Has science, as of yet, solved the need for God? Do cosmologists or physicists have a model, for our universe, which clearly rules out the existence of God? I've heard of something called the Ekpyrotic Situation but it has not been properly explained to me. I would appreciate any helpful information since I'm in an argument (for want of a better word) with a peer, who still believes in God and often cites that there is "no explanation" as to how or why the universe is here.

What is the need for god? What exactly do you mean by need for god?

If by need for god, you mean that people need to believe in a higher power, in a sort of sky daddy, in life after death, then this is a psychological aspect mostly, although there is a part of the brain wired in such a way so that some people believe in such a power. There is also a sociological aspect, because of the need to belong to a community, and if the community is made of believers, then by association many people become even unwillingly. So, the problem is psychological, sociological and also part physiological. And those aspects need to be addressed.

As for the Ekpyrotic Situation, you are probably talking about Turok & Steinhardt's work, about the origin of the universe, that the Big Bang came about from the collision of two branes, so it avoids the need for a singularity. So, the collision created and released huge amounts of energy, which translated into our universe.

As the paper by Turok and Steinhardt might be quite difficult for someone without mathematical and physical background to understand, there is a book by the two of them, which explains their hypothesis for everyone: The Endless Universe

Lucius wrote:Has science, as of yet, solved the need for God? Do cosmologists or physicists have a model, for our universe, which clearly rules out the existence of God?

Hmm, you do realize these are entirely different questions? To show that there is no need of divine intervention (much less by the Xtian Multiomniguy in the Sky which I always assume to be the suspected perpetrator when God with the capital G shows up in a discussion) we'd prefer to have evidence of a naturalistic mechanism that can produce a given phenomenon, in this case the universe (or the multiverse, or the observable universe or the inflation buble/uniform patch depending on what you mean by the word exactly). To clearly rule out existence of some sort of divinity, well, I don't think it can be done actually by any means. It's the ultimate unfalsiable proposition. Lack of evidence for any such entity must be marked, but it doesn't conclusively rule out the possibility of such existing.

I've heard of something called the Ekpyrotic Situation but it has not been properly explained to me

You are probably refering to the Ekpyrotic Model of the universe as originally proposed by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok? It's an interesting take on the long-thought-fallen-by-the-wayside cyclic universe that has been developed towards presenting a solid model of a universe that is actually without a begining or an end. It is not however universally accepted, in part because relies somewhat on concepts that are themselves untested. Here's Dr. Steinhardt with a brief introduction to the original concept:
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

Aside of this, there are various other models that might naturalistically explain how our cosmos came into being. None of these have been sufficiently verified as yet so we can't quite yet say we absolutely have solid science on the origin of the universe. However, we don't have any compelling evidence pointing towards a divine intervention having taken place either. It's a bit of a "we don't know" situation ATM.

Darkchilde wrote:What is the need for god? What exactly do you mean by need for god?

If by need for god, you mean that people need to believe in a higher power, in a sort of sky daddy, in life after death, then this is a psychological aspect mostly, although there is a part of the brain wired in such a way so that some people believe in such a power. There is also a sociological aspect, because of the need to belong to a community, and if the community is made of believers, then by association many people become even unwillingly. So, the problem is psychological, sociological and also part physiological. And those aspects need to be addressed.

As for the Ekpyrotic Situation, you are probably talking about Turok & Steinhardt's work, about the origin of the universe, that the Big Bang came about from the collision of two branes, so it avoids the need for a singularity. So, the collision created and released huge amounts of energy, which translated into our universe.

As the paper by Turok and Steinhardt might be quite difficult for someone without mathematical and physical background to understand, there is a book by the two of them, which explains their hypothesis for everyone: The Endless Universe

Good stuff, thanks.
The argument I'm having isn't why people need to believe in God (hope for an afterlife and so on) but whether there should be a God. A God that apparently needs to be there to make the universe. The argument with this fellow of mine, usually boils down to, "we have no explanation why the universe exists, therefore God did it."
It is somewhat irritating because once I hit that wall, you can't really seem to go beyond it with this argument.

The person I'm "up against" is a Jehovah's Witness. Sadly this man is my cousin. He recently came back from abroad and, after contacting my parents - who seem to think he can "help" my atheism - he won't stop making regular visits. To make it worse, he always thinks he wins the arguments. It usually goes from this to and to then finally he will be



Help?

Lucius wrote:
Good stuff, thanks.

Thank you, but there are much better and more informed writers than me on the forum, so you'll get much better info from them.

Lucius wrote:
The argument I'm having isn't why people need to believe in God (hope for an afterlife and so on) but whether there should be a God. A God that apparently needs to be there to make the universe. The argument with this fellow of mine, usually boils down to, "we have no explanation why the universe exists, therefore God did it."

You could answer him thus: and once people believed that Zeus threw thunderbolts and lightning when he was angry, but now we know how thunder and lightning are created. And there is no magic involved. Yes, we don't know why the universe exists. But in science, asking why is asking the wrong question. We need to ask how, and from the how, comes the why. Even if at the moment we have no explanation of why/how the universe exists, it does not follow logically that god did it. You need first to show evidence of the existence of god, and then evidence that god created the universe. Just because at this point we have no explanation of how something happened, does not mean that magic man did it.

Lucius wrote:
It is somewhat irritating because once I hit that wall, you can't really seem to go beyond it with this argument.

No, you can as I outlined above. It:s the logical fallacy called god of the gaps: whenever there is no scientific explanation available, due to lack of evidence, then just put god in it.

Lucius wrote:
The person I'm "up against" is a Jehovah's Witness. Sadly this man is my cousin. He recently came back from abroad and, after contacting my parents - who seem to think he can "help" my atheism - he won't stop making regular visits. To make it worse, he always thinks he wins the arguments. It usually goes from this to and to then finally he will be



Help?

JW's are so indoctrinated. There are a few ex-JW's around this forum, if you look at the Theism/Non-Theism parts, you will find them, because they usually talk about it. As for your parents, they have to get used to you being an atheist. There is nothing to help you with.

They should understand that belief/non-belief should be personal, and that no one should try to influence anyone else. And that what your cousin is doing is proselytizing. And of course preaching.

Darkchilde wrote:

You could answer him thus: and once people believed that Zeus threw thunderbolts and lightning when he was angry, but now we know how thunder and lightning are created. And there is no magic involved. Yes, we don't know why the universe exists. But in science, asking why is asking the wrong question. We need to ask how, and from the how, comes the why. Even if at the moment we have no explanation of why/how the universe exists, it does not follow logically that god did it. You need first to show evidence of the existence of god, and then evidence that god created the universe. Just because at this point we have no explanation of how something happened, does not mean that magic man did it.

Interesting. I'll make some of these points next time and see what he has to say.

The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Understandably but that won't work on someone who rejects evolution and believes Adam & Eve are the first people.

Lucius wrote:

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Understandably but that won't work on someone who rejects evolution and believes Adam & Eve are the first people.

What are you meant to do then? Sometimes you just have concede that they won't allow the arguments that direct them away from God... not much anybody can do about that. You can trot them out and hope for the best, but the beliefs of these people have nothing to do with whether or not God is still required, or even viable as a hypothesis.

I remember reading some stuff recently on the JW's watchtower website. I don't remember the full details, but it started out talking about fusion in the sun and how after tens of thousands of years the cycle finally works its way to the surface as the energy and light that we get. It then went on to question whether we should accept the cosmological models of the universe. The answer: No. Why: because there are still things we don't know about stuff.

So it started out trying to sound scientific and all, but then it basically said that we should throw away what we do know and have evidence to support because of what we don't know. The reason behind such a way of thinking is because it often conflicts with their mythical views. What they really mean is that if our understanding of reality conflicts with their myths, we should throw away what we do know and have evidence to support and replace it with their myth which doesn't have evidence to support.

This seems to be common though. If there is something that we don't know, god did it. If there is something we know but it conflicts with their myths, what we know must be wrong despite millions of hours put into research and experimentation gradually honing in our understanding, and the myths must be right despite having no evidence. Even for religions that don't have a problem with science, such as the ones that say god moves in mysterious ways or god used evolution for the creation of man and the big bang to make the universe, there still simply isn't any evidence for this.

tnjrp wrote:

You are probably refering to the Ekpyrotic Model of the universe as originally proposed by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok? It's an interesting take on the long-thought-fallen-by-the-wayside cyclic universe that has been developed towards presenting a solid model of a universe that is actually without a begining or an end. It is not however universally accepted, in part because relies somewhat on concepts that are themselves untested. Here's Dr. Steinhardt with a brief introduction to the original concept:
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

I gave it a read. I also checked on the wiki. It says about some problems with the theory. I'm not to versed in the subject so I understand little.

However, there are major problems with the model. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch, or even what happens when two branes collide. Moreover, like cosmic inflation, while the general character of the forces (in the ekpyrotic scenario, a force between branes) required to create the vacuum fluctuations is known, there is no candidate from particle physics. Moreover, the scenario uses some essential ideas from string theory, principally extra dimensions, branes and orbifolds.[citation needed] [7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Mod ... urok_model
What does all mean?

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Not necessarily. Some scientists consider the universe in a lab idea as plausible. It's on par if you ask me.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

Orthos wrote:

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Not necessarily. Some scientists consider the universe in a lab idea as plausible. It's on par if you ask me.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

Universe in a lab is still more reasonable than a magical person - it's theoretically possible.

Lucius wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Not necessarily. Some scientists consider the universe in a lab idea as plausible. It's on par if you ask me.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

Universe in a lab is still more reasonable than a magical person - it's theoretically possible.

So is god, there is no evidence for either.

Orthos wrote:

Lucius wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Not necessarily. Some scientists consider the universe in a lab idea as plausible. It's on par if you ask me.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

Universe in a lab is still more reasonable than a magical person - it's theoretically possible.

So is god,

(Just walk away Lucius we've been here before...)

At any rate I reckon the chance of the real answer being anywhere near the old anthropomorfised prime mover to be close to none. The solutions found to the biggest problems thus far have been elegant, but not simple, and often radically different from what we intuitively think, so I reckon the big man in the sky, or any such thing, is unlikely.

Ickypedia wrote:At any rate I reckon the chance of the real answer being anywhere near the old anthropomorfised prime mover to be close to none. The solutions found to the biggest problems thus far have been elegant, but not simple, and often radically different from what we intuitively think, so I reckon the big man in the sky, or any such thing, is unlikely.

Lucius wrote: he argument I'm having isn't why people need to believe in God (hope for an afterlife and so on) but whether there should be a God. A God that apparently needs to be there to make the universe. The argument with this fellow of mine, usually boils down to, "we have no explanation why the universe exists, therefore God did it."
It is somewhat irritating because once I hit that wall, you can't really seem to go beyond it with this argument.

The person I'm "up against" is a Jehovah's Witness. Sadly this man is my cousin. He recently came back from abroad and, after contacting my parents - who seem to think he can "help" my atheism - he won't stop making regular visits. To make it worse, he always thinks he wins the arguments. It usually goes from this to and to then finally he will be



Help?

Sound like your JW friend is being a right knob, so I think you're justified in turning tables and taking the offensive, which means attacking his silly beliefs directly. There are some suggestions here, thought others might know of better resources.

There was some excellent information from former JW's in the "Is the Bible inspired of God" debate comment thread on the old RDF site, but I can't seem to access it at the moment.

Shrunk wrote:

Lucius wrote: he argument I'm having isn't why people need to believe in God (hope for an afterlife and so on) but whether there should be a God. A God that apparently needs to be there to make the universe. The argument with this fellow of mine, usually boils down to, "we have no explanation why the universe exists, therefore God did it."
It is somewhat irritating because once I hit that wall, you can't really seem to go beyond it with this argument.

The person I'm "up against" is a Jehovah's Witness. Sadly this man is my cousin. He recently came back from abroad and, after contacting my parents - who seem to think he can "help" my atheism - he won't stop making regular visits. To make it worse, he always thinks he wins the arguments. It usually goes from this to and to then finally he will be



Help?

Sound like your JW friend is being a right knob, so I think you're justified in turning tables and taking the offensive, which means attacking his silly beliefs directly. There are some suggestions here, thought others might know of better resources.

There was some excellent information from former JW's in the "Is the Bible inspired of God" debate comment thread on the old RDF site, but I can't seem to access it at the moment.

I just read through the conversation on the link you put. It is brilliant. I'll try to remember it for next time everyone's-favourite-cousin shows up. I think this is good advice for everyone who ends up dealing with JWs.
Well done Shrunk!

Lucius wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Lucius wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Ickypedia wrote:The fact that our silly species postulated this theory during our intellectual infancy should point to it being likely that we weren't even close. Thus I reject a deity as a plausible solution.

Not necessarily. Some scientists consider the universe in a lab idea as plausible. It's on par if you ask me.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100715/

Universe in a lab is still more reasonable than a magical person - it's theoretically possible.

So is god,

(Just walk away Lucius we've been here before...)

Oh I see, just ignore my argument just because you've lost.
I think that just shows how ignorant you really are. You didn't even read that link I referenced, did you?