Media Leave "South Park" Creators Out to Dry

[Bill Mattocks]

Every religion has an origin story because it's one of the fundamental questions, even children ask their parents where they came from. Using a creator just pushes back the questions of who created it though. After all, it had to come from somewhere to create the universe and a consciousness without anything to be conscious of (outside stimulus) is a contradiction in terms.

Perhaps it is turtles all the way down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Science does nto have all the answers and it never will, because the nature of science is not to sit satisfied but to move onto more unknowns. So in that case all answers will never be solved. More answers, yes, all, no.

I agree; but my note was that every generation tends to accept the latest 'facts' as universal and everlasting when it involves something that *they* choose to believe to be true. And every generation accepts that *previous* generations of scientists were wrong. But not theirs. This is the smug error of every generation. We all do it.

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Not every description of a Creator or a First Cause stipulates that the Creator is infinite. Of those that do, it can be argued that a Creator sufficiently near to infinite from a human perspective would be seen in the imprecise language of humans as infinite. It may make the description wrong, but it does not preclude a nigh-infinite Creator.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

That is an assumption. It is commonly believed by science that before the Singularity, there was indeed 'nothing' in that time, space, mass, and energy did not exist. There is nothing else that can be defined, which leaves, for all intents and purposes, 'nothing'.

So even by common 'big bang' theories, the universe was created from nothing. A singularity exploded. What caused the Singularity? No one knows.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” - Leonard Peikoff

This illustrates the pointlessness of attempting to validate Christian belief in scientific terms. It does not render any Creation stories, including Christian ones, as impossible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think you can say that it happened for "no reason." Current singularities are governed by physical laws, so it stands to reason that the initial singularity was as well. Particle/anti-particle pairs also "warp" into existence from "nowhere" (the basis of Hawking Radiation), but those are governed by physical laws as well. Lastly, we can describe the physical laws governing the Big Bang all the way up to 10x10-42 (thats 0.00...42zeros...very small indeed) seconds after it occurred. All signs point to an event governed by physical laws.

I can say it happened for 'no cause' because science has no cause for the Singularity to offer. The Planck Epoch is, I believe, still the earliest we can 'look back' to the beginning of the universe. We can offer theories about what happened and why from that moment onward, but nothing prior to that. What caused the Singularity?

The best explanations I have read argue that in quantum physics, the laws of cause and effect are suspended. Things literally do pop out of nowhere, for 'no reason', as you say. That is the same as saying 'no reason' when we cannot divine the reason; we can't extract order from chaos. If the universe was created by a chaotic random creation of a particle that somehow contained all time, space, matter, and energy, then that is pretty much the same as saying 'no reason'. No cause is the same as no reason, at least based on my understanding of english.

True to a point, but it should not be taken to the level of relativism. Some things are true, and will always be true. The Sun is larger than the Earth. DNA codes for protein. Glycine is uncharged and glutamate is charged. Light has characteristics of both particles and waves. Our understanding changes and develops, but many things have been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. Relativism is false.

I agree. I would argue (only for fun) that those who hold tightly to current scientific models of the origin of the universe would be not only dismayed, but hostile, if science were to actually discover God accidentally and be able to prove it. Yes, I know it's impossible, but it's a fun mind-experiment. Many are so wed to the impossibility of God and religion that there is no science that the would ever accept which proved it. The reverse, of course, is also true; many are the religionists who will never accept scientific fact even if it does someday prove that God does NOT exist. In some ways, disbelief *is* a belief; by which I mean that people choose the theory that they find most agreeable and refuse to accept anything that challenges that - be it God or no-God.

The animosity does not come from the belief (most people believe in God), the animosity comes from a specific anti-science agenda driven by those who wish their version of religious belief to be taught as fact and the science that disagrees with it discredited and ignored. That agenda is part of a larger campaign among some of the religious zealots to control what we can watch and enjoy, who we can have sex with, and what we can do with our bodies.

Religionists would say that there is an opposite force at work, one which would deny them the right to worship and practice the precepts of their religion as they please, even in private. I do not think it incorrect to say that both are right to a degree.

 

[Omar B]

Perhaps it is turtles all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
I agree; but my note was that every generation tends to accept the latest 'facts' as universal and everlasting when it involves something that *they* choose to believe to be true. And every generation accepts that *previous* generations of scientists were wrong. But not theirs. This is the smug error of every generation. We all do it.
Not every description of a Creator or a First Cause stipulates that the Creator is infinite. Of those that do, it can be argued that a Creator sufficiently near to infinite from a human perspective would be seen in the imprecise language of humans as infinite. It may make the description wrong, but it does not preclude a nigh-infinite Creator.
That is an assumption. It is commonly believed by science that before the Singularity, there was indeed 'nothing' in that time, space, mass, and energy did not exist. There is nothing else that can be defined, which leaves, for all intents and purposes, 'nothing'.
So even by common 'big bang' theories, the universe was created from nothing. A singularity exploded. What caused the Singularity? No one knows.
This illustrates the pointlessness of attempting to validate Christian belief in scientific terms. It does not render any Creation stories, including Christian ones, as impossible.

Common assumption by who Bill? What scientist has ever said that something came from nothing? It's a given that something cannot come from nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. A 2 ton truck crushed to it's component parts, melted down, separated and recycled into different products would still be 2 tons of material The same is the case with energy. Cannot be create or destroyed, just it's form changed.

My father's a scientist and if he ever uttered such as you've said he would be drummed out of a job.

As for the different interpretations of the creator. I addressed the most common one. You can find so many wildly divergent versions of what it is and what it is not within even members of the same religion that the only thing I can be sure of is non of them really know what it is (it's like man qua man, but greater in every sense), but it's pretty big, really powerful and most of them fear it. I it sounds like Galactus to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Common assumption by who Bill? What scientist has ever said that something came from nothing? It's pretty much a given that something cannot come from nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. A two ton truck crushed to it's component parts, melted down, separated and recycled into different products would still be 2 tons of material The same is the case with energy. Cannot be create or destroyed, just it's form changed.

My father's a scientist and if he ever uttered such as you've said he would be drummed out of a job.

In a real sense, there had to be nothing prior to the Singularity. The Singularity contained all time, space, mass, and energy. All of it. Therefore anything that was not the Singularity did not exist. It was nothing. We can look back in time to the moment of the Planck Epoch and a trillionth of a second before, and beyond that, nothing. Not that we can't 'see' beyond that, that there was literally 'nothing' there to see. There was no there there, to pervert a phrase.

http://www.krysstal.com/quantum.html

Another quantum effect is the famous Uncertainty Principle. This implies that there is a built-in uncertainty in the Universe. It is possible for something to be created out of nothing, given enough time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_from_nothing

It is argued, for example by Victor J. Stenger, that the universe could have come from nothing. The positive energy bound up in matter being balanced by the negative energy of gravitation which is responsible for the expansion of the universe.
Logically it can be argued that if the universe, including space-time itself, as well as matter and energy, is "everything that exists" then there can be nothing (i.e. there cannot be anything) outside or before it.
So what does it mean to say that the universe has "come into existence" from nothing, if there was no time "before" it existed?

In fact, religionists often use this 'common sense' argument that something can NOT come from nothing to defend their beliefs against atheists. They point out (correctly) that atheists MUST believe that something can come from nothing.

It's a thorny issue, and I see both sides of it and understand neither. But yes, quantum physics says that something not only can come from nothing, but it does so all the time.

 

[Omar B]

It's an interesting rabbit hole to jump down, except that accepting that there was a singularity accepts that something contained all matter and energy. So nothing came from nothing, the matter and the energy were there, as I said, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only their specific configuration can change. the singularity expanded or exploded or whathaveyou and it's insides spilled out and the universe was created is one way to look at it.

Another is that space is infinate, and in it's infinate biggness (stole that from Douglas Adams) you can see universes collapse into black holes and matter spun out and coalese into new larger, smaller or altogether different forms. I don't think our specific solar system was here the whole time, maybe another system was here before that got destroyed, it's component parts scattered to float around a newly born sun.

Either way, it's a deep rabbit hole but I'm not one to give way to a supernatural when logic clearly states that a there is no such thing as a consciousness without something to be conscious of. The mind (any mind) works by bouncing off outside stimulus, every conception we have in our head is based upon this. I will not accept the explanation that god is just awesome at everything including conception in a void.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's an interesting rabbit hole to jump down, except that accepting that there was a singularity accepts that something contained all matter and energy. So nothing came from nothing, the matter and the energy were there, as I said, matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only their specific configuration can change. the singularity expanded or exploded or whathaveyou and it's insides spilled out and the universe was created is one way to look at it.

Well, the Singularity is the most commonly-accepted theory at the moment. But you are only looking inside the Singularity. Clearly there was an outside, since the size of the Singularity is defined by science (sub-atomic). Size implies something to measure it against. Otherwise, you'd have to say that the Singularity was as big as it was, and the universe is as big as it is, and no way to give either a number. You could not even say that the universe is expanding, because it would always be the same size; the size that it is.

Language begins to break down at that point and resemble Zen koans.

Another is that space is infinate, and in it's infinate biggness (stole that from Douglas Adams) you can see universes collapse into black holes and matter spun out and coalese into new larger, smaller or altogether different forms. I don't think our specific solar system was here the whole time, maybe another system was here before that got destroyed, it's component parts scattered to float around a newly born sun.

That's another spin on the "Turtles all the way down" argument. If everything depends on something else, then that implies that there is a first cause, or it implies a never-ending loop of causation (turtles all the way down).

Either way, it's a deep rabbit hole but I'm not one to give way to a supernatural when logic clearly states that a there is no such thing as a consciousness without something to be conscious of. The mind (any mind) works by bouncing off outside stimulus, every conception we have in our head is based upon this. I will not accept the explanation that god is just awesome at everything including conception in a void.

Heck, I'm not asking you to. But you'll note that in the end, you make a choice and then believe in it. That's another form of belief. Many religionists work the same way. They pick the belief that sits best with their internal logic and understanding and go with it. I know, I know, you're *logical* and they're not. But they'd claim that their internal logic is correct for them just as yours is for you.

 

[Omar B]

Since the singularity is as you said sub-atomic, but contained all matter and energy then the size really doesn't matter at all does it? If the planet were huge or the size of a tennis ball it still would have all life and we would still all live here. Size is relative to what's next to it and since there's nothing next to a singularity ...

The turtles all the way down idea seems to needlessly exist when one can simply state that the universe always was. There's nothing larger and older than infinity and since that's how the universe is described then there's no beginning of it is there.

Good points all around Bill, but as you stated there's no definite answer at this point. I can't wrap my head around the god concept and you can't wrap yours around the no-god concept and there we stand.

 

[Empty Hands]

That is the same as saying 'no reason' when we cannot divine the reason; we can't extract order from chaos.

Even chaotic systems behave according to physical laws. Even at the quantum level. Electrons, for instance, violate many "common sense" natural rules like being in several places at the same time and "warping" from one spot to another without seeming to travel the intervening space. Yet, they are tightly bound by physical laws. They have a discrete charge and mass, they behave in predictable ways, both statistically and aggregately, etc. If even something as wacky as quantum particles are still governed by physical laws, I don't see why the singularity should not. Current singularities are, after all. I don't think "no reason" is really accurate, although it is beyond our understanding.

Which brings me to "nothing". It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing." Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different. It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe. Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference. Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist. Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."

String theory after all holds that there may be many universes, suspended like soap bubbles (although that implies a spatial relation which is not accurate) in this medium. String theory is probably not true, but it helps in thinking about that "other" space.

I agree. I would argue (only for fun) that those who hold tightly to current scientific models of the origin of the universe would be not only dismayed, but hostile, if science were to actually discover God accidentally and be able to prove it.

Of course. People are people after all. I see many scientists cling to their pet theories after the whole field moves on. People are not rational, and good scientific thought takes an enormous amount of discipline, at all times. Thankfully science the enterprise is self correcting over time, and larger than individual scientists. Thus the bad thinking eventually gets weeded out.

Religionists would say that there is an opposite force at work, one which would deny them the right to worship and practice the precepts of their religion as they please, even in private. I do not think it incorrect to say that both are right to a degree.

I honestly have a lot of difficulty seeing that, and I am pretty fair minded about these things. Many atheists and secular organizations have called for government and religion to be separated. Polemicists like Hitchens and Harris have strongly criticized religion, even called the practicioners deluded and irrational. But not once have I seen such people or organizations call for the private practice of religion (apart from stuff like denying your kids insulin) to be regulated or restrained in private. Criticism is not the same thing as preventing you from worshiping.

If anything, I think that most religionists are more in danger from other religionists than the secular. Once you reach a certain zealotry level, all the other sects and faiths become obviously wrong and must be controlled and fought against. Look at the anti-Catholic prejudice in this mostly Protestant country in the 19th/early 20th century.

 

[Empty Hands]

Clearly there was an outside, since the size of the Singularity is defined by science (sub-atomic). Size implies something to measure it against.

No, singularities, even the ones we observe today, have no size. They are a mathematical point, with no x, y, or z coordinates. Yet they have an enormous amount of mass. Yeah, I know.

When scientists speak of "large" and "small" black holes, they are referring to the size of the event horizon, which is determined by the mass. Mass varies, but all singularities are dimensionless.

Language begins to break down at that point and resemble Zen koans.

No kidding.

The problem is we are bound in our own frame of reference. Mass without size and "nothing" are literally incomprehensible given the universe we are enmeshed in. Yet that's what it is. That's why most of these theories were developed from pure mathematics before observations confirmed the theories.

Part of the reason I think this works is that mass is not solid. Mass is an expression of energy, and the solid matter we see around us is almost entirely composed of empty space with interacting energy fields that give us the illusion of solidity. Thus there isn't really much "size" to pack into a tiny amount of space. Or any space at all. That's how you can end up with a teaspoon sized piece of neutron star weighing as much as a city block.

I love this stuff, but it really is incomprehensible in a visceral way.

 

[blindsage]

Which brings me to "nothing". It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing." Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different. It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe. Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference. Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist. Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."

This is what many religions basically say.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Good points all around Bill, but as you stated there's no definite answer at this point. I can't wrap my head around the god concept and you can't wrap yours around the no-god concept and there we stand.

Actually, I can't quite wrap my head around either one! None of it makes much sense to me. But I somehow manage to get through the day! :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Even chaotic systems behave according to physical laws. Even at the quantum level. Electrons, for instance, violate many "common sense" natural rules like being in several places at the same time and "warping" from one spot to another without seeming to travel the intervening space. Yet, they are tightly bound by physical laws. They have a discrete charge and mass, they behave in predictable ways, both statistically and aggregately, etc. If even something as wacky as quantum particles are still governed by physical laws, I don't see why the singularity should not. Current singularities are, after all. I don't think "no reason" is really accurate, although it is beyond our understanding.

I take my descriptions from stated opinions of quantum physicists who certainly know more about it than I do. I am aware of the way electrons change orbits from one shell to another with what appears to be no time in-between, which would clearly violate E=MC2. Funky stuff, eh?

Which brings me to "nothing". It may not be accurate to speak about the singularity coming from "nothing." Whatever that medium was, it certainly was different. It still exists, if it can be said to, outside the bounds of our current universe. Yet we are tied up in our frame of reference. Even a perfect vacuum in this universe is not "nothing", it is a medium where our understood constraints of mass, energy, and time exist. Outside that, is something very different, literally incomprehensible from our frame, but it may not be "nothing."

So when language no longer can confine the understanding, one either speaks in pure mathematical symbols, and thus has some understanding, or one is a layperson (like myself) and are reduced to taking some things on (dare I say it) faith.

I honestly have a lot of difficulty seeing that, and I am pretty fair minded about these things. Many atheists and secular organizations have called for government and religion to be separated. Polemicists like Hitchens and Harris have strongly criticized religion, even called the practicioners deluded and irrational. But not once have I seen such people or organizations call for the private practice of religion (apart from stuff like denying your kids insulin) to be regulated or restrained in private. Criticism is not the same thing as preventing you from worshiping.

If anything, I think that most religionists are more in danger from other religionists than the secular. Once you reach a certain zealotry level, all the other sects and faiths become obviously wrong and must be controlled and fought against. Look at the anti-Catholic prejudice in this mostly Protestant country in the 19th/early 20th century.

I was friends with Robin O'Hair, grand-daughter (and lookalike) of Madalyn Murray O'Hair (both tragically murdered). Believe me when I say that her grandmother's form of atheism was quite antithetical to religion of all sorts. I don't recall any expression of suppression of private religious belief or practice, but demands for the removal of television shows that had religious components, banning churches, revoking non-profit status for churches (even such as Salvation Army which basically just do charitable work) while not demanding similar restrictions for non-profits which are not religious, and so on. We're not just talking about taking 'In God We Trust' off of US currency, but banning such things as signs in front of churches.

 

[Empty Hands]

I was friends with Robin O'Hair, grand-daughter (and lookalike) of Madalyn Murray O'Hair (both tragically murdered). Believe me when I say that her grandmother's form of atheism was quite antithetical to religion of all sorts.

Ah yes, I had forgotten her. She's a pretty rare sort. Also one woman, and a handful like her, stacked up against an organized campaign that all but owns one major political party? I don't see the "they each have a point" equivalency there.

 

[Archangel M]

Actually, I can't quite wrap my head around either one! None of it makes much sense to me. But I somehow manage to get through the day! :asian:

And if there is a God/designer what makes anybody believe that they can honestly have a clear conception of what he/she/it is?

The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky. Or some sort of comic book character. Makes it easier to have a few "yuck-yucks" at their expense. Look at how complex and difficult to grasp our "science" has become. If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?

 

[Empty Hands]

The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky.

I don't know where we got that idea...

If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?

Many religionists, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, claim they understand Him quite well. They know what he likes. They REALLY know what he doesn't like. They talk to him every day, and they know exactly what you must do to get him to like you and to save you.

Much like the Greek gods, the fundamentalist God becomes an outsize humanlike figure magnifying all your worst traits and hating all you hate and liking all you like.

Comparatively few (at least by volume) go for the ineffable creator God. The hard to understand God might not hate the gays like you do.

The "anti-religionists" can only work with the material the religious give them. To many, God is clearly nothing more than personal wish fulfillment.

 

[Empty Hands]

This is what many religions basically say.

Could you elaborate? I don't see the similarity, at least with the religions I can think of.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ah yes, I had forgotten her. She's a pretty rare sort. Also one woman, and a handful like her, stacked up against an organized campaign that all but owns one major political party? I don't see the "they each have a point" equivalency there.

Percentage-wise, there also aren't many atheists. So of course they don't have quite the same impact. Respectfully disagree here, but I take your point.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And if there is a God/designer what makes anybody believe that they can honestly have a clear conception of what he/she/it is?

I suspect because it is hard to worship an abstract concept, but that's just my opinion.

The "anti-religion" types seem to like to define the faithful as believing that "God" is some sort of white haired guy with a crown hovering in a flying throne up in the sky. Or some sort of comic book character. Makes it easier to have a few "yuck-yucks" at their expense. Look at how complex and difficult to grasp our "science" has become. If there is a creator do we really believe it would be any easier to understand?

Well, my own belief is that Creator, if there is such a thing, is probably quite well beyond our comprehension on any level, including the visual. Given that, I shrug and retreat to the part of my mind that deals with complex problems using simple concepts. I realize that the chances are quite against it being accurate, but (shrug) I'm OK with that.

 

[Omar B]

Begs the question, why worship something you can have no conception of?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Begs the question, why worship something you can have no conception of?

That's down to emotions, I think. It makes me feel good. That should be a good enough reason. I have had experiences that I choose to believe have something to do with my personal interaction with my Savior. Real? No way to say. But they work for me and that's pretty much all I need. Now, it's no basis for convincing anyone else that my experiences are real; but I don't try to.