This is what I personally see as the arguments of both sides (some maybe just my interpretations and some maybe/are my own additions
and not all atheists and creationists are assumed would agree to all the listed statements about them):
Atheism says:
There is no God because there is no scientific proof of God.
We think science can explain everything w/o any need for any God.
We don't claim we can explain everything scientifically currently but we trust only what science discovers.
Our current science is vast and it explains (almost?) everything w/o any need for any god.
Creationism says humankind started after God created Adam and Eve
but we proved humankind is created through a natural process called Evolution of Species, as well as all life on Earth.
We think there is an almost certain chance of other life in the Universe and we are currently searching for it better and better everyday.
And if there was any proof of God then we would accept existence of God (and we would also follow orders/wishes of that proven God?)
Or we think if exists God could be good or bad.
We don't want to follow orders/wishes of any proven God?
Or we would follow only if we decide (as whole humanity or individually?) God is good?
We think a world/Universe without God is better than any with God?
If God was created us (and keeping us in existence constantly or just watching us from far away?),
do we accept that God would have a right to do anything with us?
Do we accept that God could judge us and reward and/or punish us with perfect justice?
Or we don't care God does justice or injustice?
Is apparent widespread injustice in world history and today can be seen as a proof of non-existence of God?
If God existed God could have any valid excuse for disasters, diseases, parasites, wars, poverty, slavery, crime?
Or do we think justice is a meaningless human invention; but it is useful for law and order in human social life?
If justice is important, is justice is absolute or relative?
(Apparently relative in the real world because of different laws/punishments/rewards from country to country at least.
Is this reality means all laws of justice are relative and open to interpretation?
Or is it just means justice is absolute and universal but humankind is not there yet?
Or major laws are absolute and minor laws are relative?)
Creationism says:
Search for alien life was going on for many decades and there is still no proof of any kind.
How long search for alien life could/should/must continue until an answer is found/decided?
There is no scientific proof for how life started on this planet.
There are just a bunch of unproven conjectures.
We don't think Theory of Evolution is really proven.
(One time an atheist was saying yes there is no absolute proof for evolution
but there are lots of signs pointing towards it.
(I don't know what percentage of atheists would agree to that statement)).
We think the extremely (very complex) mathematical, and clearly very precisely adjusted nature of the Universe
(like constants of physics, perfect for life properties of Sun, Earth etc.),
laws of physics, chemistry, biology (extremely complex and advanced structures and functions of living organisms
are all signs (proofs?) of existence of God.
Also we think humans are clearly very distinct from all animals (way more distinct than the difference between any other animals)
(What is that great difference? How about way more intelligence, knowledge and abilities?
Whose cities, roads, vehicles, dams, etc covering this planet?)
Where all the energy to create the Universe in the Big Bang came from?
We don't see any really contrary proof in science about about God (as we reject the offered proof(s) for Theory of Evolution).
We believe God sent us many prophets to show a better way of life.
We think God is testing humankind for who deserves rewards in Heaven and who deserves punishments in Hell and we accept judgement of God.
If we could choose between living in a Universe with God or without God, we would choose Universe with God.
Universe with God is required for providing perfect justice to all humans and all living creatures ever lived, living, will live.
Humans can never achieve perfect justice for neither themselves nor any other living species,
no matter how technologically and ethically advanced.
Can have life any meaning w/o God?
Science says Universe and life will certainly die someday.
Are the lives and accomplishments, discoveries, inventions, artworks, faith, selfless acts of anyone in history
deserve rewards from God, more rewards than humanity did provide?
There is no absolute scientific proof of God but science is also unable to prove God cannot exists theoretically.
Then isn't it believing in God is better? What we lose/win if we believe?
If a particular religion seems wrong or inconsistent, is that mean all religions are?
How many atheists really know and understand all world religions in detail to fairly judge them as wholly/partially right or wrong?
If Theory of Evolution is right then why we don't see way more variety between individuals of a species?
(Where are humans with four arms, giants, tiny humans, humans with eye(s) in the front and back, etc?)
Why we even have distinct species?
Living very close together under similar conditions for millions of years but unable to have viable offspring?
Why we don't see half-human half ape (Big Foot?) living today?
How come some species can stay unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?
Isn't it obvious for example, fruits were created for human consumption?
Animals really need them?
Also isn't it spending so much energy to make fruits is a smart choice for plants?
Because there are also many other plant species don't produce fruits and thus save much energy.
Except for (large/many) fruits, plants seem to be using energy extremely efficiently.
20170226
20170223
UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING
Could Universe create itself out of nothing?
I had read that another physicist once asked Einstein that
since total negative gravitational field energy of a star is equal to total positive energy of mass of the star,
isn't that mean total energy of the star is zero?
Isn't that mean a star could come to existence out of nothing (since apparently no energy is required)?
Isn't that also imply maybe the whole Universe could come into existence out of nothing?
Quantum Mechanics already tells us that all kinds of particles, called virtual particles,
come in and out of existence everywhere in the Universe(?) all the time (due to Quantum Uncertainty).
The reason they called "virtual" particles is because they cannot be detected directly.
And the reason for that is because they stay in existence for a very short time, not nearly enough to detect them.
Now the question is why we never see stars or anything else in the Universe come in or out of existence?
What we see instead is mass and gravitational field of all stars always stay separate.
Even when a star collapsed to a Black Hole, central positive mass/energy and its negative gravitational field energy around,
never destroy each other.
And while virtual particles come in and out of existence, real particles always stay in existence,
just like stars, just like Universe itself.
Then why virtual particles must go back out of existence so fast, after they come in each time?
It must be due to their mass/energy being borrowed from the vacuum (space-time or some other Universal energy field?).
If so, isn't that imply mass/energy of real particles is not borrowed?
And isn't that also imply mass/energy of Universe is not borrowed?
If not borrowed then what that means?
Isn't it mean, there is no way for (any) Universe to create itself out of nothing and stay in existence?
I had read that another physicist once asked Einstein that
since total negative gravitational field energy of a star is equal to total positive energy of mass of the star,
isn't that mean total energy of the star is zero?
Isn't that mean a star could come to existence out of nothing (since apparently no energy is required)?
Isn't that also imply maybe the whole Universe could come into existence out of nothing?
Quantum Mechanics already tells us that all kinds of particles, called virtual particles,
come in and out of existence everywhere in the Universe(?) all the time (due to Quantum Uncertainty).
The reason they called "virtual" particles is because they cannot be detected directly.
And the reason for that is because they stay in existence for a very short time, not nearly enough to detect them.
Now the question is why we never see stars or anything else in the Universe come in or out of existence?
What we see instead is mass and gravitational field of all stars always stay separate.
Even when a star collapsed to a Black Hole, central positive mass/energy and its negative gravitational field energy around,
never destroy each other.
And while virtual particles come in and out of existence, real particles always stay in existence,
just like stars, just like Universe itself.
Then why virtual particles must go back out of existence so fast, after they come in each time?
It must be due to their mass/energy being borrowed from the vacuum (space-time or some other Universal energy field?).
If so, isn't that imply mass/energy of real particles is not borrowed?
And isn't that also imply mass/energy of Universe is not borrowed?
If not borrowed then what that means?
Isn't it mean, there is no way for (any) Universe to create itself out of nothing and stay in existence?
20170208
Quantum VS Relativity
Currently there are two great theories of physics, quantum and relativity.
Countless experiments and observations show both to be true to extreme precision.
But both theories fundamentally at disagreement with each other.
One says space-time is flat other says it is curved.
One says time is absolute other says it is relative.
One says information must be conserved other says black holes must destroy it.
One says nothing can move faster than speed of light other says entanglement (information?) can.
But I think the biggest disagreement is nature of time, whether future can be predicted or not.
Quantum says future is indeterminate at fundamental level.
Nobody can predict the future. (Because it is not observed yet (became concrete reality).)
(But some quantum experiments imply retrocausality and particles can move backwards in time??)
Relativity says "now" is relative which means past and future always must exist simultaneously.
It implies past and future are static, already determined, we exist in a 4D block universe.
How both can be true about nature of time?
If both true then is it mean time in quantum scale is independent from time in relativity scale?
Or is it mean time in quantum scale must create time in relativity scale?
(That is quantum world always create the reality according to (static) reality in relativity (block universe)?)
Before relativity and later quantum mechanics came, Newton mechanics was verified with
countless experiments and observations to great precision also.
But ultimately it was proven wrong at fundamental level.
(Some people say it was not wrong; just needed little corrections at some extreme situations?)
Actually I like to propose all three theories of physics are equally correct!
Quantum mechanics is correct at micro scale.
Relativity is correct at macro scale.
Newton mechanics is correct at normal/human/everyday/world/average scale.
I think all these three theories are actually different emergent properties (set of rules/laws) operating at different size scales.
(So all three are mathematically/physically equally valid in their own level of reality/domain.)
If so are these three emergent properties are independent of each other?
Or higher scale realities must be created from lower scale realities?
(Cellular Automata world shows macro scale emergent properties are created by micro scale rules.)
So isn't this mean quantum world is creating everyday world and everyday world is creating relativity world?
At smallest (Planck) scale Universe maybe a Cellular Automata (CA). If so then the other three theories are its emergent properties at different macro scales. There are many well known CA that create an emergent property (world) at macro scale, like Game of Life, FHP, LBM,
The big question is whether a CA can directly create more than one emergent property at different macro scales? Or is it always one emergent property creates the next in the chain (of scales)?
Countless experiments and observations show both to be true to extreme precision.
But both theories fundamentally at disagreement with each other.
One says space-time is flat other says it is curved.
One says time is absolute other says it is relative.
One says information must be conserved other says black holes must destroy it.
One says nothing can move faster than speed of light other says entanglement (information?) can.
But I think the biggest disagreement is nature of time, whether future can be predicted or not.
Quantum says future is indeterminate at fundamental level.
Nobody can predict the future. (Because it is not observed yet (became concrete reality).)
(But some quantum experiments imply retrocausality and particles can move backwards in time??)
Relativity says "now" is relative which means past and future always must exist simultaneously.
It implies past and future are static, already determined, we exist in a 4D block universe.
How both can be true about nature of time?
If both true then is it mean time in quantum scale is independent from time in relativity scale?
Or is it mean time in quantum scale must create time in relativity scale?
(That is quantum world always create the reality according to (static) reality in relativity (block universe)?)
Before relativity and later quantum mechanics came, Newton mechanics was verified with
countless experiments and observations to great precision also.
But ultimately it was proven wrong at fundamental level.
(Some people say it was not wrong; just needed little corrections at some extreme situations?)
Actually I like to propose all three theories of physics are equally correct!
Quantum mechanics is correct at micro scale.
Relativity is correct at macro scale.
Newton mechanics is correct at normal/human/everyday/world/average scale.
I think all these three theories are actually different emergent properties (set of rules/laws) operating at different size scales.
(So all three are mathematically/physically equally valid in their own level of reality/domain.)
If so are these three emergent properties are independent of each other?
Or higher scale realities must be created from lower scale realities?
(Cellular Automata world shows macro scale emergent properties are created by micro scale rules.)
So isn't this mean quantum world is creating everyday world and everyday world is creating relativity world?
At smallest (Planck) scale Universe maybe a Cellular Automata (CA). If so then the other three theories are its emergent properties at different macro scales. There are many well known CA that create an emergent property (world) at macro scale, like Game of Life, FHP, LBM,
The big question is whether a CA can directly create more than one emergent property at different macro scales? Or is it always one emergent property creates the next in the chain (of scales)?
20170204
Value of Science and Meaning of Proof
We live in times people question the value of science.
Is science good for us or bad for us?
Can people simply refuse to accept or refuse to apply parts of science?
If we compare the living conditions of people in the past and in the future we see that people in the future living with better conditions.
Isn't that right? If so, then progress of science is responsible for the improvement or not?
If science is responsible then practical value of science is obvious.
If we want to refuse science, is it because thinking science has no practical value?
Or are we thinking too much science is bad?
Or are we thinking some parts of science may not be correct?
Of course establishing any part of science is correct or not depends on the proof for it.
In mathematics a logically valid proof is absolute.
There is no way to argue against it (assuming a valid counter-argument).
In physics it seems there is no way for absolute proof.
There are two great theories of physics (relativity and quantum)
and there are countless experiments and observations for both showing them to be true.
But the situation looks like trying to prove Riemann Hypothesis by checking integers one by one.
One can never complete the proof that way because there are infinite cases to check.
Newton mechanics looked pretty good that way but later turned out to be ultimately wrong.
Is that mean we can disregard relativity and quantum theories?
Obviously not, unless we have a better theory to replace them.
What about proof in other branches of science?
How certain a proof in chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology?
Which proofs we can refuse or argue against in science?
Is science good for us or bad for us?
Can people simply refuse to accept or refuse to apply parts of science?
If we compare the living conditions of people in the past and in the future we see that people in the future living with better conditions.
Isn't that right? If so, then progress of science is responsible for the improvement or not?
If science is responsible then practical value of science is obvious.
If we want to refuse science, is it because thinking science has no practical value?
Or are we thinking too much science is bad?
Or are we thinking some parts of science may not be correct?
Of course establishing any part of science is correct or not depends on the proof for it.
In mathematics a logically valid proof is absolute.
There is no way to argue against it (assuming a valid counter-argument).
In physics it seems there is no way for absolute proof.
There are two great theories of physics (relativity and quantum)
and there are countless experiments and observations for both showing them to be true.
But the situation looks like trying to prove Riemann Hypothesis by checking integers one by one.
One can never complete the proof that way because there are infinite cases to check.
Newton mechanics looked pretty good that way but later turned out to be ultimately wrong.
Is that mean we can disregard relativity and quantum theories?
Obviously not, unless we have a better theory to replace them.
What about proof in other branches of science?
How certain a proof in chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology?
Which proofs we can refuse or argue against in science?
What is an Emergent Property?
It seems world of physics is talking about "emergent properties" more and more.
People may ask what is an emergent property?
When any kind of system (physical/computer/game/mathematical) acts with different set of laws/rules at two different scales
then the set of laws/rules of the higher scale are emergent properties of the set of laws/rules of the lower scale.
For example think about the relationship between world of chemistry and world of quantum mechanics.
They seem to be worlds run by completely different rules.
But we know (proven?) that every rule of chemistry can be explained by quantum physics.
That means quantum mechanics creates chemistry.
That means chemistry is emergent property of quantum mechanics.
Similar situation exists between chemistry and biology.
The rules of chemistry is very different than rules of biology.
World of chemical reactions is very different than world of cells, multi-cellular organisms.
And actually when going upwards (in scale) from world of single cells, as the number of cells in an organism increases cell by cell,
each of those species are living in worlds with more and more complicated set of rules.
Each species is an independent emergent property.
Beyond biology there is human psychological world, as another level of emergent property,
beyond psychological world there is social world.
Social world has branches and levels like what happens with species in biology.
For example think of the difference between rules operating in a family, in a school, in a hospital, in a factory/company/store,
town/city/country./inter-country/planetary.
Can we agree that all these emergent properties of existence must be expressible by math?
If so can we always mathematically theoretically predict a higher level emergent property from a lower one?
Can we always predict a lower one from a higher one?
What all these complicated mathematical structure of existence mean?
We are forced to say, if God exists and created and operates all these existence,
God must be an incredible mathematician humans cannot ever hope to match! :-)
People may ask what is an emergent property?
When any kind of system (physical/computer/game/mathematical) acts with different set of laws/rules at two different scales
then the set of laws/rules of the higher scale are emergent properties of the set of laws/rules of the lower scale.
For example think about the relationship between world of chemistry and world of quantum mechanics.
They seem to be worlds run by completely different rules.
But we know (proven?) that every rule of chemistry can be explained by quantum physics.
That means quantum mechanics creates chemistry.
That means chemistry is emergent property of quantum mechanics.
Similar situation exists between chemistry and biology.
The rules of chemistry is very different than rules of biology.
World of chemical reactions is very different than world of cells, multi-cellular organisms.
And actually when going upwards (in scale) from world of single cells, as the number of cells in an organism increases cell by cell,
each of those species are living in worlds with more and more complicated set of rules.
Each species is an independent emergent property.
Beyond biology there is human psychological world, as another level of emergent property,
beyond psychological world there is social world.
Social world has branches and levels like what happens with species in biology.
For example think of the difference between rules operating in a family, in a school, in a hospital, in a factory/company/store,
town/city/country./inter-country/planetary.
Can we agree that all these emergent properties of existence must be expressible by math?
If so can we always mathematically theoretically predict a higher level emergent property from a lower one?
Can we always predict a lower one from a higher one?
What all these complicated mathematical structure of existence mean?
We are forced to say, if God exists and created and operates all these existence,
God must be an incredible mathematician humans cannot ever hope to match! :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)