorter OP I wrote as part of a formal debate:



    Premise 2

    This premise also is generally scientifically accepted. Inflationary cosmology dictates that the universe began from a near singularity[3]. I think it is important here to point out that time is a physical dimension of our universe, just like the other dimensions[4]. Just as they expanded from a singularity, so did the temporal dimension of our universe. This necessitates a beginning of the universe when the temporal dimension was a singularity as well.

    Objections to this premise are usually in the form of alternative hypotheses about our current universe. Historically, the steady state universe was used. That is to say, it was argued until recently that the universe is eternal, that it had always been. This is problematic for several reasons. Primary amongst them is the evidence indicating the universe is expanding. It is for this reason that virtually no cosmologist holds to steady state theory today. The historic objection also still holds. If the universe was eternal, we would expect that all the stars and galaxies to have burned out by now. If there is an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would already have occurred, which is far greater than the possible time limit on all the fission of all the matter in the universe.

    The first modification of this theory to deal with the expansion of the universe came with the cyclic model. In which the universe expands, collapses and expands again. This theory however fails because it also cannot recede into the infinite past. Entropy between cycles would build up causing later cycles to be high entropy states and prohibit matter and star formation[5]. Again, if the universe were infinitely old, this would have already occurred and we could not observe star formation now.

    Finally, the most modern objection arises from an appeal to a multiverse or multiple universes. This objection also fails for two reasons. One, since it produces a temporal effect, the multiverse itself would need a temporal component (non intentful causes cannot act outside of a dimension they exist in), making it open to the same appeals to an infinite past that we have above. Two, a multi-verse hypothesis would need to be reconciled to the Borde-Vilinken-Guth Theorem [6] which prohibits low entropy, expanding universes (ie the kind we live in) from any multiverse. To date, no reconciliation has been put forward, with Stephen Hawking noting that this is the single greatest objection to his views.

    Characteristics
    It naturally follows from the premises that the universe therefore had a cause.

    But we can go a little bit further than that. Given the established premises and conclusions and some other observed facts, we can reason out a few of the properties of this cause.

    1) Omnipotence. This word is often used in a differing manner than how theists intend it. It does not mean, for example, the ability to do anything such as creating a round square. Rather, when used here it refers to the ability to actualize states of affairs. I will borrow William Lane Craig’s definition here:
    Rather we should think of omnipotence in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. A state of affairs is just a way something might be – for example, the state of affairs of there being chairs in this room, or the state of affairs of our being in the lower story of the church building, or there being a piano here. Those are all states of affairs that actually obtain. Omnipotence should be understood in terms of the ability to actualize states of affairs. To be omnipotent means the ability to bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for any one in that situation to bring about.
    [7]
    This ability is a natural conclusion to the CA as I have presented it. In order for a cause to be sufficient to cause the universe, it must be able to actualize states of affairs related to all the specifics of our universe. It must be able to affect physical laws, physical constants, and dimensionless constants. This ability fits the definition proposed above as omnipotent.

    2) Aphysical and atemporal. Both of these terms mean that the item in question lacks physical and temporal characteristics. Given that both time and space are properties of this universe and that an effect cannot be its own cause (a logical paradox), we see that the cause defined in our conclusion cannot exhibit properties of its own effect. Given that it must be transcendent of this universe (ie it cannot be bound to this universe otherwise it couldn’t exist to elicit the effect) it cannot be limited by the dimensions of this universe.
    3) Intentfulness. This conclusion arises from the observed temporal finiteness of the universe. We know that the cause cannot be a mechanistic cause (IE if the cause exists the effect exists) because we can describe a state of affairs where the cause exists, but the effect does not. This is really a long winded method of saying “the universe began.”
    Likewise, we can say that the cause is not a probabilistic cause either. Probabilistic causes require a dimension to act along. IE along a temporal dimension (chance over time) or a physical one (chance over distance). However, all probabilistic causes must act along the dimensions that they elicit effects within. IE, a quantum wave function acts along a temporal and physical dimension to create an effect in both (a particle’s location). You cannot have a quantum wave function (or any other probability function) that only discusses time, but produces a physical effect.
    Given now that we’ve ruled out those two methods of causation we are only left with intent. Only a cause that has an intent can demonstrate the attributes labeled above. Only an intentful cause can create information that is not found within itself. IE all causes except intentful ones have temporal information within them if they act temporally, physical information within them if they act physically, etc. Only intentful causes exhibit the kind of causation we observe given the CA.

    Conclusion
    So we can see that given the premises that the universe must itself have a cause and that this cause must be aphysical and atemporal since it cannot be part of its own creation, that it must be omnipotent in order to create that creation and that it must be intentful in order to explain the finiteness of the universe and its dimensionality.

    Given the premises, which are supported, no other conclusion can be accepted.



    Now for a miscellaneous definition:
    Logical necessity: I don’t mean this term to imply philosophic necessity in that I argue that no other belief is possible, but rather rational necessity in which I hold that no other conclusion is rational.



    Support
    1) http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/Cause
    2) http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/Histor...inger1926c.pdf
    3) http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/W..._contents.html
    4) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MinkowskiSpace.html
    5) I. D. Novikov and Ya. B. Zel’dovich (1973) Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys. 11 387-412
    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose (1970) The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314. 1519. 529-548.
    6) Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (2003) Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions Physical Review Letters 90. 15 http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0110012.pdf
    7) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...anscript/s3-17

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...t=Cosmological


    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous
    All ID claims are unsupportable, and therefore, unsupported. Support would require evidence and there is no empirical evidence for ID.
    That is a pretty bold statement you haven't offered any evidence for ironically. Can you support your claim? IE can you show that no ID claim has empirical evidence?




    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous
    ID in no way even begins to mesh with the accepted fact base.

    While I'm not an ID supporter, this clarification does seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with its claims. Perhaps you are only familiar with their claims via some proxy that is responding to them? Generally ID is concerned with answering known questions within evolutionary theory rather than a direct replacement of it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    The place for ID is in the comparative religions class or as part of philosophy not in science classes.
    Very few will attain the high level of science to even need to consider such esoteric stuff.
    On the internet it reads like a high - powered scientific view point. I believe supporters of ID have adapted the scientific method since they know it rings true.
    My gut feeling on experiencing the world definitely does not tie up with a loving God, and since love is the greatest of human emotions what is the point of another type of intelligence?
    'Better a glimpse within the tavern caught,
    Than in the temple lost outright.'

  15. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Intelligent Design is not a theory. A theory is a scientifically based postulation to explain facts, intended to be the most plausible explanation based upon the facts at hand. There is nothing plausible about intelligent design. It is a religious parable misinterpreted as fact. Science accepts the theory of evolution regarding life because the predictions have been verified, the preponderance of evidence supports it. Intelligent Design, being metaphysical in nature, cannot come from the summation of supporting facts.
    I misspoke. It's not a theory but I think the term "hypothesis" applies. In support:

    "a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"

    http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis

    IF ID were shown to be true, it would explain much, especially the big question on how life originated. But yes, it has not been validated through any scientific means and therefore is definitely not a scientific theory and should not be taught in science class.

    And ID does not contradict the theory of evolution. They can both be true at the same time.

    And IF ID is true, it can certainly be confirmed with facts and evidence. Theoretically anything that is true can be discovered and verified. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future.



    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    That is my entire point. How can ID even be a theory without any evidence? It is not. It is fictional fantasy.
    It is no more supported that it's fictional fantasy than it's supported that it's fact.

    We don't know if the universe was created by an intelligence or not there is no valid theory that the universe was created by an intelligence nor is there a valid theory that the universe was created by non-intelligent means.

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    I'm not a believer in Intelligent Design, but if such a hypothesis were pursued in a purely scientific manner, how would it not be science? Is it not biased and prejudicial to exclude one theory over another at the outset?

  18. Likes theophilus, MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Landrew View Post
    I'm not a believer in Intelligent Design, but if such a hypothesis were pursued in a purely scientific manner, how would it not be science?
    It would be scientific, but if the evidence does not support something as a theory, one cannot say that it is a scientific theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Landrew View Post
    Is it not biased and prejudicial to exclude one theory over another at the outset?
    Of course it is. But then is someone doing that?

  20. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    if the evidence does not support something as a theory, one cannot say that it is a scientific theory
    I'm not sure this follows. Do we really want to say that Newtonian physics isn't a scientific theory?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  21. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  22. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm not sure this follows. Do we really want to say that Newtonian physics isn't a scientific theory?
    The evidence does not support Newtonian physics?

    If so, then you're splitting hairs.

    My point, even if I didn't state it exactly right, is that there a criteria for what is and is not a scientific theory then it's not "unscientific" to determine that ID is not a theory.

  23. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The evidence does not support Newtonian physics?
    Correct, Newtonian physics has been falsified as a theory.

    My point, even if I didn't state it exactly right, is that there a criteria for what is and is not a scientific theory then it's not "unscientific" to determine that ID is not a theory.
    What's the argument that ID isn't a scientific theory? What are the criteria that it fails?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  24. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  25. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,888
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Correct, Newtonian physics has been falsified as a theory.

    More like it's been superseded.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  26. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Correct, Newtonian physics has been falsified as a theory.
    Then you have answered your own question "Do we really want to say that Newtonian physics isn't a scientific theory?"

    Apparently you'd say "yes" to your question.

    As whether Newtonian physics is or is not a scientific theory is not really pertinent to my point regarding ID, I see no reason to challenge this particular assertion. So I have no further response to this particular point.




    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    What's the argument that ID isn't a scientific theory? What are the criteria that it fails?
    "Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable."

    http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...is_not_Science

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Absolute truth vs Relative truth
    By starcreator in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 11:49 AM
  2. Absolute Truth
    By DeviantNorm in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 08:51 AM
  3. The universe is infinite
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 04:48 PM
  4. Replies: 116
    Last Post: June 21st, 2005, 07:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •