Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Science Proves God?


If you watch the video in the link above, you'll see that this guy tries to argue (i.e fool people) into believing that "science has finally proven that scientifically there is a god." The only problem is, his confirmation bias blinds him from being able to see the very scientific assumptions his conclusions necessarily rely on.  Basically, his inability to consider that what he calls "nothing" may indeed have been something, but it was/is "something" in a form we may or may not have any ability to understand or formulate into words, because out entire existence/language is limited to our own universe.
So here's the problem with his argument.

1. He never establishes his assumption that "the laws of the universe must predate the universe," as he claims, since it is just as possible that the laws themselves coincided with the creation of the universe. The material that makes up the universe - most of which appears to be dark matter and antimatter - may have actually preceded the "laws," in fact, since those laws may have been the very catalyst that triggered the "big bang" that birthed our universe into existence.

Since even Aristotle argued if God has always existed, then perhaps stuff has just always existed, in different forms that exceeds our ability to understand, just as we assume God exceeds our ability to understand.

  Perhaps, in other words, once those 20 or so laws that our universe needed to pop into existence, finally coalesced into the right combinations, after an almost infinite number of other combinations had already randomly crashed together and separated and reconfigured, like the universe playing blindly with a rubix cube that has 20 or so sides to it. And once the right combination of things came together, it exploded in a "bang" that simultaneously birthed forth the universe we live in. 

 2. The "inflation" term comes from a belief that the universe has always existed, in different forms, inflating and deflating. And in a multiverse, each universe would be inflating and deflating at different points, like lights on a Christmas tree, or honeycombs closing and opening. Hence, the "laws" that pertain to our own particular iteration of a universe, may only exist and matter to this universe alone, so that all other universes in a multiverse are governed by unique sets of "laws of nature" that are born with and die with that particular universe.  

3. Even if we accept his premise that there was a "God" who kicked it all off, there is nothing about his assumptions that tells us anything about that God, let alone if "it" was good or evil, alone or just one among an infinite number, or if "he" even survived giving birth to the universe.

And 4. Such "laws of nature" that were necessary for the universe to form, tells us nothing about the "moral laws" that "believers" insist forbid murder or rape, or even gives them the right to be as homophobic and transphobic as they insist their God and their own special brand of "morality" compels them to be. Such "laws of nature" tell us nothing at all about whether there is any such thing as "moral laws," in other words, outside of the conception of such 'laws'' we find no where but in our own head.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

ground hog day

Our central nervous system needs constant stimulation with new stimuli, and so does our brain.  Otherwise, both our sensations and our minds...