At the beginning of it all

[snoopy]

The discussion on I.D. got me to thinking about this: how do people think "it all started?" I guess what I'm saying is, at the beginning of time, something had to be. A creationist would say at the beginning that God was, and essentially nothing more. What do other people say? Where did all the matter and energy that exists in this universe come from? Or was it just there?

Let me preface this by saying that I don't see any statement concerning this any stronger than any other other statement, because eventually you get to "it was just there." Anyways, I'm curious how deep people try to take things back.

[Gooberman]

I think its only because we have a beginning that we try and force the universe to have one. I think the universe undergoes significant changes, but its wrong to claim any of them as "the start."

[roid]

"it wasn't there"

rimshot

[Avder]

Ok then, for all you evolutionists, where did the universe come from?

And for all you creationists, where did God come from?

I love paradoxes.

[Tyranny]

Personally I think the universe just IS. It's too complex IMO to have had a beginning and it just wouldn't make sense that there was absolutely NOTHING or something completely different and then eventually the universe.

The other one is easy. Man created God{s}. Just my opinion though.

[Lothar]

Avder, you left out a whole bunch of people who are neither evolutionists nor creationists... but I'll try my hand at both questions, since I probably have as much in common with both sides as anyone else here has with either.

1) Where did the universe come from? Probably a large singularity at the beginning of space-time. The evidence (both scientific and philosophical) points to time being finite, so it's pretty reasonable to say that at some point there was a beginning. Now, that singularity had to come from something transcendent -- something not confined to space-time. "God" is one such possibility; a higher-dimensional unintelligent process that happens to generate singularities is another.

2) Where did God come from? This question, while gramatically correct, doesn't make philosophical sense due to the answer above. You're asking what existed in the time before God existed that caused Him to exist -- but if God created time, there is no time before God for anything to be pre-existing or causing anything. It's like asking what happens if you get to the North Pole and then you walk North, or what happens when you get colder than absolute zero. There is no North of the pole, there is no colder than absolute zero, and there is no "before" the beginning of time. If God existed at the very start of time, you can't go further backwards in time to find a prior cause.

[Pandora]

just a little glitch in the void? Nothing that can really be detected when seen from the voids point of view?

[Avder]

Lothar, you just eleaborated in circles and went absolutely nowhere. Congratulations on failing to see what I was getting at with those two questions

[Lothar]

I know exactly where you were going with those two questions. I was demonstrating that you don't have to go there -- in your mind, those are good paradoxes that put us all on the same footing (needing to explain what "caused" something), but as is clear from my response, they don't really. As soon as you've said time had a beginning, you need only one cause for that, and you can't go further back in time.

I don't need to elaborate "in circles" to answer the two questions. The universe began in a big singularity at the beginning of space-time; whatever caused that need not, itself, be caused because "time" doesn't keep going backwards beyond that point.

[Tyranny]

While I hate to admit it. Lothar makes perfect sense. OMG!

[woodchip]

I don't need to elaborate "in circles" to answer the two questions. The universe began in a big singularity at the beginning of space-time; whatever caused that need not, itself, be caused because "time" doesn't keep going backwards beyond that point.

The problem I have with this reply is that some astrophysicists think new universes pop into existence on a on going basis. So does a different "time" start ticking when each universe becomes active? For the sake of this discussion space is the area that multiple universes exist in (or may exist in).

[Lothar]

some astrophysicists think new universes pop into existence on a on going basis.

If so, those would simply be multiple singularities arising in some higher-dimensional manifold. No problem there...

So does a different "time" start ticking when each universe becomes active?

It's quite possible that some universes could have different "time" axes, and some may not even have any sense of time at all. Or, possibly, new universes may share "time" (and possibly also some space dimensions) with older universes.

Your use of the word "when" in the above sentence assumes the time axes at least would have to intersect -- if another universe starts at a point that you could call "when" or "time", you've already assumed that point connects with some other universe's "time".

[BigSlideHimself]

BTW, Creationists can = Evolutionists. I for one believe in God, but I also subscribe to alot of "secular" theories as well.

[Vertigo 99]

dudes, god is the universe. he created himself, cause he's mad powerful.

[Tricord]

All inherently human things such as belief and religion aside, many of you have a wrong idea of what science is and does.

At this level, science doesn't offer absolute truth. Science offers a model formulated in maths, which is close enough to reality in order to make certain verifyable predictions. If the model is not verifyable, it's worthless.
Also, through history only specific models were designed. E.g. one that only works for electromagnetic fields; another that only works for gravity. Each of these models has different versions, each more accurate than the previous.

Unless we find the theory of everything, which would provide a model with 1:1 reality conformism, we are only playing with symbols on paper.

Another thing inherent to mathematical models are parameters. It is undecided wether the universe will collapse in a big crunch or expand forever. However, we have a model that depends on parameters and it'll be one or the other depending on the parameter value. What the actual value is we don't care, the model itself is more interesting.

--

In this regard religion and science have much in common, they're both inherently human. The only difference is that science has mathematical potential to reach closure in a theory of everything. Religion does not.

Based on this only, the choice is already crystal clear which path to take..

--

But in the end, we are all humans. If we need a higher being to pray to, to lament to, to cheer to in order to lead our lives, then science won't give you much. Religion will give you as much as you grant yourself.

--

So, to each his own. But don't kid yourself you're so fundamental or close to the truth with either of science or religion. You'd be wasting your time. Religion and Science have the same abstract purpose: satisfying individual curiosity and certain needs.

--

Note: I'm not talking about science that powers your TV set or allowed men to walk on the moon.
I'm not talking about religion where you go to church to eat cookies and dip your fingers in cold water and cross your little fingers to pray.

I'm talking about the part that happens in your mind and that you identify with. Not the practical crap. Goes for both religion and science.

[Pandora]

[quote="Tricord"]Science offers a model formulated in maths, which is close enough to reality in order to make certain verifyable predictions. If the model is not verifyable, it's worthless.[/quote="Tricord"]

i think you mean 'falsifiable' ... or am i missing something?

[quote="Tricord"]In this regard religion and science have much in common, they're both inherently human. The only difference is that science has mathematical potential to reach closure in a theory of everything. Religion does not.[/quote="Tricord"]

I would say that another difference is that religion is not falsifiable. Or can you think of any (thought) experiment that could prove that God as a theory is wrong?

[Lothar]

many of you have a wrong idea of what science is and does.

And this relates to what we're discussing... how?

So far, most of what we're doing is offering up theories that are consistant with our particular belief systems. These theories are far beyond the realm of testability...

The only difference is that science has mathematical potential to reach closure in a theory of everything. Religion does not.

Science has the mathematical potential to reach closure in a theory of everything observable -- not a theory of everything. It's a subtle but important distinction. In this case, religion actually has a greater potential -- provided that religion has actual contact with a being that can observe things we cannot. So we come back to starting assumptions -- if religion *actually* connects to God, it's very powerful, and if not, it's worthless -- so whatever you already believe about God will color your perception of whether science or religion is the "better" path to take.

Really, the best path to take is to continue to engage your mind in all possible ways, and not unnecessarily limit yourself based on your preconceptions.

[Lothar]

I would say that another difference is that religion is not falsifiable. Or can you think of any (thought) experiment that could prove that God as a theory is wrong?

Be careful with what you're comparing to what...

Science as a whole is not falsifiable. Neither is religion as a whole. You can't do any experiment to prove God, as a theory, is wrong. Neither can you do an experiment to prove "observe, hypothesize, test" (the scientific method) is wrong.

But, individual religious claims and individual scientific theories are falsifiable. You can't disprove the general concept of God, but you can disprove specific claims of specific religions in exactly the same way as you can disprove specific claims in science. There are two examples I'm familiar with:

1) the Worldwide Church of God (founded by Herbert W. Armstrong) made some specific claims about the timing of Armageddon, and about their leader not dying until a particular event. When their leader died, that central claim was falsified, and the entire church leadership realized it (you can get a video detailing their transformation here, or read their current leader's book about it here.)

2) the Book of Mormon claims that Native Americans are descended from the Jews. This is clearly refuted by the DNA evidence (explained on the video here.)

So, while "religion" is not falsifiable, individual claims of individual religions often are. This is not so different from science.

[Drakona]

Falsifiable and verifiable aren't the same thing, either. Practically speaking, I can't falsify the claim "there are pink zebras," because I can't examine every zebra. But I could verify the claim by finding one.

In that sense, religion is verifiable, and at best only weakly falsifiable. You can't prove God doesn't exist (though looking for a very long time and not finding any evidence of him functions as an inductive proof--like with the zebra above), but you very well could verify his existence.

I mean, if a voice echoed in thunder from a mountaintop claiming to be God, and six million people all heard it at once... would that be verification? If someone could accurately predict the future, and claimed God told him, would that be verification? If someone claimed to be God, was killed, and subsequently rose from the dead... would that be verification?

Maybe none of it's proof, but there's nothing about religious claims that makes them inherently inaccessible to rational methods of verification and falsification. Claims that have a stake in history and reality are naturally accessible by rational inquiry. It's misty, non-specific claims like, "Love is a grand force that ties each person to another, and the greatest meaning in life..." that are impossible to evaluate.

In short, it isn't religion that's untestable, but rather platitudes in general (of which some (but not all) religions are a subset).

[Pandora]

hmmm... interesting points from both of you:

Science as a whole is not falsifiable. Neither is religion as a whole. You can't do any experiment to prove God, as a theory, is wrong. Neither can you do an experiment to prove "observe, hypothesize, test" (the scientific method) is wrong.

I haven't thought it through, but I think you could test the scientific method (at least if you accept the goals of science, see above). One prediction is that by doing the method ("observe, hypothesize, test") you more often than not end up with new insights, ideas for further experiments, and with technological progress. And I think the history of science has shown that all this does take place, otherwise mankind would have shifted to another, more fruitful pursuit a long while ago...

So, while "religion" is not falsifiable, individual claims of individual religions often are. This is not so different from science.

good points ... haven't looked at religion from this angle. Seems, however, that there are at least some religions who flee from the thread of falsification by making to testable predictions at all.

(just to clarify: Although I am a complete Atheist, I am by no means hostile to religion. IMHO science and religion deal with completely different human needs, and they do not need to exclude each other --- and I do not really believe that religion should be measured in the way scientific theories are measured).

[Pandora]

I mean, if a voice echoed in thunder from a mountaintop claiming to be God, and six million people all heard it at once... would that be verification? If someone could accurately predict the future, and claimed God told him, would that be verification? If someone claimed to be God, was killed, and subsequently rose from the dead... would that be verification?

No, anecdotal evidence doesn't count

seriously though, have to think about your points for a while...

[Lothar]

I think you could test the scientific method...

How could you falsify the scientific method using the scientific method? ;)

The tests you line up are all positive tests -- does the method provide us with certain advancements of understanding? Yes, it does -- and you can test religion (or individual religions) in the same way. But your original point was about falsifiability, not about verifiability.

Seems, however, that there are at least some religions who flee from the thread of falsification by making to testable predictions at all.

Right -- a religion entirely made up of platitudes and commands is unfalsifiable. (I think buddhism is at least mostly this way.) Most of the Western religions, though, make either historical or prophetic claims, and those can often be tested. At the very least, you can force them to revise their claims.

anecdotal evidence doesn't count...

I think you missed the point. The point is, those sorts of actions would be verification to you if you were a witness to them -- and while your word might not be good enough for others, the observation is verification to yourself (anecdotal evidence is only as good as the word of the person giving it, but your own observation is much more powerful.) So, in that sense, many religions make falsifiable claims AND many religions can (in principle) be verified.

[Foil]

I just want to answer the original question by pointing out my own perspective: I'll add some other comments about the discussion later..

Avder, you left out a whole bunch of people who are neither evolutionists nor creationists...

You might need to clarify your definitions a bit (to avoid any misunderstandings), but I agree.

Sadly, many people see the issue of origins as a polar thing (they see no other possibilities besides being an atheist/naturalist/evolutionist or a Christian/Biblical-literalist/creationist), but in reality there's a huge spectrum.

Snoopy, in answer to your original question about people's various viewpoints:

First of all, I'm a Christian, so I believe God is the ultimate creator; furthermore, I believe that He is still actively involved with His creation.

On a cosmological level, I think that the current scientific model of the early universe is the best we have available right now. Extreme creationist interpretations about a young universe and/or young earth are based on what I consider poor Biblical interpretation, and they just don't fit with observations. I personally see God as being extraordinarily creative, and time is not the same to Him as it is to us (I Peter 3:8-9), so an explosive, long-term, complex, beautiful, still-expanding creation fits perfectly, at least in my mind.

On a biological level... honestly, I don't even know enough about the subject to give a knowledgeable opinion. The only thing I do know is that I believe God (not random chance) created life and that by some process he guided the development over time, finally breathing life into mankind. I know that's a bit vague, but like I said, I don't yet have a well-formed opinion on the matter.

[Drakona]

No, anecdotal evidence doesn't count

LOL, anecdotal. Provisionally, I'm saying it would be verification if those things happened during your lifetime, or perhaps had happened in the past but were well-docmuneted in historically proper ways. I didn't mean if somebody's crazy uncle told you they happened a billion years ago.

[Pandora]

How could you falsify the scientific method using the scientific method?

But falsification (in this sense) is a scientific term. And I think the idea of applying the scientific method to science itself is itself quite sound. At least, as long as nobody comes up with a better method. In fact, I think the idea of the scientific method is something even children do from the beginning (according to some psychologists' claim)

The tests you line up are all positive tests -- does the method provide us with certain advancements of understanding?.

As I learned (and practice it), the failure to make adequate predictions about an outcome of an experiment is a grounds for rejecting a theory. If this happens too often a theory counts as falsified (but, i might add, it was quite a long time ago and i have mixed things up). The problem is that one can never really *prove* a theory as there might always be better theories that make the same (or more accurate) predictions. So, all one is left with is falsification.

a religion entirely made up of platitudes and commands is unfalsifiable. (I think buddhism is at least mostly this way.) Most of the Western religions, though, make either historical or prophetic claims, and those can often be tested. At the very least, you can force them to revise their claims.

I think you missed the point.

nah, i got the point... was just kidding. But the idea of historical predictions makes sense to me. And I also agree that such predictions can be falsified. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Lothar]

I think the idea of applying the scientific method to science itself is itself quite sound.

But what would happen if the scientific method said it didn't work? "I proved the scientific method doesn't work, using the scientific method." "So you didn't prove it, because you used a faulty method." "Uh, but I did prove it." "But you proved it didn't work, therefore, your proof is invalid." It's one of those strange "I am lying" problems ;) In the end, you know something is wrong, but you can't really say exactly what it is.

the failure to make adequate predictions about an outcome of an experiment is a grounds for rejecting a theory.

Well, yes, assuming such experiments even exist. If no predictions can be made and no experiments can be done, that's not grounds for rejecting the theory.

If experiments can be done, then you reject the theory if it disagrees with the experimental results. But if no experimental results exist, that's not grounds for rejecting the theory -- it's just grounds for saying "that theory isn't falsifiable."

the idea of historical predictions makes sense to me. And I also agree that such predictions can be falsified.

Good to hear.

[Pandora]

But what would happen if the scientific method said it didn't work? "I proved the scientific method doesn't work, using the scientific method." "So you didn't prove it, because you used a faulty method." "Uh, but I did prove it." "But you proved it didn't work, therefore, your proof is invalid." It's one of those strange "I am lying" problems In the end, you know something is wrong, but you can't really say exactly what it is.

Ah, come on. If I would say to you: "I lie always. My previous sentence is a lie." you would not have any problems with resolving this paradox. You would simply say, "enough with this nonsense, I won't listen to you anymore!". The same would be true for science, i guess.

the failure to make adequate predictions about an outcome of an experiment is a grounds for rejecting a theory.

Well, yes, assuming such experiments even exist. If no predictions can be made and no experiments can be done, that's not grounds for rejecting the theory.

If experiments can be done, then you reject the theory if it disagrees with the experimental results. But if no experimental results exist, that's not grounds for rejecting the theory -- it's just grounds for saying "that theory isn't falsifiable."

But it is grounds for saying that it is a bad theory. Really, who needs a theory that is not practical? And on this count religion does not fare well, even when historical predictions considered. Simply because these predictions have not much relation to the 'important' assumptions of religion. Prophetic predictions, though, would impress me quite a lot...

But to reiterate ... i am not saying that religion should be rejected because it does not fare well with regard to scientific values. I would rather say that religion exists on a different level. It's worth should be measured by other means (although i don't know which --- but I trust every Christian/Moslem/whatever that she made the correct assessment herself)

[Foil]

Pandora, Lothar, Drakona... I think you all are actually saying similar things, but you may be missing each other's intent.

Regarding the verifiable/falsifiable issue, I think you all established that religion as a whole can't be falsified (in a scientific sense) simply because of the nature of its claims. And despite the "scientific method falsifying the scientific method" issue (I think that one is just a mental exercise in frustration ), it seems that you all agree that good scientific study needs to verify as well as attempt to falsify.

If I understand you right, Pandora, you brought up the issue about "falsifiability" (in response to Tricord's flawed statement) simply as the proper method of checking whether a given theory lends itself to scientific study; i.e. "If theory X can't be proven false, there's no sense in applying the scientific method". The possibility of falsifying individual claims within the realm of religion came up later, and that's where I'm sensing the misunderstanding, though I can't put my finger on the exact point of contention... maybe it's about the apparent intent of the "falsifiable" test when applied to religion?
---

Not to change the subject, but I noticed a couple of statements I wanted to get everyone's thoughts about:

Religion and Science have the same abstract purpose: satisfying individual curiosity and certain needs.

IMHO science and religion deal with completely different human needs....

These statements are quite different, but they both seem to imply that the overall purpose of religion is to fulfill human "needs". I'm not sure that I agree with this, as it almost implies that the ultimate source of a given religion is the frail human feeling of "need" (for understanding, for companionship, for sense of purpose, etc.). If religion exists only because of the desire to fill "needs", there's no room for even the possibility of a deeper truth; i.e. religious truth must be only a product of human feeling.

Even for those who don't believe there's a deeper truth behind any given religion, isn't there still at least an acknowledgement of the possibility? (like said above, one can't wholly falsify religion )

[Drakona]

you all established that religion as a whole can't be falsified (in a scientific sense) simply because of the nature of its claims.

Gah. Religion, even taken as a whole, is utterly testable. It ain't physics, but you can test it. Consider the claims, "God created the universe in 6 days," and "God is there and actively answers prayers," and "Reconciliation to God profoundly transforms your character." I can think of several ways to test each of those statements. They're only parts of a larger scheme, true--but does not testing a larger scheme consist of testing all the parts you can?

Sure, certain religious claims are only open to verification, and falsification will at most be a weak inductive case--like the claim "Some supernatural entity exists." Sure, certain religions claims are only open to falsification, and verification (if any) will only come from weak circumstancial evidence--like the claim, "Jesus rose from the dead." But there's nothing inherently untestable about supernatural or religious claims. Some people act as though if you can't mathematically model it, you can't study it with a scientific mindset. That just ain't so.

A few years ago, when I was praying I heard what I thought might be responses from God. The idea weirded me out at the time, so I set out to study it. I researched the phenomenon in church history, to see if it was a common experience of people close to God. I talked to fellow Christians about it, to see if they thought it was legit. I wrote down what I heard in a little book, over a few months, and studied the statements for accuracy, moral excellence, etc. Two years later, I came up with three internal considerations (from a Christian point of view), and seven external properties (from a neutral point of view), all well documented and recorded, that indicated what I was experiencing was supernatural. In fact, I shared these with an atheist friend online, and his only response was--"I think you're partly exaggerating and partly insane." When pressed, he offered the explanation that telepathic space aliens could explain what I was experiencing--which qualified as reducio ad absurdim for me.

Not that such things are predictable, or possible to model mathematically--God is living and active, and will do what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. But that doesn't mean you can't study what's happening and reason about it. For my particular question, falsification possibilities abounded: if I'd heard something incorrect, if I'd heard something incosistent with God's character, if it was unknown to the church...

It is a pet peeve of mine that people think religion is all fluff and nonsense just because it isn't neutrally accessible in a lab. That's like saying you can't study human genetics because it isn't morally possible to experimentally breed people. That doesn't mean you can't study it, it just means you have to accomodate that limitation in your experiments. So, to, you can't mathematically model, predict, or control the supernatural. So what? You test things in other ways. There's nothing about a religious claim that makes it inherently untestable, impossible to study/verify/falsify/etc. You proceed by different methods than you do for other subjects--your lab is largely your soul and your life, and your research has a heavy historical component--but you certainly can proceed.