Big Bang vs Creationism

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Good luck! I challenged him on essentially the same grounds, the uselessness of a "God" variable, and he replied with what he thought was a witty cliche involving a horse and water... swell.

At this point, I think Cyclo's ONLY point was that "the two concepts are ultimately used to describe the same universe." uhhh, OK. Great!

Where he goes wrong is this hair-brained theory of his own - that is, deciding between the two explanations is always philosophical - which he uses to define the validity of both "theories" equally. He also thinks we don't understand what he's trying to say, as though this concept is so profound that it is beyond some of us.

He came into this thread with the preconceived notion that his own philosophical vs scientific theory was correct, and nothing we write will change his mind. The unfalsifiable and ambiguous nature of the "God" variable doesnt phase him one bit...

Wow - you finally got it! The two concepts ultimately describe the same universe. Was that so hard? And the idea that choosing between two models is philosophical is not my idea. In fact, I can quote Stephen Hawking or any other number of pretty well-known scientists as stating more or less the same thing. The fact that you disagree doesn't make me wrong. In fact, I will quote from Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, since I have it out already.

In order to talk about the nature of teh universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations...

In the first paragraph, Hawking tells us what a theory is: any model that describes part of the universe using a set of rules to relate various parameters. He then goes on to tell us what constitutes a "good" model using his own version of Occam's Razor.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how mnay times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the perdictions of the theory...

The second paragraph states that a theory can never be proven, only disproven, which is what I've been telling you all along and you've disagreed with all along. *shrug*

The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe. However, the approach most scientists actaully follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how hte universe changes with time. (If we know what the universe is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of hte initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that God, being omnipotent, could have started the universe off any way he wanted. That may be so, but in that case he also could have made it develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that he chose to make it evolve in a very regular way according to his laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.

Here, he makes a philosophical argument as to why we should choose hypothesis #1 from my OP rather than hypothesis #2. He states that hypothesis #2 "may be so," but, since laws govern the behavior of the universe after the inital state, it "seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state," which is hypothesis #1.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Cyclo, please don't fire off math at me that I don't understand but exactly what is your position if you reject evo then? Are you a strict creationist or do you reject all mainstream theories as to the origin of sentient life?

Where in this thread have I stated my views at all? I don't think you'll find them in any of my posts. Nor are they at issue in this thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

You fail at math. If I have some polynomial with arbitrarily many terms, I can always form an identical model from a polynomial with arbitrarily more terms by simply setting their coefficients to zero. I can prove this on an abacus.

Regardless of your mathematical method, your analogy is a false one. It does not properly model the comparison of competing scientific hypotheses. As I've said earlier, your omphalistic assertions are completely unscientific and quite frankly irrational.

Please, tell me what the coefficient is for bacon. We know bacon exists, so what is the coefficient for it? Simple answer: your statements are obviously a red herring and you know it.

No, YOUR statements are the red herring, as explained above.

I used a mathematical example for its simplicity in demonstrating my point - that there are infinitely many models that can describe any data equallly well.

But not all of them are equally reasonable, rational, and scientific. In fact, the vast majority of them -- yours in particular -- are none of the above.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You fail at math. If I have some polynomial with arbitrarily many terms, I can always form an identical model from a polynomial with arbitrarily more terms by simply setting their coefficients to zero. I can prove this on an abacus.

Regardless of your mathematical method, your analogy is a false one. It does not properly model the comparison of competing scientific hypotheses. As I've said earlier, your omphalistic assertions are completely unscientific and quite frankly irrational.

Please, tell me what the coefficient is for bacon. We know bacon exists, so what is the coefficient for it? Simple answer: your statements are obviously a red herring and you know it.

No, YOUR statements are the red herring, as explained above.

I used a mathematical example for its simplicity in demonstrating my point - that there are infinitely many models that can describe any data equallly well.

But not all of them are equally reasonable, rational, and scientific. In fact, the vast majority of them -- yours in particular -- are none of the above.

All models that offer predictions are scientific, regardless of how "rational" you deem them to be. Deeming a model "reasonable" or "rational" is simply a philosophical assessment by you, not some part of the scientific method. Occam's Razor is simply a heuristic that has worked well in the past. It is NOT a deterministic model pruner. It tells us that, all other things being equal, choose the model with fewer parameters. It doesn't tell us if the model with fewer parameters actually models reality - only that it models our observations equally well. I'm not even arguing against Occam's Razor, only against its misunderstanding as seen in this thread.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Cyclo, please don't fire off math at me that I don't understand but exactly what is your position if you reject evo then? Are you a strict creationist or do you reject all mainstream theories as to the origin of sentient life?

Where in this thread have I stated my views at all? I don't think you'll find them in any of my posts. Nor are they at issue in this thread.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I'm not going to disagree with you there. I'm just saying that one could formulate Creationism in a manner that is in agreement with science, not that anyone has actually done so.

First of all, your lack of stance was sort of what I was getting at to begin with. Second of all, the only stance I've seen you allude to (open to interpretation here) is one that rejects anything but creationism. I could very well be misinterpreting your vague stance, and if so please correct me.

If I sound antagonistic I don't mean to be, but I've read post after post of yours that are almost always very intelligent and well written yet despite your big bang or evolution rebuttals I'm just not sure what you DO embrace

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

All models that offer predictions are scientific, regardless of how "rational" you deem them to be.

Your model doesn't offer predictions. It says "whatever the evidence seems to be is irrelevant, because X must be true regardless." Hearken back to your OP. (1) is falsifiable (2) is not. Your challenge has already been met.

Deeming a model "reasonable" or "rational" is simply a philosophical assessment by you, not some part of the scientific method.

Which is why I made those qualifications distinct from the scientific one.

Occam's Razor is simply a heuristic that has worked well in the past. It is NOT a deterministic model pruner. It tells us that, all other things being equal, choose the model with fewer parameters. It doesn't tell us if the model with fewer parameters actually models reality - only that it models our observations equally well. I'm not even arguing against Occam's Razor, only against its misunderstanding as seen in this thread.

I don't understand why you seem to think anything you've said rebuts anything that I've said.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Good luck! I challenged him on essentially the same grounds, the uselessness of a "God" variable, and he replied with what he thought was a witty cliche involving a horse and water... swell.

At this point, I think Cyclo's ONLY point was that "the two concepts are ultimately used to describe the same universe." uhhh, OK. Great!

Where he goes wrong is this hair-brained theory of his own - that is, deciding between the two explanations is always philosophical - which he uses to define the validity of both "theories" equally. He also thinks we don't understand what he's trying to say, as though this concept is so profound that it is beyond some of us.

He came into this thread with the preconceived notion that his own philosophical vs scientific theory was correct, and nothing we write will change his mind. The unfalsifiable and ambiguous nature of the "God" variable doesnt phase him one bit...

Wow - you finally got it! The two concepts ultimately describe the same universe. Was that so hard? And the idea that choosing between two models is philosophical is not my idea. In fact, I can quote Stephen Hawking or any other number of pretty well-known scientists as stating more or less the same thing. The fact that you disagree doesn't make me wrong. In fact, I will quote from Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, since I have it out already.

In order to talk about the nature of teh universe and to discuss questions such as whether it has a beginning or an end, you have to be clear about what a scientific theory is. I shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations...

In the first paragraph, Hawking tells us what a theory is: any model that describes part of the universe using a set of rules to relate various parameters. He then goes on to tell us what constitutes a "good" model using his own version of Occam's Razor.

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how mnay times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the perdictions of the theory...

The second paragraph states that a theory can never be proven, only disproven, which is what I've been telling you all along and you've disagreed with all along. *shrug*

The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe. However, the approach most scientists actaully follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how hte universe changes with time. (If we know what the universe is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of hte initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that God, being omnipotent, could have started the universe off any way he wanted. That may be so, but in that case he also could have made it develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that he chose to make it evolve in a very regular way according to his laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.

Here, he makes a philosophical argument as to why we should choose hypothesis #1 from my OP rather than hypothesis #2. He states that hypothesis #2 "may be so," but, since laws govern the behavior of the universe after the inital state, it "seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state," which is hypothesis #1.

OK, first and foremost, most of us "got it" quite awhile ago, and we still disagree based on the unfalsifiable nature of your "God" variable.

Second, while Hawking is certainly one of the most brilliant people in the history of the world, this concept of his, that you've regurgitated for all of us in your misguided example, borders on opinion; rather than fact - as do most discussions of the metaphysical, or "the beginning."

The bottom line is that #1 is the only hypothesis that can be tested using the genuine scientific method; and that can occur without an actual philosophical decision being made along the way. #2 requires an initial leap of "faith" that is impossible to backup using any "raw data" whatsoever. The "god" variable destroys your entire example.

Unless, of course, your entire purpose was to demonstrate that either paragraph can be used to describe the same universe. That would be obvious. The problem lies in your claim that both are equally "scientific" or "philosophical" in nature, which is very clearly not the case. That is, unless we go with the whole "reality isn't real" line of thought; which, again, requires an immediate leap of "faith."

I'll stick with my opinion that Creationists are entirely off their rocker. kkgoodthx...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
First of all, your lack of stance was sort of what I was getting at to begin with. Second of all, the only stance I've seen you allude to (open to interpretation here) is one that rejects anything but creationism. I could very well be misinterpreting your vague stance, and if so please correct me.

If I sound antagonistic I don't mean to be, but I've read post after post of yours that are almost always very intelligent and well written yet despite your big bang or evolution rebuttals I'm just not sure what you DO embrace

That's the point. I don't want to tell anyone what I think because it's irrelevant to this discussion. My goal here, as I said to Rainsford, is just to show that there is common ground here and that people should take a step back and think about it before spewing hatred to someone who simply disagrees with them. The amount of hatred I see in politics and most other parts of life now is simply depressing and mostly rooted in deep misconceptions like the one I'm trying to point out in this thread. You can see that even in pointing it out, some here have decided that they need to hate me now, probably because they assume that I am a Creationist and don't believe in evolution, even though I have said nothing to indicate either of those positions in my posts.

In the end, it shouldn't matter what my positions are, since these questions are really philosophical at their root. If I choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what does it matter to someone else in this forum? Yet people here (and elsewhere) take it personally when someone else's opinion disagrees with their own to the point where their judgment is clouded and they resort to raw emotion to try to deal with it. This response is well explained by the theory of evolution, so it shouldn't be any surprise to them that they have ended up this way for, as Moonbeam would say, they hate others because they see in others what they hate in themselves. In this case, they hate what they perceive as an irrational choice to believe in option B when they themselves have irrationally chosen option A. The problem is that the people choosing option A do not accept that they chose it irrationally, they think that it is purely rational on their part, but this is fundamentally incorrect, since choice itself is not rational.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Your model doesn't offer predictions. It says "whatever the evidence seems to be is irrelevant, because X must be true regardless." Hearken back to your OP. (1) is falsifiable (2) is not. Your challenge has already been met.

Sigh. Here we go again. How can you discern between #1 and #2 using science? The physical universe is identical in either case, so they are scientifically indistinguishable.

Which is why I made those qualifications distinct from the scientific one.

I don't understand why you seem to think anything you've said rebuts anything that I've said.

You're simply missing the forest for the trees at this point. Since distinguishing between #1 and #2 can only be done on a philosophical level, choosing either is equally irrational and unscientific. Choice itself is not a logical operator.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
First of all, your lack of stance was sort of what I was getting at to begin with. Second of all, the only stance I've seen you allude to (open to interpretation here) is one that rejects anything but creationism. I could very well be misinterpreting your vague stance, and if so please correct me.

If I sound antagonistic I don't mean to be, but I've read post after post of yours that are almost always very intelligent and well written yet despite your big bang or evolution rebuttals I'm just not sure what you DO embrace

That's the point. I don't want to tell anyone what I think because it's irrelevant to this discussion. My goal here, as I said to Rainsford, is just to show that there is common ground here and that people should take a step back and think about it before spewing hatred to someone who simply disagrees with them. The amount of hatred I see in politics and most other parts of life now is simply depressing and mostly rooted in deep misconceptions like the one I'm trying to point out in this thread. You can see that even in pointing it out, some here have decided that they need to hate me now, probably because they assume that I am a Creationist and don't believe in evolution, even though I have said nothing to indicate either of those positions in my posts.

In the end, it shouldn't matter what my positions are, since these questions are really philosophical at their root. If I choose to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what does it matter to someone else in this forum? Yet people here (and elsewhere) take it personally when someone else's opinion disagrees with their own to the point where their judgment is clouded and they resort to raw emotion to try to deal with it. This response is well explained by the theory of evolution, so it shouldn't be any surprise to them that they have ended up this way for, as Moonbeam would say, they hate others because they see in others what they hate in themselves. In this case, they hate what they perceive as an irrational choice to believe in option B when they themselves have irrationally chosen option A. The problem is that the people choosing option A do not accept that they chose it irrationally, they think that it is purely rational on their part, but this is fundamentally incorrect, since choice itself is not rational.

Huh, I totally misread you CW. Good post.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, first and foremost, most of us "got it" quite awhile ago, and we still disagree based on the unfalsifiable nature of your "God" variable.

You kept making sure I knew that you "disagreed" with me when I made that simple statement. How was I to know that you got it when you kept telling me you didn't have it yet?

Second, while Hawking is certainly one of the most brilliant people in the history of the world, this concept of his, that you've regurgitated for all of us in your misguided example, borders on opinion; rather than fact - as do most discussions of the metaphysical, or "the beginning."

Nothing he said in the paragraphs I've quoted is in any way an opinion, except his statemnt that "It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state." Ironically, this is the only point of his that I've posited that you've thus far agreed with, having previously disagreed with everything else in all three paragraphs (what a theory is, that a theory can be proven, and that not both hypotheses are equally tenable in a scientific sense).

The bottom line is that #1 is the only hypothesis that can be tested using the genuine scientific method; and that can occur without an actual philosophical decision being made along the way. #2 requires an initial leap of "faith" that is impossible to backup using any "raw data" whatsoever. The "god" variable destroys your entire example.

So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe? How, exactly? This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses. The 'god' variable does nothing in my example. It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity. The answer would be exactly the same. I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is. It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.

Unless, of course, your entire purpose was to demonstrate that either paragraph can be used to describe the same universe. That would be obvious. The problem lies in your claim that both are equally "scientific" or "philosophical" in nature, which is very clearly not the case. That is, unless we go with the whole "reality isn't real" line of thought; which, again, requires an immediate leap of "faith."

I'll stick with my opinion that Creationists are entirely off their rocker. kkgoodthx...

Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Your model doesn't offer predictions. It says "whatever the evidence seems to be is irrelevant, because X must be true regardless." Hearken back to your OP. (1) is falsifiable (2) is not. Your challenge has already been met.

Sigh. Here we go again. How can you discern between #1 and #2 using science? The physical universe is identical in either case, so they are scientifically indistinguishable.

You asked how one might falsify either hypothesis. (1) could be falsified any number of ways. (2) which is essentially omphalism, is unfalsifiable, so it is scientifically meaningless.

You're simply missing the forest for the trees at this point. Since distinguishing between #1 and #2 can only be done on a philosophical level, choosing either is equally irrational and unscientific. Choice itself is not a logical operator.

Nonsense. It is YOU that is missing the point that the although the two may be objectively indistinguishable, that doesn't mean they are equally scientific or rational. (1) fits with our expectations about the universe and is falsifiable, therefore scientific. (2) is not. That's how I discern between them using science. It is not irrational to believe that the universe is as it appears to be (1), however it is irrational to believe that the universe is something else than what it appears to be (2).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The problem is that the people choosing option A do not accept that they chose it irrationally, they think that it is purely rational on their part, but this is fundamentally incorrect, since choice itself is not rational.

You just effectively eliminated the concept of critical thinking.

You're on a roll!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, all i got from this thread was that Cyclowizard is a condescending arsehole who sits on a higher horse than he can actually get off of.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, all i got from this thread was that Cyclowizard is a condescending arsehole who sits on a higher horse than he can actually get off of.

I started near where you did and ended up pretty much at the other end, at least as far as my opinion of CW goes. Still don't think we see i2i on the topic.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The problem is that the people choosing option A do not accept that they chose it irrationally, they think that it is purely rational on their part, but this is fundamentally incorrect, since choice itself is not rational.

You just effectively eliminated the concept of critical thinking.

You're on a roll!

I would bet anything on that Cyclowizard is a Christian, or at least a believer in a magical supreme being and this whole BS is just so he can justify his beliefs to himself. Even though he is a scientist in his own mind, he isn't one in his heart.

In reality observable evidence and falsifiability DOES matter and two opposing explanations are never equally probable or correct.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?

Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.

How, exactly?

Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."

This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.

Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!

The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.

Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!

It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.

That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.

The answer would be exactly the same.

as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.

I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.

"God" is what broke your example.

It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.

I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...

Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.

Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."

Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Well, all i got from this thread was that Cyclowizard is a condescending arsehole who sits on a higher horse than he can actually get off of.

I started near where you did and ended up pretty much at the other end, at least as far as my opinion of CW goes. Still don't think we see i2i on the topic.

Actually, the more i have read the more it solidifies my opinion that he is a condescending arsehole.

It's not that he's not right in his interpretation of Hawking, it's his presentation that leaves it an open question with a correct answer considering that there is a scientific theory for the Big Bang complete with evidence and supporting evidence for the evidence while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies (considering it's consistent with how Evangelicals see the creation, this isn't a small movement either and it definently doesn't come as a surprise to Cyclo that the debate ended as it did, he knew it would, he was just trying to be clever and sit above the debaters knowing what he meant)

He knows this very well but i'd bet that even if you were standing on his throat he'd never admit it, that's my impression and hence the high horse issue.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
..while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies...

It's even worse than that. His assertions basically say "god did it, but made it look like he didn't!"

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, you think science will eventually collect raw data about the initial condition of the universe?

Yes, I do... which will only lead to more questions, of course, just as my man Hawking pointed out! those questions will lead to further scientific research, etc etc ad infinitum.

How, exactly?

Through continued research using and discovering "raw data."

This initial state is the only difference between the two hypotheses.

Not true. Only one of them involves an unfalsifiable variable. Guess which one!

The 'god' variable does nothing in my example.

Other than make the entire hypothesis impossible to test scientifically, you're right!

It is simply one method for explaining how hypothesis #2 might occur. In fact, I could leave god out of it altogether and ask how you could discern between a true big bang and something that created the same universe as the big bang but started as a non-singular entity.

That would have been much more intelligent of you, but it would have also led to two hypothesis that CAN be tested scientifically *gasp* - thus destroying your entire argument that the choice is philosophical.

The answer would be exactly the same.

as long as your revised second hypothesis could be tested scientifically, then no, it wouldn't be the same.

I just thought you'd have a harder time wrapping your head around it if I didn't include god, so there he is.

"God" is what broke your example.

It doesn't seem to have helped any, since now you're just beating your head against the wall rather than accepting the basic idea that I have proposed, even though you agreed with it above.

I did not agree, and I will never accept your "basic" idea - however, I do agree that "basic" is an appropriate adjective...

Read the third paragraph that I quoted from Hawking's book. This is exactly what he is saying. Before, I was just making stuff up. Now, you're just ignoring all of the evidence presented. All of those illusions you had about yourself must be crumbling. I know it hurts, but you should let them go.

Hawking's opinion or ideas on the subject are not "evidence."

Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts of "raw data" and "evidence"...

It's impossible to collect data from non-existance.

Everything we can observe is what happened after the beginning, whatever was before is unknowable, there is no data to collect from nothing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You asked how one might falsify either hypothesis. (1) could be falsified any number of ways. (2) which is essentially omphalism, is unfalsifiable, so it is scientifically meaningless.

Wrong. If you falsify #1, you would also falsify #2, since they make the same predictions. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this. If you take any reference to God out of #2 and assume that there are simply two initial conditions for the universe and neglect how they got there, you recover the same essential hypotheses, both of which lead to identical predictions and states of the universe.

Nonsense. It is YOU that is missing the point that the although the two may be objectively indistinguishable, that doesn't mean they are equally scientific or rational. (1) fits with our expectations about the universe and is falsifiable, therefore scientific. (2) is not. That's how I discern between them using science. It is not irrational to believe that the universe is as it appears to be (1), however it is irrational to believe that the universe is something else than what it appears to be (2).

You acknowledge that they are objectively indistinguishable. This implies that they are scientifically undistinguishable. Which is rational is purely a nonsensical question because at that point, you're choosing one over the other. Choice is inherently irrational and, therefore, has no meaning in science. Science cannot choose anything.

 

[Harvey]

God created man in his image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.

~ Mark Twain

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I would bet anything on that Cyclowizard is a Christian, or at least a believer in a magical supreme being and this whole BS is just so he can justify his beliefs to himself. Even though he is a scientist in his own mind, he isn't one in his heart.

Ah, the ad hominems come out in force early with this guy. The ideas in my post are so offensive to you because they are true. Subconsciously, you know them to be true. Consciously, you cannot accept that they are true, so you attack me rather than anything that I have said. You cannot determine anything about my religion or lack thereof from my posts, so any attempt to do so on your part is simply a diversion.

In reality observable evidence and falsifiability DOES matter and two opposing explanations are never equally probable or correct.

Why are these explanations opposing? If you assume that #2 happened long enough ago, you actually recover hypothesis #1. In reality, both hypotheses lead to the same observations and falsifiability since they make the same predictions. Science says nothing about how "probable" it is that an explanation is correct. In fact, this notion is complete nonsense since the probability is either 1 or 0, it cannot be anywhere in between.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
..while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies...

It's even worse than that. His assertions basically say "god did it, but made it look like he didn't!"

Yeah, later on he did that, and that sure as hell isn't following the thread of thought from Hawking.

He screwed up his OP and continued to defend it, i think he tries to inject his own ideas into an argument and then say "Hawking says this" while Hawking most certainly does not.

I'm no scientist, definently not although i'm very keen on following biology and biochemistry and tend to read every scientific paper i can get my hands on (to me it's more important to know that omega3, while generally a great supplement, will make my muscles grow less while the arachidonic acid from beef and egg yolks will make it grow more, inflammation is important in building muscle mass), not a math genius either, psychology is important in my line of work and that i know very well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Actually, the more i have read the more it solidifies my opinion that he is a condescending arsehole.

It's not that he's not right in his interpretation of Hawking, it's his presentation that leaves it an open question with a correct answer considering that there is a scientific theory for the Big Bang complete with evidence and supporting evidence for the evidence while there is absolutely no support for "god did it" which is what option no2 implies (considering it's consistent with how Evangelicals see the creation, this isn't a small movement either and it definently doesn't come as a surprise to Cyclo that the debate ended as it did, he knew it would, he was just trying to be clever and sit above the debaters knowing what he meant)

He knows this very well but i'd bet that even if you were standing on his throat he'd never admit it, that's my impression and hence the high horse issue.

Obviously I knew the debate would end as it did because there is absolutely no room for debate. The entire point of the thread was a thought exercise for the people here who demonize Creationists for choosing one option over the other. Some people thought and understood, others just attacked me personally. I don't care what you think of me, honestly, because I know that your perceptions of me are clouded by your perception of my beliefs rather than anything I have actually said in this post. What you fail to realize is that a Creationist in this thread would feel the same way towards me that you do because the idea that God might not have created the universe is as offensive to him as the idea that God did create it is offensive to you. This is the whole point, nothing more and nothing less.