Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by Eugene Shubert, Jan 8, 2018.

  1. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I think that in just about every area of scholarly work, ideas are formally introduced and names are made through the medium of formal books and papers. (The ideas are often informally introduced prior to that in discussion.)

    But sure, presenting ideas (scientific or otherwise) in talks or lectures doesn't discredit those ideas, provided that the ideas had merit to begin with.

    Of course not, that idea's just stupid.

    Most of the prominent names in intellectual history have given lectures and talks. The iconic ancient Greeks did and it's how most university instruction is conducted today. It's how scholarship has historically been passed down. Our ability today to record those talks and lectures on video doesn't render what's said bullshit and turn the speaker into a deceiver.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Or at least for more scholarly discussion of the subject.

    You asked the question rhetorically in the subject line. Then you set in asserting your answer to that question over and over. I don't recall you ever explaining or justifying that conclusion or providing any plausible or convincing argument for why you are right.

    What you need to do is write a post, several paragraphs long, explaining your conclusion and how you reached it. Start by saying something about how you believe science and religion differ. Then explain why you believe what you call "quantum creationism" is a better fit in the 'religion' category than in the 'science' category. And you will also need to present an argument for why 'science' and 'religion' are our only two alternatives in order to defeat my 'metaphysical speculation' proposal.

    You still need to explain how you are using the video of Vilenkin's remarks. What is it supposedly evidence of? (Presumably the idea that "QC" is a religion). So, how does the video support that conclusion?

    And ultimately, you need to face the challenge that I put to you -- Why do you believe that your 'three angels' blog posting is more scientific than Vilenkin's ideas? Can you point to anything in that blog posting that's even remotely scientific? You talk about "criminals" and about "crimes against science". So why isn't your claim that your very fanciful Biblical exegesis is science the biggest 'crime against science' of them all?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    I sincerely accept your confession of not having the recollection.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    So that explains why you failed to notice my argument. It was concise, not meeting your requirement of having to be several paragraphs long.
     
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    Faith is not an argument.
     
  9. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    My conceptualization of science is any systematically arranged knowledge that unfolds from axioms. My religion is my systematically arranged set of axioms.

    Fundamental to science is the fundamental principle of science. "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." — Richard P. Feynman.

    I accept that.

    My religion also uses a supplementary scientific method:
    1 Thessalonians 5
    19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

    Among Seventh-day Shubertians, the nothingness from which the universe leapt into existence isn't defined. The pretense of there being a meaningful definition of nothingness is the foundation of a completely unscientific religion. I reject the pretense of that irrational religion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,080
    I laughed when I read that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    Why has the scientific method been established under this axiom and not others?
    I'll answer for you, because it works. Experiment produces useful results. What experiment would show there is a god?
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    My religion is based on experience. The foundation of the science of quantum creationism (QC) is based on the pretense of having a definition for absolute nothingness.
     
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Eugene seems strangely reluctant/incapable of clearly stating what his own ideas are, let alone defending them. So at risk of putting words into his mouth, I'll speculate about what he's up to.

    He seems to believe that "quantum creationism" is a belief that all atheists hold, or at least that all atheists of the more scientistic variety. (The 'big bang' was the origin of the universe and it just sort of happened: 'Bang' -> The origin of all of reality ex nihilo.) I get the impression is that Eugene assumes that all Sciforums participants believe that and that we are all interchangeable in that regard. That seems to be his target, who and what he's attacking.

    I speculate that he perceives "quantum creationism" as little more than divine creation with the 'divine' forceably removed and replaced with 'quantum'. Either way it's still a miraculous event. Hence belief in it is still a religious belief, if we want to define religious belief that way.

    Hence atheists are guilty of the same 'crimes' that they accuse theists of committing and scientific accounts of origins are no more plausible than the religious ones.

    I don't think that this line of argument is totally without merit. (Of course, this is all me putting words into Eugene's mouth and trying to make his ideas as plausible sounding [to me] as I can, so of course I would say that.) I think that my 'metaphysical speculation' and 'metaphysical agnosticism' ideas evade this difficulty though: We simply don't know how reality in its entirety originated [or if it did]. All we can do is speculate as metaphysicians have been doing since the time of Thales and Anaximander. Today's speculations might be better-informed, but they aren't all that different in kind.

    Some participants in this thread have tried to argue that "quantum creationism" is a straw-man and has never been seriously proposed. I think that Paddoboy ably provided evidence that it has been in many of his posts in this thread:

    http://sciforums.com/threads/a-universe-from-nothing-not-that-hard-to-understand.158811/
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    My definition of quantum creationism in the opening post is perfectly well-defined. Why can't you just live with it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  15. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Yes, many atheists are hypocrites.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,887
    Well there's a problem. Your conceptualization of science is wrong to the point of being goofy.
    No, you don't. Your conceptualization of science directly contradicts it.
     
  17. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
  18. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Clearly, you have a problem with David Hilbert's theoretical atlas of all logically consistent universes.
     
  19. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,149
    There's also the fact that in science, there are all kinds of ideas, which are classified according to the degree in which they fit observation and experimental verification. There are theories, hypothesis, and just informed speculation. Science requires no faith in the idea of nothingness, because there is no settled theory on the origins of the big bang. Even if there were, it could always be overturned by something better, as long as it can be shown to be true. This also points to a common creationist mistake, that the big bang is a theory on the origins of the universe. It's not exactly, it's a theory to explain the apparent and continuing expansion of the universe, back to a very short time before something mysterious happened, when all existing physical laws seem to break down. In short, it's unknown. Faith is said to be knowing.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Yazata:

    I explicitly told him that I do not believe in his "quantum creationism", as he has defined it. My objections are back up there on page 2 of the thread and remain unaddressed by Eugene. As far as I am aware, he hasn't yet pointed out any particular person who does believe in it, apart from himself.

    I agree. It seems to me that Eugene thinks "quantum" somehow means God, as in the usual religious God. It doesn't.

    Scientific cosmological models are just that: models of how the universe evolved from a small, compact form, into what we see today. Like all scientific models, they are provisional and subject to revision in the light of new information or insights.

    The limits of our current models are well understood by physicists, and physicists are careful to specify which aspects of their ideas are speculative and which are well evidenced.

    We do not have a consensus scientific model of what, if anything, caused the big bang. It is well recognised that general relativistic models break down at small length scales, such as existed at the big bang. It is also recognised that we need new models that combine our knowledge of quantum fields and relativity.

    The lack of definitive scientific models does not prevent scientists from speculating about what a future scientific theory might show. There are many such speculations, partly based on scientific extrapolation from existing theory, and partly driven more by philosophical considerations.

    Cosmologists do not believe in any particular model of the first-cause origin of the universe, recognising that no such verified model exists at present. On the contrary, they explicitly admit that they just don't know yet. This is business as usual for the research scientist. All research occurs at the frontiers of knowledge; that's what research is for.

    If Eugene wants to believe the God did it, he is welcome to his belief. He is not entitled to infer that atheists, or scientists in general, share his faith, regardless of what label he wants to stick on it. Adding "quantum" to creationism doesn't make it any more scientifically respectable.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,334
    James, I'd agree with almost everything you say here.

    There is just one point that I would like to clarify. It seems to me that "creationism" is a term generally used to describe a more specific set of religious views than simply the belief that God created the universe. Any Christian, Muslim or Jew will believe that, and to describe all adherents of these religions as "creationists" simply renders the term useless, it seems to me. The normal usage of "creationist", surely, is as a term for those who choose to take the biblical creation accounts more or less liteally, or who at a minimum insist that life in particular cannot have arisen without supernatural intervention. As this flies in the face of so much science, creationism is is a pejorative term in scientifically literate circles.

    I don't know what ES is on about with his "quantum creationism" schtick, but I think we should be careful that we do not extend the meaning of creationist to encompass all religious believers. That would play right into the hands of those who would drive a wedge between religion and science. This is in my opinion unnecessary, unjustified, and highly socially divisive, leading as it would to a suspicion of science by quite large sections of society. We already see the baleful effects of this process in the USA.
     
  22. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    See Theorem 2 in the opening post accompanied by the proof caught on video.
     
  23. Eugene Shubert Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    There is no evidence of that and I vehemently deny it.
     

Share This Page