Every system of laws requires intelligence.
Universe is system of laws.
therefore universe requires intelligence.
The Laws did not make the universe.
Humans made up the Laws to describe fundamental aspects of the universe that are constant and unchanging. It's a man-made idea.
Good point, especially considering the number of times the "laws" have had to be changed or tweaked as we learned more and more.
Or does that just mean that god made the laws wrong and poor mankind is put in the position of coming behind and cleaning up His mistakes?
Zelkiiro,wilderness, you mean we have supposed laws otherwise universe has no laws? we have assigned laws to universe for understanding? you people are serious or making joke? it is good point or it is good joke? if it is point ,explain?
Why is it funny to you that we would impose laws on the universe in order to better understand it?
After all, many models of many things are imposed---models which bear little resemblance to reality, in an effort to make something understandable.
An example almost too easy to suggest is the model of the atom. It bears little, if any, resemblance to the reality of atoms but it is a useful model if we are trying to get at some basic understanding.
mbuggieh,It is funny to state that universe is not working under some laws and actually we have assigned laws to universe as we know by science that universe is working under disciplines,ordering and calculations and these all have been described as'' laws'' by science,for example if you try to make water by the combination of one atom of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen,you can never do that,now how can you escape by simply saying that this is random phenomena of nature and not a law .There involves ''calculation'' and that requires'' intelligence''.
Sorry you are not making any sense.
"we cannot make water"
"It requires intelligence to make water"
The only conclusion that can come from your statements is that we are not intelligent and nothing else is.
If you suggest making water requires calculations then provide the calculations as evidence.
Rad Man,''In chemistry, the law of definite proportions, sometimes called Proust's Law, states that a chemical compound always contains exactly the same proportion of elements by mass. An equivalent statement is the law of constant composition, which states that all samples of a given chemical compound have the same elemental composition by mass. For example, oxygen makes up about 8/9 of the mass of any sample of pure water, while hydrogen makes up the remaining 1/9 of the mass.''[ WIKIPEDIA ]
What does that have to do with with your logic?
"we cannot make water"
"It requires intelligence to make water"
All you have said was we are not intelligent enough to make water. Given your statement that our intelligence can't make water it is only evidence of water must have been made without intelligence.
You don't know that. This you must prove first.
Wrong, humans attempt to attribute laws (rules) to explain/understand the universe.
If you are wrong on the first two you don't get to make that statement.
Another logical fallacy. Is this the form of logic that you have been taught?
Rad Man,what premises is false and how ? you mean like wilderness that the universe is working without laws? you have your self assigned the laws to universe? interesting? you people make good jokes.
You first need to prove the universal laws are from an intelligent source and not randomness. Much like frost forming on a window leaves a pattern without intelligence the universe forms patterns without intelligence. You must first prove that our universal rules are from an intelligent source before stating it as fact, and that you have not done. We've all been down this road before and we are all trying to explain where your error is, but you're just not able to see.
I hear you. We have been down this road over and over again and to no avail.
Clearly, and this is something which I really did NOT know until recently, there are many people out there for whom gods and deities are real and substantive beings who created the universe (as if there is just one) in 6 days and are now present and "pulling the strings".
First of all, you claim that there are absolute and specific and intelligently designed laws to the universe. This is a false premise OR at least a premise for which there is no evidence.
God, which I presume underlies your intelligent and law-driven universe, is something of which we have NO proof; something whose very existence depends on faith, not reason.
Let me ask you again and more directly:
Exactly what joke is there in any of the comments posted in response to you?
Mocking those who do not share your Newtonian worldview is not an appropriate response to efforts to understand the premises of your worldview AND why you seek to impose it on the reality of the universe(s) in which we live.
So - I have to ask again (and I will not bother explaining, once again, why your "logic" is faulty). Now that you understand no educated person is going to listen to your faulty claims - what are you trying to achieve here?
Mark Knowles, what premises is false and why ?
This has been pointed out to you on many occasions. Please - I am genuinely interested as to what you hope to achieve.
Mark Knowles, you are not answering for my questions,therefore,I am supposing that you have no answer .
I have answered your question several times. As have many others. I am therefore supposing you simply are incapable of understanding.
Not sure I see the point in repeating myself.
But - I am genuinely interested as to what you hope to achieve.
gremlins break toasters
broken toasters exist
therefore gremlins exist.
Your premise is faulty - it is a logical fallacy. I don't understand how many times someone needs to tell you this for you to understand it. You just make a forum post until you can't reasonably respond anymore, then you abandon it and start a new one with the same fallacy. Your logic is based on a faulty premise. Period. You cannot make a sound argument based on nothing more than a logical fallacy - you are able to see this in other arguments, but not in your own. Why do you think that is?
JMcFarland,which premises is false? and How ?
No intelligence was necessary for the vast "system" of natural laws.
The universe is not a system of laws; it is that system along with energy, matter, time and probably a dozen other things. Laws themselves do not a universe make.
Another failure to prove Allah - this lie didn't help any more than any of the others did. One has to begin to wonder, after all the falures, if Allah is even there...
wilderness,you mean universe is working without laws? I t is simply bulk of matter and energy? science will accept your this suggestion? what are natural laws ? laws have no source of intelligence? ignorance may be source of these laws?
how many times do we have to point them out to you? Have you even looked up the information that has been provided to you on fallacies?
JMcFarland, you are not replying my questions,therefore,I am supposing that you have no answer .
You are begging the question and assuming a conclusion based on nothing more than your assertion. You have not demonstrated that your first two premises are true, therefore you are unable to posit your conclusion honestly. Seriously., look up logical fallacies. That is all that you have, and although we have shown them to you multiple times and provided links and resources for you to research, you have ignored them. Are you that dishonest? Does your god teach you to lie?
Not unusual, though - supernatural beliefs are very often more important than truth. Particularly when trying to get others to believe the same thing.
wilderness,No,you can never escape from the truth of laws of universe, universe is not a system of mass,it is a system of laws,it was possible that a system of mass has been grown randomly, but it is not possible to suppose that a system of accurate laws has been grown randomly,every thing of universe is working under accurate laws that are possible only through intelligence,you can imagine that how accurately,law of gravitation is working in every heavenly body to avoid destruction of universe? How a solar system is working in an atom that was not even possible to be observed? how a same number of electrons are revolving around the nucleus having the same no. of protons, How laws of proportions are working in elements and compounds,you can make water by changing the proportions ? this system of laws is only possible by intelligence.
Evidence please. Elements are produced from a dying star and those elements interact with each other to form matter in a cloud nebula which forms a solar system such as ours. No intelligence needed, however there is apparently intelligence needed to understand matter and the universe.
Rad Man,Elements interact without law of attraction? solar system is formed without gravitational law? orbits are formed without any laws? sun is providing heat and light and also moving without laws of gravitation and with out the laws of burning of helium gas ? in absence of these laws,solar system was possible?
How can you sit there and ask us for evidence when you haven't provided ANY to support the claim that you initially made? Assertions are not evidence. Please prove your premise.
JMcFarland, It is not assertion,it is evidence of laws of universe,If you never agree,you must reject evidence by evidence ,by proving that universe is not a system of laws or system of laws is possible without intelligence.
No. It is an assertion that a) all laws require intelligence and b) that the existence of natural laws require a creator or lawgiver. Until you can prove those two premises, we have no reason to have to prove the opposite to you. Its an assertion.
I do not need evidence to deny your claim. Until you prove it, there is no reason to accept it.
Again, you assume these laws were given by someone.
Rad Man,No, I am not assuming, I am concluding that these laws of universe are only possible by an intelligence,If you suppose that these are possible by ignorance or randomly explain how ?
no. You're using the argument from incredulity. Your claim is that these laws require intelligence. Before you can ask us for proof to the contrary (which you'll ignore while repeating your own fallacy over and over again) you have to prove that your premise is true.
Prove that natural law can only be a result of intelligence, and that intelligence points to a god - any god - let alone a specific one.
I'm curious as to why you keep ignoring my challenge. Not only have I provided links that refute your natural law/lawgiver premise (which I doubt you've read), you have completely slacked on the proof department for your own claims.
Pray to Allah. Tell him that you have encountered someone who doubts his power - even his existence. Ask him to bestow wisdom upon you that will prove his power and might. Ask him what you should say to all of us to convince us that Allah is real. If you answer and it is not convincing, your god has failed you. If you ask him for help and he ignores your request, then he doesn't care for you or the soul of the unbeliever. What say you?
"Concluding" typically means that some thought and reason has gone into coming to the conclusion.
Can you describe that thought and/or reason beyond "god did it"?
I rather doubt that you will find anyone that even thinks they can explain how the laws came about during the big bang. Except, of course, for the theists whose explanation for anything is "goddunit".
The absence of intelligence is not equivalent to "ignorance".
Let me try again: What we call "laws" are based on our observations of the universe. As any physicist worth his/her weight in dirt will explain these "laws" are based on our perceptions from our place and time in the universe in which we live. And they will also tell you that there is no reason to believe that these "laws" are consistent throughout our universe or across multiverses.
"but it is not possible to suppose that a system of accurate laws has been grown randomly" - Proof this is true, please?
"every thing of universe is working under accurate laws that are possible only through intelligence" - Proof this is true, please?
"How laws of proportions are working in elements and compounds,you can make water by changing the proportions " - Haven't a clue what you are talking about here as there are no "laws of proportions".
"this system of laws is only possible by intelligence." - Prove this is true, please?
wilderness, these are proven statements as laws require application of reason,mind ,conscious and intelligence,therefore, you can suppose random collection of mass but not random system of laws,therefore,only defense you have to prove that universe is random collection of masses and physical laws are not governing the same,you have already tried for the same by supposing that only nature is working,again try,perhaps,you may be capable for providing the reasonable defense.
all of this is assertion and opinion. There is not one iota of PROOF in there - which is exactly what we have been asking for. Do you not understand what proof means - or are you just unable to produce any?
What you don't seem to understand about the burden of proof is that it's not on us to disprove your theory. You're the one making the claim, and you haven't proven it. Until you prove it, there is no need for us to produce evidence to the contrary.
I can claim that magical fairies exist to torment the world. I do not get to turn around and tell people that until they can disprove my claim, it is necessarily true. Logic and debate doesn't work that way. I've pointed this out to you at least nine times, but you refuse to understand it. Is it dishonesty or a language barrier?
If that's the way logic works, then me, Rad or Wilderness can easily say "natural laws are just that - natural - and until you can prove the opposite, it must be true".
"If that's the way logic works, then me, Rad or Wilderness can easily say "natural laws are just that - natural - and until you can prove the opposite, it must be true"."
Nope - tried that. It only works for Sibtain - when anyone else uses the same "logic" it is a fallacy, easily spotted.
No, Sibtain. I did not ask you to repeat your opinion that a natural law required an intelligence. I asked you to prove it. Neither I nor anyone else is interested in your unsupported opinions; you have presented them enough already. We don't need to hear them again - we need to hear the proof that they are true.
I don't need a defense for my claim as I make no claim at all. You do. You make the claim, so defend it! Don't just repeat it and don't request that someone prove it wrong; you prove it right!
wilderness,All laws require intelligence [proven fact] , Nature is also working under laws,therefore,nature requires intelligence.Proven fact is proving another fact,therefore,only defense you have to prove that nature is not working under laws,again try for the same.How will you convince scientists that nature is working without physical laws to prove false my second premises?
IF it is a proven fact that all laws require intelligence, why do you refuse to produce that proof? Perhaps because it is not a proven fact? That there is no such proof? That the statement is not true and thus cannot be proved?
I need no defense against a claim you refuse to prove. It is up to you to prove it true, not up to me to prove it false.
Your entire premise is, which insists on an intelligent creator/designer who created the universe as it is AND who set everything into motion and who codified a set of laws by which his creation functions, is unproven and is nothing more than faith.
Whether Islam or Judeo-Christian or any other religion, insistence on a creator who possessed intelligence and who designed the universe cannot be the foundation on which you presuppose to make claims about the mechanics of the universe.
JMcFarland,you mean universe is working without laws? laws are possible without intelligence? you also believe this joke?
I suspect (again) that we are dealing with semantics and with whether or not one subscribes to a Newtonian physical worldview OR a non-Newtonian physical worldview.
Newton believed that the universe was, in fact, governed by laws that were specifically set into motion by a divine creator. For Newton there was no randomness, no chaos in the universe. For Newton there was order. For Newton the universe was intelligently designed and intelligently executed. For Newton the function of science was to discern those laws.
That said, the problems with the logic:
1. Laws do not require intelligence. What we perceive as or label as "law" is most likely consequence or manifestation of some action or activity.
2. The term "the universe" is growing increasingly anachronistic and increasingly not useful in terms of understanding the space/time in which we find ourselves.
3. A space/time "thing" (for lack of a better word) is not necessarily governed by laws imposed on it externally or by some creator.
After all, we just may be without reason, without metaphysical cause; without intelligence or design or intervention of some creator.
mbuggieh,This is not label of law ,this is actual law,you can break actions you can never break laws ,science has not assigned laws to universe ,it has discovered these laws,all inventions were possible only due to physical laws,for example,you can never break law of gravitation,you can make inventions like aircraft in light of this law ,this law keeps all heavenly bodies in their orbits otherwise universe has been destroyed,you can never afford absence of gravitation for a second,gravity attracts all things with the same rate,similarly ,there is law of proportions,you can ever make water by the combination of one atom of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen,why? as every thing is in proportion .Laws are only possible by intelligence otherwise the same can never originate.
Once you prove these universal laws are the result of intelligence I'll pay attention. First you have to have an understanding of how and why all these elements exist. You can state that the universal laws are the product of intelligence all you want, but proving it is another matter.
It may help to start to see if you can imagine a universe without a creator. I can imagine both a universe with a creator and one without and I have to say the one without makes much more sense as you no longer have to have the paradox of a creator without a creator. You no longer have to justify why a loving God would call people to war, create disease, create parasites, and create cancers. The universe starts to make sense.
Natural "laws" are not evidence of any god, let alone a specific one. Here's why:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … w_argument
I could make the same exact argument with anything. I could say that natural law is the result of unicorns playing tag. You have to prove your first two premises before you are justified in making your conclusion.
if you say that natural laws require intelligence, you have to prove that claim. You have not met your burden of proof. You just made stuff up and called it fact.
Try this. You don't need logic to prove Allah is real. Pray to him. Ask Allah what you should say to me. If Allah is all knowing, he certainly knows. If Allah doesn't answer you or if he answers you incorrectly, his power fails. Should be simple.
JMcFarland,All laws of universe require intelligence,universe is not a construction of mass ,it is a system of laws,you can suppose that a system of mass has been grown randomly but you can never suppose that a system of laws has also grown randomly,science was only possible due to these accurate and specific laws governing universe,science has not assigned these laws to universe, science has discovered these laws and has made inventions in light of the same,for example,law of gravitation,this is not randomly grown law it is accurate law attracting every thing with the same rate ,you can never imagine the absence of this law otherwise universe will be destroyed,similarly,law of proportions,law of action and reaction,law of inertia,law of friction etc,you can make oxygen with one atom?
Saying repeatedly that a system of law requires intelligence does not make it true. You have to demonstrate that it is and you have to demonstrate the intelligence behind it. You can't just make shit up and then claim that it is true. You are making the claim. The burden to prove your claim is on you. So far you have not offered any proof of any kind. Do you know the difference between proof and assertion?
I'll make it easy. Does my saying that unicorns are responsible for gravity, gravity exists and therefore unicorns exist make it true?
I noticed that you ignore my challenge to Allah. Maybe he's scared. Or maybe you are.
JMcFarland, you mean a system of laws is possible without intelligence and through random process of evolution? If so give only one example? One must review himself before such kind of challenge?
Rad Man,Evolution is a law depending upon another law of genetic variations,and further natural selection and survival of the fittest ,these all laws have combined effect for emergence of human being after billion years of evolutions,these laws require source of intelligence and supervision of intelligence for avoiding the accidental destruction of life and for maintaining its upward direction .
The burden of proof is on you. Shifting the goalposts is evidence of your arguments weakness.
evolution is the example you're looking for, for starters.
You're also demonstrating the argument from incredulity.
You should really read showing other than your favorite holy book before attempting these debates.
Aren't you going to prove Allah to me by asking him what to say to Convince me? Or do you realize it would be stupid to fight for an impotent, silent, non existent dish who is not going to answer you?
JMcFarland, Laws require application of mind, reason,intelligence and conscious ,your universe is not random collection of mass but a system of laws working accurately,therefore,biological evolution is it self a law and requires intelligence,if it had been working randomly according to your wish,it would have evolved a random collection of life but it evolved the human beings,the master piece of creations,who was himself source of laws and discoveries,you really believe that random evolution can do it ? consequently, you have only defense of proving that universe is working without laws,as you have tried it,please continue your effort,perhaps,you may succeed to convince scientists that universe is working without laws,therefore,never requires intelligence.
That's about the tenth (or hundredth) time you've repeated that claim. That all laws require an intelligence to make them. Why don't you prove it instead of just repeating it ad infinitum? Because you can't?
wilderness, '' all laws require intelligence'' this is proven fact, the fact of observation is proven fact,nature requires intelligence or not this is not proven fact.
IF it is a proven fact, please produce that proof.
Because I for one do not believe it. I don't believe it is true and I certainly do not believe it has been proven. You have talked around any such proof for too long, absolutely refusing to produce anything but your own unsupported opinion - I do not believe there is any proof.
wilderness,A proven fact is not a ''belief'' of you are mine,it is an established and observable fact as you
have been ''guiding'' me,proven fact never requires proof ,its observation on large scale is itself its proof,we know that laws are set principles or rational orders and disciplines,therefore,'' laws without intelligence'' is the biggest joke of the present time,you have no escape this time,you have been ''arrested'' by'' intelligence'' from all sides.
Sorry, proven fact always requires proof. That proof may indeed be observation on a large scale, but you haven't offered that, either. At least I have never observed the making of those laws and do not believe you or anyone else has, either.
Observation on a large scale might be the moon's existence; as everyone can see it, it almost certainly exists. The creation of natural laws, on the other hand, had NO observers. There are lots of people, just like you, that say "I like the idea of god and am ignorant of how natural laws came into being so therefore goddunnit", but it is not proof.
On a side issue, did you bother to read a link someone gave you referencing this very issue of natural laws vs written laws? Did you understand the fallacy in using the word "laws" in two different meanings while pretending it is just one meaning?
Saying something does NOT make it so---even, as noted, if you repeat it and repeat it.
You think, it seems, that there is some law code---some written text, that governs the universe. This is your premise and this premise is at the very bet not proven.
mbuggieh,I am repeating for explanation and for the reason that no body is replying reasonably , how written law may govern universe? ,I am very clear,and I will again have to repeat for clarification, the universe is not simply a collection of mass but a system of laws as discovered by scientists,these laws are not a written code,these are working,therefore,the same require the ''intelligence'' as there source as the same can never be presupposed without any source,
Everything you mentioned is and can be explained without a creator.
JMcFarland, I have studied link you posted where a difference of prescriptive and descriptive laws have been defined and an argument has been made to the effect that natural laws are descriptive meaning thereby that these laws have been described by human mind for understanding the the phenomena of universe. This argument is itself based over false presumption that we are using the laws assigned by science to universe as our argument ,but this is not our argument and we are not confused about these two forms of laws,our argument is that universe is working under some disciplines and ordering and calculations and these are'' laws of universe'' requiring'' intelligence'' ,and these are also termed as ''laws'' by science as they work accurately,therefore. confusions is in objection.confusion is not in our argument,it is clear.
JMcFarland, further,in your link the ''God'' is used in argument and the objection has been raised ''which God''? this is not the problem in my argument where'' intelligence'' is used,therefore, these laws are only possible by'' intelligence''.
You keep repeating this, but have yet to offer any proof - why not?
Mark Knowles, If you will see my posts with open eyes,you will find the proof also .
If you will see all of our explanations with open eyes you see just how wrong you are.
Rad Man,I can see evidences,you can never,therefore, whose eyes are closed?
You are again mistaken, I can see evidence for almost all things. Looking up at the stars I can see that the light from those stars have been traveling for million of years, so I know the earth is old. I see the evidence for air in the wind. I see evidence for gravity in the fact that I don't float away. My eyes are open, but you have supplied no evidence to prove water can only be produced by intelligence especially when you admit that the best intelligence we know of can't produce water.
Rad Man,you have concluded that earth is old by the evidence of travel of light,you have concluded the air by the evidence of wind,you have concluded the gravity from not floating away but I am surprised that you have not concluded'' intelligence'' by the evidence of'' laws '' of physical universe,,'' definite compositions'' of chemical universe and ''information'' of biological universe and believe that this all is possible without intelligence,therefore, you have closed your eyes from all these evidences for your belief for absence of'' religious God'' and have applied double standard of logic,one for scientific laws and other for creator,although, you are identifying all ''causes'' from other'' effects'' ,but you have decided not to admit the ''principal cause'' of all these great effects .
Because the universal laws do not imply intelligence. For example if one has two poles, and round one one and a square one and two holes, also a round one and a square one. If we randomly attempt to fit a pole into a hole we will be correct half the time. Do we look at the correct attempts and assume we used intelligence? This is very much how nature and evolution works, no intelligence required. We have no evidence.
So - I have to ask once again what you are trying to achieve here. It has already been explained to you that your claims are unsupported and repeating them ad infinitum is unlikely to have any effect.
Do you honestly think that repeating your irrational beliefs over and over and over will make any educated person accept them? This may work in a closed society where you are able to kill any apostates, but - here? I think not. In fact - it is considered just plain rude to do as you are doing.
So - seriously - what are you trying to do? Wear us down?
You see evidence or just flawed logical conclusions that you consider evidence even when knowing the flaw?
wilderness,there is great difference between between evidence and flawed logical conclusion, it is evident by the fact that no body has succeeded to give a reasonable answer for the same and only replied with presumptions, therefore,you all must review your belief of atheism based just over some presupposed concepts.
Just because you have not understood what we've told you does not make all of us wrong and you right. Each of us have pointed out your fallacies, assumptions and claims, and you've ignored us and just repeated your premise. You have provided no evidence for your claims. Until you do, conversation is futile.
JMcFarland, logic can never be imposed,it could be understood,argued and could be accepted or objected,you have a point of view,but I think this is not more than a belief as you all have the same essence of the arguments, ''existence proves only existence,'''' laws proves only laws'', ''information proves information'',definite compositions prove definite compositions'' , as we have not observed God creating universe therefore no intelligence all these ''miracles'',are possible without intelligence,but the same standard of evidence can prove scientific laws,consequently, falling objects prove the gravitation for all heavenly bodies although we have not observed that all planets are being filled up by the gravitation nor we have measured the gravitation of all heavenly bodies but we can believe but we can never do the same for creator ,we can identify all causes by the effects but we can never identify the ''principal cause'' by all these effects because that has no evidence'', now tell me how I may be convinced by your logic of'' closing of eyes''?
until you prove that your conclusions are valid with substantial proof, we don't need to produce counter-arguments to your claims. The burden of proof rests on you to prove the claims that you've made. You have not offered any proof other than to say that it's "obvious". It may be obvious to you because you are presupposing your conclusion, but that doesn't mean that it's "obvious" to anyone else.
JMcFarland, I am supposing that you are also under the ''effect'' of Mark and therefore,you have no answers for my questions.
What are you talking about? Trying to make people disprove your unsubstantiated claims is a logical fallacy called "shifting the goalposts". You are the person making the claim. You therefore have the burden of proof - unless you want to utilize special pleading to say that the guidelines of conversation and debate do not apply to you and there is no need for you to prove anything since saying it is enough.
Outside of basing atheism on a total lack of evidence for a supernatural god, what "presupposed concepts" do you think IS the base?
wilderness,I was also supposing that atheism was lack of evidence for a supernatural God but after discussion with atheists,it is evident that they presuppose the self existence of universe for ousting God and then build their ''rational'' belief in the shape of ''lack of evidence ''for absence of'' religious God'' , as God can never be avoided until you presuppose the self existence of universe,therefore,they define'' existence'' as ''self existence'' [existence is existence,existence proves the existence only ]and then ask believers to prove God and emphasis that there is no evidence for God,this is their problem and fallacy,they are first required to prove ''self existence'' ,of universe for avoiding God before asking us to prove God ,consequently,they ''kill god ''not by their ''real logic'' but by their cruel presupposed concept .
Well - you keep saying that, but it is untruthful. You already decided long before you spoke to any atheists that their irrational belief in a natural Universe is the root of their denial of obvious truth and evidence.
The Universe has always existed as far as we can tell. You are the one making a claim that it did not - care to prove it?
Mark Knowles, I am not supposing that universe never exists,nor this is my claim, I am just asking that why you are presupposing the ''self existence' or ''eternal existence of universe'' for avoiding to conclude creator ? this is you claim about universe,prove it .
I see. How does it need a creator if it has always existed? If it did not exist at some point - surely there is no need for a creator - yes?
Mark Knowles'',How does it need a creator if it has always existed''?This confirms what I am stating and that is the presumption of eternal universe without its evidence,this is the problem of all atheists,your question expresses that you are presupposing that universe always existed without evidence,this is your fallacy.
But wait - you are the one that said:
Therefore Universe has always existed. Yes? Therefore no need for a creator. Yes?
Now - you can't have it both ways - which is it?
If the Universe needed a creator, it must have not existed at some point. Therefore you are making the claim that it did not exist when you make a claim of a creator.
But you also claim that you are not supposing that the Universe did not exist and is therefore eternal. Which contradicts your other claim.
Which is it?
Mark Knowles,existence of universe is a fact, always existence of universe is not a fact, it is a presumption ,how you concluded the same? under what evidence?
Sorry - I have no intention of answering any more questions until you deal with my last statement. Ignoring everything I say in order to pose more questions you don't want answered is rude.
Mark Knowles,Sorry, I am supposing that you have no answer for the same as you are intentionally avoiding to do the same,I think you have understood your fallacy as I have realized you the same,thanks.
I have answered your question on multiple occasions. Now address the point I made please, because to ignore it and repeat the lie that I have not answered your question is rude.
This is the point I made again:
No wonder your religion causes so many fights. You have no morals, sir.
That is the problem, allright. You have begun every thread with the supposition that there is a god out there and appear shocked that others don't agree with that concept.
Back off that precept until you have evidence for it and what's left? The self forming universe that we see around us. So it isn't a matter of believing in the self creation of the universe that ousts god, it is a matter of "no evidence of god so what's left?". As usual, you've got cause and effect backwards.
Of course you don't. This is why your religion causes so many fights.
Mark Knowles,No,this is why as my religion is based over reason and conscious.
sibtain bukhari -
you need to take a look at this. Please. For all of our sakes, but especially yours.
JMcFarland,Thanks for referring a good book but it points out your logical fallacies and validity of my arguments ,''One of several valid forms of argument is known as modus ponens (the mode of affirming by affirming) and takes the following form: If A then C, A; hence C. More formally:
A ⇒ C, A ⊢ C.
Here, we have three propositions: two premisses and a conclusion. A is called the antecedent and C the consequent. For example, If water is boiling at sea level, then its temperature is at least 100°C. This glass of water is boiling at sea level; hence its temperature is at least 100°C. Such an argument is valid in addition to being sound''.
Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe (obvious fact, no proof needed). Premise A
Universe is existing. Premise B
Therefore Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe. Conclusion C
Mark Knowles, First premises is not proven fact therefore false,I have always presented the proven fact as first premises ,you need to improve your logic:P
Please prove it wrong. Unless you can do so, we must accept this proven fact.
I think I have adopted your version of logic just fine thank you.
Marks' first premise is just as proven as your first premise. According to you, unless you can prove it wrong, it must be valid. You need to provide the evidence that demonstrates that the flying spaghetti monster did not create the universe. That's what you've been asking us to do for your argument. Now it's your turn.
Does anyone actually think they're going to get through to this guy?
I don't think that you understand the words "humor" or "irony"
The book is an illustrated guide to logical fallacies. The only one relying on logical fallacies in this forum is you. You just keep repeating them. You're able to notice them in others, but you can't notice them in your own argument? Why do you think that is?
JMcFarland,''Validity: A deductive argument is valid if its conclusion logically follows from its premisses. Otherwise, it is said to be invalid''.
At last - you now understand why your argument is invalid. Well done.
but you have not proven your premises true. You just repeat them. Saying something a dozen times does not make it more true. If your claim is that these natural laws have proven repeatedly and factually to be only the result of intelligence, that is a claim that needs evidence. Saying it again does not equal evidence.
JMcFarland, physical laws of universe have been discovered by the science,but perhaps, this information has not reached to you and wilderness,therefore,you require proof for the same and consider this fact as claim only? further laws including natural laws are set principles and disciplines and rational ordering of things,there,it is our general observation that laws are results of application of mind and reason and have no source of ignorance,consequently, it is proven fact as ''all men are mortal'',observation proves the same.
When scientists discovered the laws, did they see who wrote them down? Did they even find the paper they were written on?
No? They didn't see any intelligence making the laws? Why do you claim there was one, then?
Wilderness,laws never require to be written, if a law is not written it does not mean it is not, life of a law is not depending upon its writing down, when law of gravitation was not discovered and written by scientists,it was not ? even many social laws are not written for example, the constitution of Britain is not written, it would mean it is not ? laws are systems of principles,disciplines and ordering of things and never require to be written for their working,I do not expect such kind of argument from you , Have you seen that any planet is being filled up by gravitation,then why do you believe it? Have you even measured this force of every heavenly body ? then why do you believe it? simply due to the effect of attraction of many bodies not all and due to orbits maintained by this force,therefore , you have adopted a double standard of logic in respect of science and creator,why do you demand that evidence for creator that is not required for scientific laws? belief in creator is also a scientific belief upon the basis of existence of universe,system of laws and system of information in genetic code and human brain .
How do you make the leap to universal laws being the application of a mind when you have no evidence of a mind outside our universe? When observing the universe all we can see is us humans are on a planet orbiting a star on the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies. Which is unlike any description from any holy book.
Rad Man, Universal laws are evidence of Mind outside our universe as the same are not possible without Mind ,why do you presuppose that there is no Mind out of universe,even in the presence of laws of universe? simply upon the basis of the presumption that as you have not seen creator nor creating the universe,therefore no creator,then why do you believe in the gravitational force of attraction in every body of this universe? Even you have not seen the force by your eyes nor you have seen in a single body being filled by this force and even every force of attraction of every body can never be measured but this is the scientific belief because we are observing the effect of this force ,similarly,belief in creator is also a scientific belief not blind belief as it is based over the existence of universe,system of laws of universe and system of information inside the genetic code and brain and all these effect conclude the ''intelligence'' behind the universe, but you all people have adopted a double standard of logic about creator and scientific laws,what is not demanded in science you demand in respect of creator,this is grave injustice you are doing with your God and with your self.
//"Every system of laws requires intelligence.
Universe is system of laws.
therefore universe requires intelligence."//
No, you've got the legal profession, which is full of liars, I mean lawyers, mixed up with reality. Laws were created by men. Existence is observer independent. The moon exists whether I believe in it or not, and it doesn't cease to exist if I don't believe in it or can't sense it. The same with a creator god, he either exists or he doesn't. There's no in-between. Creation itself is irrational, therefore a creator god does not exist. In science we only have possible or not possible. A creator god is not possible.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/God-Doe … d-to-Exist
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/CREATIO … re-ETERNAL
Exist--Object with location, physical presence.
Object--- that which has shape.
Location--set of static distances from all other objects.
Ricardius, You do not know about layers,as layers always make arguments in accordance with record,it is not possible for them to go out of record,therefore,here,I am also arguing in accordance with ''record of universe'' ,we must workout from this record,consequently, after analysis of the same we find laws are governing the universe,therefore,this ''record of laws'' is the ample proof of the intelligence,this is the scientific,logical,legal and only possible conclusion of this ''record'',If you are interested in denying God,you can do it,but how can you refute this conclusion of ''intelligence'' out of the ''available record'' ?
You try to prove what you can't prove with science. Theories get changed all the time and this is all your suggesting is a theory. Here's some scientifically "proof" that science is often quite wrong. Blessed are those who don't see but yet still believe.
Transmutation of species
Emission theory of vision
Ptolemy's law of refraction
"Purely electrostatic" theories of the generation of voltage differences.
Emitter theory – another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.
Progression of atomic theory
Plum pudding model of the atom
Rutherford model of the atom with an impenetrable nucleus orbited by electrons.
Bohr model with quantized orbits
Electron cloud model
Astronomy and cosmology
Luminiferous aether theory
Steady State Theory
joshguill, You are correct that laws of science are not certain but probable, but laws of universe confirms that universe is a system of laws and laws have only one possibility and that is intelligence,these laws are facts therefore they prove the intelligence.
I see you are continuing to repeat your absurd claims. I am still interested as to what you hope to achieve. Clearly you are not interested in a discussion - so what is your goal?
Got to admit I am impressed with how many times you can come up with to say exactly the same thing while ignoring everything said to you, but - in my culture - we consider that to be rude.
Mark Knowles,I have already replied on another thread that I want to achieve ''truth'',therefore, if you have the same present it in spite of making allegation of lying,why do you believe so strongly that absence of'' Religious God'' is truth and ''god of universe'' is ''reality'' ,there is not possibility of your being wrong? If you prove I am wrong I will also deny the ''religious God''.
You want to achieve "truth" ? I have already shown you how you are wrong - as have many other people.
How do you hope to achieve truth exactly? You already told me you will never accept the possibility that you are wrong - therefore you are not being truthful when you claim here that you will deny the religious god. This makes you a liar.
Mark Knowles,who,<personal attack snipped>,it is evident by the way you are arguing,I do not like ,following you ,to declare you <personal attack snipped> in a breath ,it is against what I have learned from Quran,perhaps,as you never believe in any morality,therefore this type of allegations suit you .
Well - you have told me that you will never accept the possibility that you may be wrong and you have also told me that you will reject the religious god with proof. Which is it?
In any case - as I understand it - according to the Quran - lying is perfectly acceptable when you are trying to convert some one to your irrational belief system - isn't it?
Interesting, I call Mohammad a liar and get banned for four weeks, you call Mark a liar and you're still here posting.
The admins here must be Muslims.
The evidence of God is the bible. If your trying to prove God is real by saying that the universe follows a complex system of laws, you'd have better luck telling me that God isn't real.
JMcFarland, Mark, Rad, Wilderness,
Re: No evidence of God... Burden of proof...
What exactly constitutes as proof of God? Or, at least, proof of intelligent intent? I see plenty of proof.
1. There's only one observable universe that we know for certain exists.
2. The values of the constant fundamental laws of this one universe are so exact that if those values were even slightly different there would be no life, or no universe.
3. Intelligence/Reason is a 'natural occurrence' in this one universe that we know exists and that we know we, the only intelligent beings we know of, had nothing to do with.
4. Life is built around an intricate system that enables it to retain/pass on genetic information, making what would be a random process accumulative, thus allowing it to gain complexity and retain/pass on what makes it successful. A system that came together 'naturally' in this one universe we know to exist.
5. Mathematics, though we only discovered it 5000 or so years ago, can be retro-actively applied to the workings of this one universe back over the course of billions of years, long before we ever came about. The same goes for intelligence/reason in general. Though we assume we're the first/only intelligent/reasoning beings in existence, this 'naturally occurring' intelligence and reason can be applied to the workings of this one universe that existed long before it.
So what exactly are you looking for, evidence wise, to either prove or disprove an intelligent creator? Do you know? It seems to me things like a naturally evolved system that stores and perpetuates genetic information is exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see if you're looking for signs of intelligence. By what standards do you determine what does or does not constitute as evidence of God/creator with intelligent intent?
So? That's like saying I have a dandelion in my back yard, so someone must have planted it.
So?Perhaps we are here because of luck. If things were different we wouldn't be here.
Evolution explains this. No God required.
Evolution explains this. No God required.
Math is simply a way of communication. The math does however show that prayer doesn't work and people with faith are more prone to depression.
First you would need to prove God exist and then you'd need to prove he created the universe. Understanding we are not the centre of the universe, took 14 billion years for us to arrive, are not given any special privileges by nature, prayer don't work, and the fact that the holy books make no sense should be an indication that no God exists or at least not one who cares.
"First you would need to prove God exist and then you'd need to prove he created the universe."
Before we can get there we first need to establish by what standards something does or does not qualify as proof.
"Evolution explains this. No God required."
This statement suggests you have a standard for qualifying what does or does not constitute proof in regards to whether or not a God is required to explain something. How do you know no God was required? Because it occurred 'naturally'? That doesn't exactly mean anything since we're talking about whether or not an intelligent creator created the natural world. That means this God would be the one who designed nature to do what it does. So, this system being a 'natural result' would in itself be the expected result if that natural world is the result of intelligent intent. Not the other way around.
I would say that all the individual components that work together 'naturally' in such a way as to result in an intricate system of retaining and passing on genetic information strongly suggests an intelligent creator fashioned those components, as well as the environment they exist in, to behave in such a way as to do so. Retaining and passing on information is something we intelligent beings began to employ relatively recently to grow and advance ourselves intellectually/socially/societally. Yet we find out, way after we began to do so ourselves, that nature has been using a very similar method all along to bring about complex multi-celled organisms and eventually the very same intelligence we then used to do the same. Yet we assume it's just 'unintelligent' chance that resulted in the establishment of this system?
"No god required" means that the natural laws and actions of the universe as we understand them can produce the same result.
To come back and say that only a god can produce those laws is irrelevant, unless you can produce proof that a god did that. To the best of our knowledge, no god was required for that, either.
You are making a VERY shaky comparison between chemical construction of DNA and man's methods of passing on information to others - of all the methods not a single one uses DNA or is even chemically based.
Do not assume it's "just 'unintelligent' chance that resulted in the establishment of this system", but do not assume it required intelligence, either. Either choice requires proof, but without that proof no "assumption" can be made. Thus, no god is necessary, but cannot be ruled out.
"No god required" cannot be stated unless we know how/why/what about those natural laws and where matter came from the first place. Until we know what's required for these things to be as they are then we can't say what's required.
The comparison isn't shaky at all. Same basic concept, same basic benefit. With the ability to retain and pass on information, whether it be chemical/oral/written/digital, the benefit is accumulation of information, which has proven in each case to be hugely beneficial. It's the same thing.
Proof is not something you're going to get as we're talking about the cause of the natural laws and the behavior of matter. Whatever that cause may be it is by definition super-natural, and beyond the scope of the natural sciences. So we're left with making the most of the information we do have. And that information strongly suggests intelligent intent.
But to say 'no god is necessary' based on the reasoning that "the natural laws and actions of the universe as we understand them can produce the same result" is a fallacy. It just means that in your mind, if a god were involved, then he would have to have manually manipulated the very matter and laws he created to realize a desired outcome. So, you're ruling out a legitimate possibility based on a very particular concept of your own making. If we're to draw any kind of legitimate conclusions then we first need to understand the nature of what we're talking about. If we're talking about a being capable of creating the entirety of the universe, then we're not looking for manual manipulation. We're looking for something that by all accounts just seems to have formed itself. That's the expected result.
1. True, we don't know of another universe. Our ignorance is not proof of a creator.
2. You have no idea if there would be life or universe if constants were different. It might be safe to say that life as we know it could not exist, but that's all. Ignorance of what would happen does not prove a creator. Not, at least, unless you also postulate that the purpose of the universe is to produce man - certainly an unwarranted assumption and one that presupposes the god you are trying to prove.
3. We don't know of any other intelligence in the universe, but that ignorance does not prove a creator. We know we didn't cause creation of the universe, but that doesn't prove one either.
4. DNA occurs on our planet, yes. Whether it is found elsewhere or something else takes its place or a totally different system of life developed elsewhere int he universe we don't know. That ignorance does not prove a creator, and neither does our ignorance of each and every individual step evolution took.
5. Mathematics can be applied to the workings of the universe before man cam, yes. That does not imply a creator, though, let alone prove one any more than gravity existing prior to man does.
As noted DNA can come about through the stupid forces of evolution; it certainly does not prove a creator. We may not (and do not) understand every bit of it, but that ignorance proves nothing.
Basically then, each and every one of your "proofs" is that "In our ignorance, we don't know everything there is to know and therefore goddunnit". It doesn't work.
Proof of a god? See it, talk to it, let it tell us it made us and prove it can by making another universe complete with intelligent beings. Outside of that, I'm not sure there can be any proof. You might have some small amount of evidence if you could find another universe, populated by intelligent beings. That would not be conclusive of course, but would add at least a little bit of evidence to the god theory.
"You have no idea if there would be life or universe if constants were different."
Actually, this we do know. Change any one of the values of the constant laws and you get basically two results; either the ratio of matter that bonded together to form suns/planets/life would be greatly diminished if you go one way, or everything would be crushed if the universe didn't just collapse back in on itself if you go the other way.
"We don't know of any other intelligence in the universe, but that ignorance does not prove a creator."
It's not whether or not intelligence exists elsewhere. It's the fact that intelligence and reason is a natural occurrence in this one universe.
The basic point is this... the very same evidence often sited as reasons why some say a God isn't required is actually evidence that support's a creator. These things are the kinds of things you should expect to see if intelligent intent was responsible for this one universe/life/intelligence. No, each one of these does not 'prove' God exists on their own, but all together they show that these facts about this one universe do support that this universe was deliberately/intelligently created. These things being as they are without intelligent intent is a far less likely answer.
If I get the gist of your argument... it's basically: everything turned out ok, so God must of have made it. If God wouldn't have made it everything would have went sideways.
Is that about the sum of it? Or is there something I missed?
"OK" is relative. What I'm saying is that the more likely answer, given the information we have, is that the universe as it is was deliberately intended and intelligently realized. For intelligent/reasoning/self-aware beings who came about as a product of this universe to then employ that intelligence/reason, because of our self-awareness, to understand where we came from and how we're here, the most likely explanations are either ....
A) there are an infinite number of universes, each incrementally different than the next, and we just happen to be a product of one of those universes where we actually exist to observe it
B) we are the product of deliberate/intelligent intent
We know intelligence and reason can and do exist because they occurred naturally here. Given the sheer number of variables that have to be as they are for this universe/life/intelligence and reason to be here, considering there is only this one observable universe, it requires the least amount of assumptions for this one observable universe to be the product of intelligent, deliberate intent.
Yeah, so semantically your argument is: We are here, so that means God put us here. Furthered by We think, therefore we are, therefore something else that thinks must have created us.
That's what all your typing boils down to.
Add in "I don't believe it happened THAT way, so it must have happened THIS way"
That's the TLDR version of your argument.
C) there are billions of intelligent species in this universe
D) There is only us, but others will follow in the billions of years till the universe dies
E) This is the nth iteration of a recycling universe, each with 0, 1 or a great many intelligent species
There are lots of possibilities, none of which require additional, hidden universes with other intelligent beings. For that is a very basic flaw with using our intelligence as a reason to believe in a god; now there have to be two universes, each with an intelligent species, and you start all over again with where did it come from.
Whether it's just us or there are other intelligent species in this universe is irrelevant. It's just whether or not intelligent life exists. Whether they exist elsewhere now or come later. The fact is life as we know it can only exist in a universe where the values of the laws are as they are here. Change them and you've got nothing. You've either got no clumps of matter at all or no universe at all. Suns and planets and life are only possible with a very particular/delicate balance between the two other possibilities.
The 'nth iteration/recycling universe' example is one and the same as the multiverse scenario. Whether they exist at the same time or one after another, it's still a postulation that attempts to explain the exactness of the natural laws.
In either case you're still just left with the same two options.
Melissa is right, but saying if god didn't do it it wouldn't have worked just is not proof of anything.
I might point out as well, that IF life develops naturally, by whatever wild coincidence is necessary, that it is likely to produce the very argument you are, whether there is a god or not.
Be that as it may, however, all such arguments are based somehow on the idea that we are important; that the universe was created for us. That without us the universe would be nothing. Not true. Mankind is the smallest thing imaginable to the universe; not equivalent to a single hydrogen atom in the whole of earth. That man developed, with all his vaunted intelligence, means exactly nothing to the universe. That 4 Hydrogen atoms can be compressed into 2 Helium atoms is incredibly more important than that an insignificant speck of matter in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant cluster of galaxies in an insignificant super cluster of galaxies on an insignificant galactic string has intelligent life.
Importance has nothing to do with how much space we take up or whether or not we're in the middle. We are important because we are significant/unique. We are significant, not because of intelligence, but because of free will. Unlike anything else in all the known universe, our behavior is not dictated by the natural laws. Our physical bodies, yes. We can't jump and defy gravity. But matter behaves in very consistent ways. So consistent, in fact, that we can mathematically reconstruct the history of the universe. But according to the bible, God created us with free will. The whole theme of the bible is about how humans behave contrary to the will of our creator. If we do truly make our own decisions, if our behavior, as well as the behavior of the entirety of human history, was deliberate willful choice and not simply determined by the matter our brains are made of, then we are significant. No matter how insignificant we may seem space or time wise. If we are not, then we are nothing more than biological machines, passively observing everything we do under the illusion that we can control it.
Well, perhaps that's the biggest disagreement we will have. Mankind just is not significant at all. Man is no more unique than any other animal or plant - every one has some attribute that is unique to that species. Most have as much free will as man does.
And you're right - we're nothing more than biological machines, chemical factories that can reproduce themselves. The universe was not formed around humanity; mankind was formed to fit into what the local universe offered in the way of environment. Just as every other plant and animal was.
See, this is what really bothers me with this whole materialist movement thing. To fit the entirety of existence into a material box means robbing humanity of actually being human. It means that none of us can actually control our behavior. That the entirety of human history was simply determined by the behavior of matter and we are merely passive observers who have never actually had any control. It means that not only is our freedom of choice an illusion, but so is everything we think we care about. Everything from the people we love and care for to our favorite color is nothing more than sensations and inklings determined by chemical happenings. That we as humans are totally insignificant, that we simply cease to be at death, and that the entirety of our time here, no matter what we accomplish, is the equivalent of a burp in a ripple of causation. All of this just to boil everything down to being strictly material, even though each of us experience a mind that in itself doesn't fit in that material box.
I disagree. I argue that we are different. And it's not just reason and logic that makes us different. Humans have had that for a long time, but only recently changed behaviorally. We humans used to live and behave much like many mammalian species in the animal kingdom. No matter where you go a horse is a horse and a cow is a cow. And for tens of thousands of years a human was a human. Behavior wise, humans were indistinguishable all around the world. Then came a change. Within the same species and without any discernible change to the physical brain we completely changed how we behave. Where before humans lived in harmony with nature, from this point forward we actively began to try to control it. And though we are clearly mammals in every physical sense, its at this point that we more began to exhibit the behaviors of parasites than mammals. We wipe out resources and then move on and wipe out more. I think there's a reason why we instinctively discern between what is 'natural' and what is 'man-made'. We're not natural. We're an anomaly. Physically we are natural. We're mammals of the homo genus. But behavior wise, we're unlike anything else.
Interesting that you know humans used reason and logic 50,000 years ago. What evidence do you have of this? Also - I am interested to see the physical evidence you have that our brains did not change - where did you find 50,000 year old intact brains to be making this claim? I suspect there are many scientists that will be interested in the evidence you have uncovered. How many intact brains have you discovered and why have you not shared this finding with the world at large?
I suggest you do some more research into animal behavior before making these wild, unsupported claims. Army ants work very similarly to humans. They move to an area, use up the resources they can use and move on to another area.
Populations explode and recede due to over use of the resources they thrive on all the time. When the resource runs out, the population recedes. We have simply not reached that point yet, because we are technologically developed, extremely mobile and capable of utilizing a wide range of resources. We will do.
No matter how verbose you become, you are making exactly the same unsupported claim that our OP was making.
It is clever and I don't understand it, therefore goddunit.
Your mind fits in a material box. Try switching off the oxygen supply and see what happens.
I'm using the same information available to everybody. The ancestors of the Aborigines migrated out of the African continent earlier than 50,000 years ago, and they're capable of logic and reason. Plus, that's around the time that our tool making got much more intricate, exhibiting progressions in their ability to use logic.
We reached anatomical modernity around 200,000 years ago based on the fact that the brain cavity in our skulls have not changed in size or shape in that time. Plus, if there were a structural change to the physical brain then there'd now be a structural difference between our brains and those of Aborigines. There isn't.
Ants are insects, not mammals.
"We have simply not reached that point yet, because we are technologically developed, extremely mobile and capable of utilizing a wide range of resources."
So, in other words, humans are different.
As for the mind fitting in a material box, do you mean to tell me we could put George R.R. Martin through a CAT scan or whatever else and I can finally find out how Game of Thrones ends? Because if you ask him he already knows how the rest of the story goes. So it's in there somewhere, yet a scan of his brain and a scan of mine would look the same, yet I have no idea how the story will end.
It is true that our use of environment is accelerating. That is a natural result of a growing knowledge base; a base that feeds on itself to produce more knowledge. But it has nothing to do with being special or having the universe designed for us.
It's nice to think we ARE special, that we have control. It just doesn't have much basis in reality. If another dinosaur killer comes next week, do you think we can control it? The Andromeda galaxy is heading for a collision course with ours; do you think we can control that? We can't even control a simple tornado or volcano, let alone the forces of the universe!
As far as being unlink anything else - unlike the locust horde that strips the land bare? The ant colonies that, when moving, does the same? The jellyfish horde that is overrunning Japan and will ruin their fisheries?
All species taken whatever they can and expand as far as possible. We're just a little more efficient at it than most are, that's all.
That "growing knowledge base" in itself is something that sets us apart. That alone makes us special in comparison. We're borrowing on something nature employs, only we came up with it long before we realized nature used it. Something we came up with using our intelligence is employed 'naturally' to allow for accumulative complexity.
The fact that that dinosaur killer came and removed the dominate species at the time off the planet, which made way for our little rodent-like ancestors at the time, who somehow survived this, to then take the reigns as mammals became the dominant species, in itself suggests we're special. We were made by a very particular series of events, that dinosaur killer being one of them. Yes, we are limited by our physical bodies, but our non-physical minds are free of such restraints and it reflects in our behavior. All of this made possible by in-numerous events just like that dinosaur killer, climate changes, etc.
Notice how you have to look to insects to find behaviors that are similar. That wasn't always the case. Human behavior for tens of thousands of years was very much like other mammals. Then we changed. Even indigenous cultures still in existence today don't behave that way. They don't eat up resources like we 'civilized' humans do. We even treated indigenous humans as if they were somehow less than we are all throughout history, though we're physically and genetically identical. Indigenous humans are simply more content than we are and don't feel the need to take more than necessary. The change that sets us apart can be seen in the evidence to have happened in a very specific time and place and spread from there.
No, the dinosaurs were not killed off to make way for us because we are special, that is pure baloney. Your religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with that event.
So you're rejecting my statements as 'baloney' based on your opinion, which is grounded in your materialist beliefs.
If it makes you happy to decide that you are "special" and "better" somehow than all other animals, have at it. I'm sure you can also convince a lot of people of the same thing - that should not be difficult when the result feels so good.
Defining the one characteristic of humanity that is superior to other animals as what it takes to be "special", however, is just a little ingenious, or at least it seems that way to me. Why don't you look at vision, speed, hearing, echo location, ability to live without sunlight providing the food chain or any of a thousand other characteristics as to what makes an animal special?
Actually, I do look at those other characteristics. What I find most interesting is that we were able to establish ourselves as the dominant species without the claws or jagged teeth or venom. With just so-so sight, nearly no sight in the dark, no sonar, so-so hearing and smelling, our heavy dependence on the sun, we have none of these things that so many other species have that give them certain advantages, yet we're still by far the dominant species. I find that very significant.
I don't know about that, there are a great many things that outnumber us and effect and even kill us.
No, science rejects your baloney. You also prove my point by saying, "materialistic beliefs".
As well, when you make the claim, "My statements are firmly grounded in science", you are stating that your reasoning is based on "materialistic beliefs"... you place your foot firmly in your mouth with that one.
Not recognizing the difference between science and materialistic beliefs explains a lot as to why you're seemingly unable to recognize flaws in your own statements.
Then, I'm sure you can explain the difference. Please do.
I've tried having real conversations with you. But your beliefs blind you and make that impossible. Which sucks because you're a really smart dude, yet all those smarts are inaccessible to me.
So, in other words, you make yet another false claim and accusation against me about there being a difference between materialistic beliefs and science, but you can't actually explain the difference. Then, you go on to tell me my beliefs blind me.
It's really hilarious that you can't see just how dishonest you are.
I've thought the same of you many times. I really wish I could. I mean, I know I can explain it, but I also know from past experience that it would be a monumental waist of time.
"Indigenous humans are simply more content than we are and don't feel the need to take more than necessary"
Watched a TV special a while back about, I think, Brazilian indigenous tribes. The years that had a bad harvest or poor rainfall the tribe drowned their newborns for the good of the tribe. Yeah - they don't overrun the resources because they can't, not because they don't want to.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. But that actually goes a long way towards supporting what I'm saying because one of the significant changes in our behavior is our more enhanced ego and heightened level of self-importance. That's why we behave in such a way as to think we can actually claim land as ours, for example, where indigenous cultures all view land the same way, as belonging to all life. Actions taken 'for the good of the tribe' is something common amongst indigenous cultures. They're very much 'tribe-minded' and less individually-minded. Even things that seem horrific to us, like this. This is not how 'civilized' humans would deal with it. When we run out of resources, we don't cannibalize our own, we take from someone/somewhere else and justify doing so because we 'need' it more than they do.
What you're saying is that you simply reject what science has to say about the world around us because you simply don't want to accept it, thus you must distort what science says by stating things like "robbing humanity of actually being human and our freedom of choice an illusion, but so is everything we think we care about" which is all pure baloney. And, it is obvious to anyone that you reject what science says because of your religious beliefs.
Again, that is all pure baloney based on the fact you want to reject what science says about the world around us because of your religious beliefs.
You are totally dishonest about all of it.
I haven't rejected anything science has to say. My statements are firmly grounded in science. I'm not rejecting science, I'm using it. Explain how what I said about materialism robbing us of being human is wrong. Explain how we really can be in control of our actions if our actions are determined by the physical matter our brains are made of. Matter only behaves as it behaves. Having free will would mean we can willfully change how matter behaves. How's that possible?
No, you are not using science because science does not agree with your religious beliefs, so don't even attempt to say otherwise, that would be a blatant lie.
My statements about the materialist viewpoint have nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It's just the logical conclusion of materialism. Explain how I'm wrong.
We are under that illusion and there is no reason to think other animals are also under the same illusion. Give me one example of something humans do that go against nature that an other animal does not.
We make chemicals and materials that don't break down naturally. Our actions have an impact on the ozone layer. We don't usually find 10,000 year old ruins of beaver damns. We're the only species to this date that's been to space, that we know of. We have a rover on Mars. Meanwhile, primates went from getting ants using a stick thousands and thousands of years ago to getting ants with a stick.
The first animals sent into space were fruit flies aboard a U.S.-launched V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947. Albert II, a Rhesus Monkey, became the first monkey in space on June 14, 1949. Numerous monkeys of several species were flown by the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s.
Sure we are smarter, but so what we are week. that was the evolutionary trade of for us having a complex brain, Some whales however have bigger and more complex brains that can understand it own version of sonar. We can't do that so they are special. Didn't you see or read the Hitchhikers guide to the universe?
Yes, I have read Hitchhiker's Guide. That's why I always make sure I have a towel and that's how I know the answer to everything is 42.
I just recently saw a special about a blind man who is able to use his own form of sonar to get around by making clicking noises with his mouth to locate objects.
The basic point is this...
If your God created this universe for us we would be in the centre of it as was described in every holy book. We are not. We are not even in the centre of your own galaxy.
If your God created this universe for us we would have special privileges here on earth, which we do not.
If your God created this universe for us there would be no reason to not reveal himself, he does not.
If your God created this universe for us and wrote the bible as instructions for us prayer would work. It does not.
The fact that we are here is not evidence of any God, just as we as individuals are here or not is not evidence of any God because if we were not here someone may be here in our place.
Anything really. There is no proof of an intelligent creator. There are people such as yourself who need there to be one and therefore claim there is proof. But this is simply a lie and the reason why your religion causes so many fights. If there was proof - you would not be fighting and arguing and pleading as you do. Please, please, please!, see that there is a god because trees grow/birds fly/humans is clever.
I have proof that there is no god, because humans evolved naturally - prove me wrong.
No pleading. Just pointing out the logical fallacies that are hampering the discussion. If a Christian were hampering the discussion by refusing to accept evolution based on the reasoning that crock-o-ducks don't exist I'd do the same thing.
You don't have proof that there is no god based on humans evolving naturally. Because humans did evolve naturally who/whatever first set the laws and who/whatever 'caused' or created matter and energy is who/what is responsible for humans being here. But because you nor no one else can say who/what caused the laws or the matter/energy you cannot make that statement. Humans evolving naturally means the cause is, by definition, super-natural.
That is not a logical fallacy. By definition huh?
Humans evolving naturally means the cause is, by definition, natural.
The 'cause', because we evolved naturally, isn't attributed to anything other than natural happenings from the onset of the universe forward. The series of events, the environment, 'caused' humans to evolve. So, the 'cause' is whatever set all of that into motion. The fundamental laws and all the matter/energy in the universe was in the form of a singularity at the beginning. We do not know what caused that. However, because everything 'natural' is what came from that singularity forward, whatever 'caused' that singularity is, by definition, super-natural.
Interesting - you have some evidence that there was a point where this singularity did not exist?
Whether the singularity existed before that point or not doesn't matter. If a previous universe collapsed down into that singularity, same thing. What we call 'natural' is everything that came from that singularity forward. So, whatever came before, whatever caused that singularity to be there, is 'super-natural' and beyond the scope of the physical sciences.
There was no "before" as I understand the physics. You are the one claiming some body created the singularity. Some body super natural . Prove it.
You're right, 'before' is a poor choice of words. Being that we too are products of this universe, our thinking and even our language is hopelessly tethered to the concepts of time and space.
I didn't say "some body". I just said that whatever caused it is, by definition, super-natural. That could be another universe that collapsed, that could be some sort of multi-verse mechanism that spawns universes like flowers budding on a bush. Doesn't have to be "some body".
Please prove that it didn't exist. This is your claim. Something super natural caused it? Prove it. First by proving it didn't exist.
Would you say the same thing to a physicist postulating a multi-verse? Because what they're doing is no different than what I'm doing. Are you saying we're not allowed to talk about this?
You are not a physicist, they don't fabricate nonsense based on religious beliefs about what physics say about the world around us.
This is why its impossible to talk to you. Your flawed thinking based on your materialist beliefs get projected onto others, making your blind to it and therefore unable to correct.
Ah - just looking for a fight huh?
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Nope, was just trying to have a conversation and instead find myself being prodded by the usual forum bullies. I miss Wilderness and Rad already. Hope they come back.
Your just not responding to my post because you're in the think of it with Mark and ATM. I'm tryng to work and pay attention at the same time. It's not working very well for both my work and my application here.
Ah, so you dishonestly make claims of science based on your religious beliefs and when others call you on your obvious dishonesty, they are bullies. Again, that only serves to show you are indeed just pushing a religious agenda.
Your projecting again, ATM. All I can do to help you recognize that is point it out. The rest is up to you. Good luck.
No, you are not helping, you are dishonestly attempting to fabricate nonsense about what science has to say about the world around us based on your religious beliefs. That is the opposite of helping.
Then demonstrate that my statements are dishonest or factually inaccurate. That should be easy enough if true.
Again, you use the term "materialist beliefs', which only serves to show your opinions are based entirely on your religious beliefs and have nothing to do with science.
Nice misdirection. Now prove your claims.
If you properly understood then you'd know that's impossible, which is exactly what we've been talking about. Actually, I think you do understand, so posing it in this way is actually a clever little tactic on your part. All while at the same time accusing me of misdirection. Pretty sneaky, sir.
Now I am being sneaky? Why is it impossible to prove? You are the one claiming to be using science - you have made a wild, unsupported claim. I am asking you to back it up.
So - back it up.
I have. No need to repeat myself. If you find something that contradicts what I've said thus far I'd love to know about it. THAT'S what conversation is about and why I try to have them. If you can do that and demonstrate an error in what I said then I can learn from that, which is the whole goal.
No - you haven't. Please stop lying at me - it is insulting. Back to making wild claims and then asking others to disprove them? You think this is having a conversation? No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
Come on - you have made a claim the the singularity that the big bang expanded from did not exist at some point. Go ahead and back that up.
You've mis-stated my claim. I never said it didn't exist at some point. I simply said that whatever 'caused' it to be as it was at the beginning, is supernatural. And I even covered the scenario that if it didn't have a cause, if it just always existed, then something 'caused' the expansion, or, the change in its state that resulted in this universe.
Yes, your religious beliefs and nothing more.
What is the hang up with a cause? Because everything you are familiar with in the macro world has a cause it means somehow that everything in the quantum world does too? And what happens in a singularity containing all the mass and energy of the universe requires a cause?
If there is one thing we've learned over the centuries it's that things change when the environment changes. The speed of light isn't constant around a gravity well, for instance. The only information we have is that we don't think causality is the same in the quantum world - why then do you insist it is the same as in the macro world?
Yes, the speed of light IS constant around a gravity well, it is the frequency (energy) that changes, the speed remains the same.
You are mistaken; an observer outside a gravity well will see a slowing of a light beam as it passes near a gravity source. It is an inevitable result of time dilation.
No, you are confusing coordinate speed with speed with respect to an orthonormal frame.
At any vacuum event p in spacetime, electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the vacuum are related to the speed of light with respect to an orthonormal frame at p. This speed is always c.
I believe light always travels at the same speed, it's just the perception of time that changes.
Light does not behave like other objects in the universe, it is governed by the permittivity and permeability of space, which is why it is always measured at c for all observers. As light approaches a gravity well, it's energy increases thus shifting the frequency to blue, and as it moves away from the gravity well, it's energy decreases thus shifting the frequency to red, but it always maintains it's speed at c.
That's just it. Even a change in environment is a change. Whether something 'caused' the singularity to be in the state required at the beginning of the universe, or whether that was its constant state until the environment somehow changed to then cause the expansion, something 'caused' it to go from one state to another. It's not a hangup. It's a changing state that resulted in us. And whatever that was, it's beyond our scope. So the next best thing is to try to understand what came before by observing the result. Existence.
Gosh. You must have a learning issue. There was no "before."
Again, language is clunky and tethered to our concepts of time/space. Technically, you're right, but you still understand what I'm saying. If you have some better way to speak in these terms, some better word I can use instead, please share and I'll be sure to incorporate it.
Yes. There was no before. What is clunky about that exactly? You have some understanding I don't possess?
Verbal/written language is clunky. It serves its purpose well enough, but these forums alone could be exhibit A to illustrate just how limited written language can be. Conveying ideas clearly is not an easy thing to do and words often fail us in our quest to do so. The mind is so much more than words can express. And specifically in the case of speaking about cosmology, our language is very much geared towards our experience, that experience always being within the dimension of space-time. So speaking about an environment where time-space doesn't exist doesn't exactly work well. It's difficult to replace such mainstays as 'before', 'after', 'when', etc. They work so well in every other context.
No - they work well in all contexts. You are now claiming there is another context that you are aware of and I am not? Another environment that you are privy to and I am not? Another dimension that you are able to experience and I am not? Prove it or stick to our shared reality.
This is our shared reality, Mark. Space-time is relative and only exists as we know it within this universe as a part of it. I'm talking about the exact same environment that you were when you said "there was no before".
Great - lets stick to our shared reality instead of you claiming something outside of this Universe. As we now agree there is nothing outside of it and there was no before. What is not clear about "there was no before."?
Not so fast. I'm glad we established some ground here, so this next conundrum should be totally clear to you. You can't say we now agree there is nothing outside of it. Clearly there was. Even if it was just another 'naturally' occurring universe that collapsed into the singularity, something came before. The reason we know this is because the state of the singularity changed, which I'm sure you well know, makes no sense if there is no time. You can't have something change it's state where there is no time as time is required for something's state to change. A physical something at that. Time-space as we experience it didn't exist until those initial moments, yet to get to those initial moments there has to be a change. So, something had to have come before. Something has to have 'caused' the changed state. And whatever that something is, by definition, is super-natural.
Baloney, that is not the definition of supernatural.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Right, it's #1. Or or relating to existence outside of (or apart from) the natural world. The natural world equals everything from that singularity forward. So anything apart from that, even if it's a another naturally occurring universe, is from our perspective within this universe, super-natural.
But, it isn't outside of our world because our world never existed. That definition defines those things that allegedly exist outside of our world now.
It's pretty obvious you are referring to #3 or #4.
That definition makes no specification related to whether or not 'super-natural' applies to what exists apart from this universe now. It simply means anything outside of the realm of this one observable natural environment. 'Super' simply means beyond. Whether this universe exists at the same time or not is irrelevant. Whatever preceded the singularity, no matter what it may have been, is beyond this natural world. Thus, super-natural.
Wow, you really are being obtuse.
It states quite emphatically "outside the natural world" - can you not read? Must you make up your own definitions to defend your religious beliefs?
And how is that not outside the natural world? I'm not making up anything. You're the one injecting this idea that it must only be talking about what exists concurrently. Outside is outside. Pure and simple.
I already explained that to you, it is because the world did not exist, hence there can't be anything outside of it. Do you understand?
Outside of what? What world existed prior to the Big Bang that would have something outside of it? It didn't exist, dude. Do you understand the concept of existing and not existing?
Yes, I get what you're saying. But outside is still outside. Whether this universe existed concurrently or not is irrelevant. Whatever existed apart from this one natural universe is 'super-natural'. There's no further qualifier to 'super' other than it's something that exists outside of this one natural world.
Only things within this natural world are even impacted or affected by space-time as we perceive it. This has no bearing on what exists apart from it. It's still outside of this one natural, observable universe. Even if it's something that only existed 'prior', if that's even the right word, it's still 'super-natural'. It's still something that exists, or existed, outside of this one natural world.
Wow, still remaining obtuse.
But, if the natural world doesn't even exist and neither does the universe, what could possibly be outside?
That is utterly ridiculous. You are simply being obtuse. There is no reasoning with you whatsoever. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
I was thinking the same of you. This simply isn't worth arguing. Yet, as usual, it can't be you so it must be me.
"But, if the natural world doesn't even exist and neither does the universe, what could possibly be outside?"
That's the question. The same thing applies in regards to all the various multiverse scenarios being proposed. Some of the world's smartest people are proposing possible scenarios, all of which deal with what exists/existed outside of, or apart from, this one observable natural world. It's not as strange of a proposal as you're attempting to make it out to be.
Forgive me but it seems odd to me that you seem to have knowledge of what's outside our universe and yet still claim it will never be understood.
Not quite. I don't have knowledge of what's outside. I have what I believe and I try to explain why I believe that and don't believe what you do. What I'm most trying to stress in this thread has to do with the people who say things like 'there's no God required' or 'no evidence of God'. I'm pointing out the boundary lines where we cannot know anything empirically and why.
For example, to say 'there's no God required', that's claiming to have knowledge of something beyond what's knowable. And to require empirical evidence, or to state over and over again that the 'burden of proof lies on the believer', is to show a lack of understanding. You're basically hog-tying yourself to the point that God could absolutely be the real truth, yet you'd never know because of the stipulations you've set which have rendered you unable to recognize that truth.
I recognize and acknowledge these limitations, then find other means through which to establish real truth. Real conversation can be had, real middle ground can be established, and real results and better understanding can be attained. But statements like those above actually hinder the conversation just as much as a young earth creationist rejecting the cosmological explanation or a believer rejecting evolution. It's holding up progress. We can progress and have fruitful discussions, but to get there we first have to acknowledge and recognize these fallacies.
Baloney, it is the same thing as saying Magical Pixies not required, Leprechauns riding Unicorns not required, giant lizards not required. Do you understand? In other words, the universe came about entirely on it's own with only the physical laws required. Do you understand?
And do you understand that without knowing how/why the laws are as they are or matter/energy is as it is then you cannot state what is or isn't required for anything that resulted from those things to have come into being?
Would you agree that Leprechauns riding Unicorns were not required in the making of the universe? Do you think the universe can be explained without Leprechauns riding Unicorns?
I think saying 'no God required' is closing a door that nobody has any business closing, thus removing options from the table prematurely and unknowingly. It's rampant ignorance parading as knowledgeable and it's a hindrance that's getting in the way of our collective quest for the truth.
That's special pleading, headly, if you're unwilling to say the same thing about leprechauns riding unicorns or the great flying spaghetti monster (praise his noodles)
I'm not the one making a claim. The claim is 'no God required'. I'm refuting a fallacious claim.
You are doing no such thing, you are making claims of your God.
Stating things like "if God exists as described, then this is how this would work" is not a claim. It's describing an alternative viewpoint in the context of my beliefs and why I believe it. There are multiple facets to these discussions. I've yet to make a claim about God I can't back up. I know the difference. I realize we've discussed quite a bit here, trying to address multiple parties with multiple questions, so I can see how you could be confused. But if you pay attention you'll notice I'm not making any specific claims except in regards to how the bible lines up with history. Where claims cannot be made, I do not state claims. 'No God required' is a direct claim that can be directly refuted. If you have something I've said that you can quote and then directly refute, then please do so. If I am demonstrably wrong about something I want to know about it. I've asked this of you time and time again. I don't think it's too much too ask, but apparently it is.
Yes, I know, that is what I've been saying all along. It all has to do with your beliefs. Of course, the problem is that not only have you focused entirely on one single god as the alternative, you have conveniently ignored every other alternative equally valid as your god, which would include all kinds of characters from other gods to leprechauns to giant lizards, and every conceivable and imaginable entity our brains can conjure.
Until you accept that fact, your pet theory will never be taken seriously. And, when you do indeed begin to accept it, you will then begin to realize your pet theory is not valid at all.
At least, that is what the reasonable and rational mind would do.
"Yes, I know, that is what I've been saying all along. It all has to do with your beliefs."
We're talking about the fundamental building blocks of this universe whose origins are beyond the jurisdiction of science and what is empirically knowable, so we're all talking about beliefs here.
Sorry, but your beliefs have nothing to do with science.
It has everything to do with science because it's about understanding how everything came to be. It's about establishing real truth. The nature of that singularity that started it all is what resulted in all of this. Where that came from is the key. Understanding that where that singularity came from is beyond the scope of the physical sciences is important. Maybe then you can recognize that your insistence that God and science are totally unrelated is simply your own personal bias distorting your ability to see things objectively because you're committing the cardinal rule of defining for yourself what is and isn't possible prematurely. Keep an open mind. As soon as you start thinking you 'know' something, you stop learning.
Right, you keep inserting God into what you feel can't be understood. You're not alone.
It's not an insertion, it's a progression. You assume I'm just inserting God because I have a need to. That may certainly be true for many, but what I'm talking about is not that. If I didn't have logical reasoning to believe what I do, I wouldn't bother getting involved in the conversation. But I see too many baseless assumptions continually driving the conversation off course and sowing the seeds of further division and contempt. A big part of that is well represented in what's been said in this thread alone. Comments about there being no signs of a God in the evidence or that God is shrinking with everything new we learn, or like your comment here that I'm 'injecting God' into what I "feel can't be understood". I see these illogical reasonings and viewpoints to be just as derailing and damaging to establishing the truth as believers who reject or 'fight against' science. It's yet another example of humans getting in their own way again.
It's the new thing. Materialism is the new black. It's the emerging dogma of the 21st century. It's the same mistake with a new facade. And its disciples are numerous and are pumping misinformation into the landscape that's just confusing matters further. They preach under the guise of secular humanism when really their message at its foundation is void of anything that would serve the interest of humanism. It's a contradiction. Humanism is a "system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters". Yet, a truly materialist mindset eventually leads to diminishing humanity. It's been said here many times that humans are simply unimportant. If it were actually successful and were actually able to change the tide in the way this movement hopes to, it would then instill into the general population a viewpoint that would ultimately prove disastrous to the human psyche. It speaks of having a purpose of a better future, yet advances an idea that ultimately says we amount to nothing, nothing we do ultimately matters, nothing we care about is real, nothing we think we do is actually under out control, and eventually we'll all disappear back into the nothingness from which we came.
Yet all of this sits on the foundation of materialism, though the very minds its disciples each personally experience reality through is the single most obvious example that it's not an all-encompassing answer to everything. It's right there in our heads, yet it continues to be one of the most elusive nuts to crack, no matter how deeply we probe. And it baffles me that these disciples seem so desperate to prove we are nothing more than biological machines blinded by the illusion that we're somehow special or important in some way.
I find it troubling to come across people who obviously invest a lot of time and energy in these forums and elsewhere, in the name of their movement and a 'better' tomorrow, injecting their input into these discussions when their input is so wildly illogical. I understand the motivation. I too am frustrated by religious types and the limitations they're constantly trying to impose on the masses. But if we ever hope to truly fix a problem, or arrive at real truth, then what we spend our time and energy doing needs to be much more fully thought out or you're just getting in the way and slowing down the process. Nearly every mistake made throughout history was made by people thinking they were doing the 'right' thing. Maybe one day we'll actually wise up and learn how to break the cycle and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again. But as of right now it seems we're doomed to keep it going.
Hello Headly. I have not been following this thread, but saw you commented, so I popped in to check it out. We may not always agree, but I do always find your well reasoned and articulated points refreshing, nevertheless. On this particular post, we pretty much do agree.
Interesting... I too find Headly well reasoned and very well articulated. He's just wrong.
Hey bBerean. I appreciate that. It's sometimes nice to hear what I write is coming across coherent and reasonable to somebody because the way what I say is often received I feel like I'm speaking Greek.
But, all you're doing is projecting what you yourself are injecting.
If you paid attention you'd notice that I'm careful not to 'inject' anything. I do speak of God in the context of Him existing, if He existed, to illustrate how it all fits together if that were the case. And I gladly acknowledge where the facts end and the belief begins. It's only your assumptions of me and what I must be doing that you find fault with. The comments made here that I'm referring to are demonstrably inaccurate, as I have pointed out. Something you should agree with if the truth were your true motivation. When others speak of reality coming into being all on its own, with the same lack of evidence, you don't balk. Or if someone speaks of a multiverse of some kind, you have no issue. It's only when someone speaks of a creator actually being involved that you take issue, though it's just as valid.
Wow, you just keep going on and on and on about your God, never learning anything. Personal bias, indeed. Hilarious.
I think saying 'no God required' is closing a door that nobody has any business closing, thus removing options from the table prematurely and unknowingly. It's rampant ignorance parading as knowledgeable and it's a hindrance that's getting in the way of our collective quest for the truth.
You don't think that's a claim? Can you think of anything else you would apply that to aside from God?
"No God required" is a statement stated as fact that can be demonstrated to be an overstatement, usually due to ignorance. Something that needs to be clarified to keep these discussions on track. I'm not making a counter claim about God specifically, only pointing out the flaw in that statement.
Contradict much? That is exactly what you're doing, but it is driven entirely by your religious beliefs, so you obviously focus on your God and ignore everything else.
No God required simply means the universe can be explained without any God. And it can. So adding God to the mix complicates the theory to such a degree that it causes more question than answers. Where did the God come from for example.
Trying to understand how the universe started with the assumption that God snapped his fingers will not get us to far. It's like when we assumed we are the centre of the universe so we didn't study it or allow others to publish contradictory information.
By saying no God required we are not saying no God could have done it we are saying it can be explained without God. You appear to be saying it must have been made by God which is especially "God is required" which rules out any other possibilities.
Piss and Wind!
Nothing before existence? Pray tell then, my good and faithful friend, how can existence come to be if 'nothing' or 'no thing' before it, to produce its tangibility? If nothing was before existence, what is nothing? If no thing was before existence, by the rules of natural selection, or an other form of measure, where did no thing come from to bring about existence and why did this something, called nature, manifest, if only to implode upon itself hundreds, thousands or a million-millions post itself? Not very rational to assume what is came from what is not, only to become what is not once more.
Some thing made or is that no thing. And from no thing came everything that is and is not. Reason agrees. Denying it defies logic.
I know - it is hard to grasp. That is not what I said at all. What I said was is - "there was no before." Not that there was "nothing before existence." This is the claim that you appear to be making. Gotta laugh when you talk about "logic."
So, either you are claiming infinity exists, as to note: "there was no before", which then disputes the claim of the BB and evolution in general, and expresses something from you I had not seen before -a, dare I say, a borderline Creationist probability. *Gasp* Else you are stating there was "no before" to establish a "no after" theory. In the later case, it is an unsupported idea that there is "no after" simply because there was "no before". If by the factors of measurement, meaning time -noted as past, present, future- the claim of "no before" is not sustainable and, again, leads one back to the infinity. In an infinity scenario, "no before" and "no after" are cohesive. Neither exists in the infinite logic. Space, as we have come to know it, is no longer the measure of distance between to points, but a thing -the stuff which sustains the solidified physic. I suppose, but do not entirely agree, the un-solidified physic -often referred to as the "super" or "supra" natural is also sustained by space. Additionally, it has been shown the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, towards its edge, suggesting "some thing" is feeding physic or energy into it, else it is "self creating" (an awesome idea in itself, yes?) and therefore will remain infinite. In this case, I would agree with your claim of "no before" and even a "no after" scenario. Another viewpoint is the human mind. It does not require "input" (before reason) to produce "output" (after reason). And to some, it is "self creating" thoughts. But, the problem (and my injection of sarcasm here) is expansion, likened to the universe. The human head would look quite odd at the size. lol.
if it's not cheeky, it's monkey...
"So the next best thing is to try to understand what came before by observing the result"
Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to extrapolate backwards through the big bang of a singularity. None of the physics we know works there, including the requirement of causality. Although you're still maintaining that "something 'caused' it to go from one state to another" there is no evidence we know of that there was either a "something" OR a "cause" for that change of state. It just changed, and applying our understanding of cosmology, physics, chemistry or anything else to that change is doomed to failure before it ever starts.
Now we can guess - we can guess there was no change, we can guess the Christian god did it or we can guess that another universe full of intelligent beings did it - but at the end it is all guesswork without evidence to support any of it. At best we can say that our understanding of quantum mechanics includes the concept that causality is not necessarily present in that world. That, of course, and that ignorant peasants wrote of a god 2,000 years ago...
Yes, you're exactly right in that we cannot know for certain one way or another. At least not empirically. However, not all hope is lost in that regard. There's still much that can be understood by simply looking at what does exist here and how. And what we find is that how things were right from the beginning led to all of this, like dominoes simply falling one after another. The only reason you and I can have this conversation is because of the particular way in which those dominoes fell.
So, I went to see if those peasants were truly as ignorant as they're often made out to be. After all, these people were the world's first mathematicians, the first astronomers, the first writers, the inventors of the first writing systems in fact, and they were the first civilization builders, law makers, organized military operators, etc. They were far from ignorant. What they started is what led to where we are now. They changed the world. And the God they spoke of and described is still, to this day, a distinct possibility that can't be ruled out even given all we now know.
So I went back and took a good, hard look at what they wrote, removing all pre-conceived ideas I held myself as well as what everyone else claims it says and just read it set against known history. And now I have reason to believe that they weren't ignorant and they weren't lying. In fact, given what we know now, the story they describe makes a lot of sense. A being capable of creation would have no need to interact with humanity except in regards to free will. Now more than ever we can understand that given that the workings of the universe are so heavily dependent on consistent behavior acting in accordance to a constant set of laws.
But for beings to be introduced into this environment who are capable of behaving contrary to the laws mandated by this creator, that's a big deal. In fact, the whole story explains first how all existence behaved according to the will of this one creator, then he created a being capable of behaving contrary and even placed him in a situation to clearly illustrate that fact. From that point on it explains how this creator interacted with a particular group long enough to realize a desired outcome, not by simply willing it as He accomplished everything else prior, but by having to actively interact to realize an outcome in a world where free will was prevalent.
I don't have these conversations to try to advance some religious agenda. I'm not a religious person or a church-goer and by most people's standards I'm not even a "good" Christian. I simply feel obligated to share what I see as it offers significant insight I would think would be relevant and important to humanity in general. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I find it hard to believe that there's absolutely nothing to this. And I've yet to find a single person able to illustrate to me how what I'm seeing here can't be true. Not to mention the capability to behave free of the constraints of the physical laws is kind of a big deal in regards to whether or not the entirety of our history actually had anything to do with 'us' at all.
So you went to see if the peasants weren't so ignorant after all. How did you choose between the stories of creation? What makes the Christian one right and all the other ones wrong? They all have obvious falsehoods, they all have "facts" contrary to reality - how did you choose which one was right?
"But for beings to be introduced into this environment who are capable of behaving contrary to the laws mandated by this creator, that's a big deal" But as far as we have ever seen, no being has ever acted contrary to the laws of nature. Not once has such a thing been done in a verifiable manner - we only have tall tales without proof that any such action ever happened. Certainly you can't walk on water and you can't change water to wine - what makes you think you can "disobey" any other natural law?
I get where you're coming from with disobeying the "will" of the creator, but that didn't happen either. Had the creator "willed" that Eve not bite the apple it was simple enough to ensure that didn't happen. No, Eve's "violation" of the law was much the same as your child getting into the candy box; something you did not want to have happen, but something you knew might happen if you allowed it.
So you're right in the big picture; we can't rule out a creator. Neither can we provide any evidence of one, in spite of your calls that ignorance (of the natural world) leads you to believe in one. Now if you could show that you can behave free of constraint of natural laws, it might be different. That could very well make you a god - by definition a supernatural creature, able to act outside our known universe.
If there is a God capable of creating this universe, and if this God is a personal God that at any point made contact with humanity and made Himself known, then you're looking for a point of significant impact. The books of Moses originate in the cradle of civilization and are the foundation of the three biggest religions. The stories described in the books of Moses, specifically in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, are echoed in the oldest of written texts almost as old as civilization itself. That is a significant impact. The same place specifically described in the story is the same place that "civilized" human history began. It marks the beginning of a new era. That's significant.
The exact origin of the books of Moses is unknown. That first story, those first 11 chapters, are the oldest of them all. And in these stories they chart a very accurate timeline that correlates to the history of that region. Not to mention the events described in the creation account are in the right order and match up with six major eras in Earth's history, describing them from a surface of the Earth point of view.
But that's to be expected as we're talking about the mind. That's why the free will/determinism debate has gone on since the days of ancient Greece and continue on today. The mind is often the exception to the rule. It's the primary reason there's a whole other branch of science apart from the natural sciences. The social sciences like psychology and anthropology and sociology.
If we are truly capable of willfully choosing our behavior then we are able to determine how the matter of our brains and bodies respond. The behavior isn't dictated solely by the physical laws. It can't be. Because matter only behaves like matter behaves. In what way can a lump of matter ever willfully decide how it's going to act? That doesn't compute in a purely materialist sense. I know people like to often refer to quantum mechanics, but there's an enormous chasm between things like the uncertainty principle and deliberate/willful intent.
But if the creator's will was to create free will then the capability of disobeying was an expected result. See, for believers and non-believers alike the element that seems the most misunderstood, or underestimated, is free will. The story pretty clearly explains that free will is a volatile thing right from the beginning. There's a reason it says God 'regretted' putting humans on the Earth when He sent the flood. There's a reason why God tested Abraham the way He did. Free will is behavior not 'of God', but 'of us'. He really didn't know until He created and introduced it into the environment what would happen. It required His direct involvement and attention.
Just look at the stories. After a whole chapter of all of creation doing exactly as God wills it to, including the humans, it then tells the story of this one being placed in an environment where there is only one rule. It's a test. Then, when that introduction of free will lead to an undesired result it caused God to 'regret' putting humans here. The specific reason being that these beings behaving of their own free will willfully chose to procreate with humans (Gen6). This introduced free will into the humans God created in Gen1, resulting in wickedness. But He selects a particular specimen, Noah, to continue on with. Then, generations later, He chooses another specific specimen because of his favorable traits, Abraham. So, He tests him. Will Abraham's will override God's will, or will Abraham willfully choose to do God's will? God really wouldn't have known if He hadn't created the situation that made Abraham choose. When Abraham passed the test, God then said He'd make Abraham's descendants numerous. The whole rest of the story is God interacting to ensure just that.
Much like a scientist, God introduced this element into this environment, and along the way He tested for results and adjusted where necessary, chose favorable specimen and continued on from there. Free will had a significant impact in the story, and a very similar significant impact can be seen in actual history. A dramatic behavioral change that mirrors what is described as the 'curses' in 'the fall' in the Adam/Eve story. A change that fundamentally changed humanity from that point forward.
Most of that holds even more true for the ancient religions of Egypt. Why not them? Just because Christianity kicked them out?
No, it is not an accurate timeline. It is so far off that the current "interpretation" is simply that god doesn't work on our time so any references to time are not those we use. In addition, the events described did NOT happen in that order and do NOT match up with any six major eras in Earth's history.
Our behavior is not dictated solely by natural laws, but it is limited by those laws. Indicating that we can violate those laws at will ("But for beings to be introduced into this environment who are capable of behaving contrary to the laws mandated by this creator") is a lie, plain and simple.
Then the Christian God is not omniscient (He didn't know what would happen) and at the same time, not omnipotent (can't be omnipotent if He cannot read the future and thus create only perfect works). We now need another definition of what a "god" is - do you wish to simply delineate it as any creature that created our universe, without trying to assign other attributes to it?
Yeah - I know - whatever caused it must "by definition," be super natural, except for the possible "causes," you listed that are not super natural.
So - either prove that it didn't exist and needed a cause. Or - prove that it has always existed and something caused the expansion. I am good with either.
Because - as I understand the physics and science - it has always existed and didn't need a "cause."
You are the one making these claims - prove it. Or - al least be honest enough to admit that is is pure speculation based on - well - nothing really. Go!
It's my understanding that evolution has made changes in the brain. It can be seen in the differences of people from varying parts of the world. Studies have shown that not only do we look different, but our brains are also different in some small, but detectable ways. I don't want to supply any links as I don't like to participate in racial issues as they do no one any favours, but they are there.
Again, science and what it says about the world around us has nothing to do with your religious beliefs.
And you thinking that needs to be said is exactly what I'm talking about. Your beliefs are injecting things into what I'm saying that I'm not actually saying.
What to you sounds super-natural about the collapse of another universe or some sort of multi-verse system? If they exist then that naturally occur.
Whoops, you're right. I got all bogged down and totally missed this. I'm trying to work and pay attention too, and I'm failing.
It's not that it 'sounds' super-natural to me. From our perspective, anything that exists outside of/apart from this universe is super-natural. It may be natural occurrences in some other universe, but still super-natural to anything of this universe. It's beyond the scope of the natural sciences and can therefore never be anything more than speculation.
No, your religious beliefs are not speculation, they are dishonest fabrications meant to deceive and distort reality.
Do you claim anything we currently don't completely understand to be super-natural. The second someone can't understand something it's because god did it. The math behind our solar system for example, when the greatest minds we had could find the math that explains the gravity of the solar system they declared there will be none because God's done it and then the next guy came along with the math that explains the solar systems and it was no longer super-natural.
No, everything within this universe, including gravity/matter/energy/you/me is natural. Only things that exist on the other side of that singularity, on the other side of the big bang, whatever it may have been, if there's anything, whether it be a god or another universe or a spaghetti monster is, by definition, super-natural. The natural sciences can only observe matter/energy, which is a product of the big bang. We cannot observe anything apart from it.
Yes, your religious beliefs and nothing more are what drive all of your answers.
Perhaps not yet, just like Newton claiming God holds the solar system in place because he can't find the math that explains it. And then someone found it. See there was a time when nature was supernatural and then the stars were supernatural and not we are saying outside of our universe is supernatural.
It's not a matter of 'not yet'. It's simply a fact. It's a limitation of science. A "boundary of the knowable". We simply cannot 'see' beyond it, and never will.
And that my friend is exactly what Newton said about finding a mathematical equation for the solar system.
I get what you're saying, but this is not the same situation. This is an acknowledgement of the boundary lines. The solar system is observable. It's within this universe. There is nothing that can be observed in this universe that is not the product of the big bang. The matter/energy, time-space, even the fundamental laws themselves, only exist as a part of this universe. And nothing apart from it can be observed.
No, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with science or any limitations you imagine.l
"You don't have proof that there is no god based on humans evolving naturally" and therefore a god did it? Doesn't work that way...
"Because humans did evolve naturally who/whatever first set the laws and who/whatever 'caused' or created matter and energy is who/what is responsible for humans being here" But if there was no cause? Nothing set it in motion? Again, saying there was a cause and the cause has to be god just doesn't follow.
Understand, I'm not saying 'therefore God did it'. I'm simply pointing out how/why the statements being made here are false. As for the 'cause' of the singularity, nobody is claiming there wasn't a cause. That's why we postulate things like a multiverse scenario. That's what science is, trying to determine what caused this to be this way. The same thing applies to the singularity. And, to be clear, I'm simply pointing out that whatever that cause was, it was 'super-natural'. I don't mean that to be one and the same as God. I'm just pointing out that all that is 'natural' is the result of what came of that big bang. Unless that singularity just existed infinitely, yet 13.7 billion years ago inflated, then it doesn't make sense for there to be no cause. Something set it in motion to change it's state. Even if the singularity itself was infinite and had no cause, the expansion/inflation does. Otherwise, how do we explain an infinitely existing singularity changing without cause?
The truth is that NONE of us knows anything. We are as presumptive in our lack of faith and religion as are those invested in faith and religion.
We have no proof of the existence of OR the non-existence of anything that might be described---to use our words or language as a divinity.
Intellectual conceit makes some of us sure we are right, but at the end of the day, we just do not and (and at least at this point) cannot know.
Admit it and move on.
Sorry - please take the trouble to understand who I am replying to before jumping in. Thanks.
You seem to be saying that a belief in a majikal super being is the same as not believing because there is no evidence either way therefore it is just as likely - no need to apply reason or anything like that.
So, prove your position. Prove there was no "creator"...
Couldn't be bothered huh? The only time I make that claim is to people who say - "there is a creator, prove there wasn't."
For the record: I am neither religious nor a creationist.
That said, proving a counter-factual is impossible. Proving, for example, that you do not have something or that something does not exist is not possible. And, neither is proving something to exist for which there is no extant evidence.
Center = important/significant is your own thing. And the bible doesn't say anything about us being at the center.
Like dominance in the animal kingdom? Reason? Free will? We as a single race dominate every inhabitable corner of this planet and we dictate what happens on it as if it belongs to us.
Not true. I can think of a reason. We have free will. Faith and belief without seeing is choosing and acknowledging Him as God willfully. By our own choice.
It does work. Prayer is how I met my wife. Prayer is what led me to my current career.
Each of us as individuals are here because two people with free will chose to (whether deliberately or not) mate. But we as an intelligent/self-aware/reasoning/free-willed species being a product of this one universe, the most likely cause of us being here is a deliberate/intelligent creator.
If you'll recall the Egyptians were part of the story as well. As were the Sumerians, which is where Abraham's father was from. This was all going on in a populated world. This being true of ancient Egypt as well only solidifies it further as they were around during that time too. They're a direct result of the events described, as are the Sumerians, as are those in the Indus Valley, and the Hittites and the Canaanites.
I have a whole hub detailing how they do. Do I seem to you to be someone who would just make a statement like that without being able to back it up in extreme detail? This story was obviously written in a way in which humans could grasp and understand, and the events they describe accurately match what it would have looked like from a human perspective. Beginning with an accurate description of the state of the Earth during the Archaeon eon in the 2nd verse and continuing on from there.
Just think about that for a minute. Our brains are made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, right? Or, as Sagan once put it, "we're made of star stuff". What about the matter that our brain is made of makes it exempt from being dictated by the natural laws unlike anything else? The brain does its thing, it remembers past events, considers options, imagines potential outcomes, weighs pros/cons, then decides a course of action. In that moment of deciding between competing options, if it were truly possible that you could have chosen any differently than you did in any given moment would in itself be a violation of natural law. Matter's behavior is so consistent that we can reconstruct the formation of the universe. Unless there is a non-physical/spiritual aspect of the self, a soul, willful choice would be a violation of natural law.
This right here is exactly what I mean about free will being underappreciated or misunderstood. Think about it like this. God exists apart from the universe if He created it. Which means He exists apart from space-time. There's no span of time between the beginning and the end. There's just what exists and what doesn't. If everything behaves according to God's will then everything plays out just one way along the one timeline. He sees and knows all. Now, if you then take that same universe and introduce free will at a specific place along that timeline, it changes how things play out. Because these behaviors are not dictated by His will, by design, then He cannot account for it until He introduces it and sees how it plays out. All at once because time is irrelevant. So then He makes tweaks at particular points to account for it. In the case of Abraham's test, God wouldn't know because the situation that made Abraham make a decision wouldn't have existed if God didn't create that situation. Without the situation existing within the timeline then Abraham's decision wouldn't have existed. Therefore God wouldn't know. So He created a situation that then made Abraham make that decision. Then it existed. Then He knew.
This does not diminish God. This stresses the power of free will, which is what He intended to make. He willed it to be and it is exactly what it's supposed to be.
"Matter's behavior is so consistent that we can reconstruct the formation of the universe"
But we cannot predict where an electron will be or where it came from. We cannot predict when a subatomic particle will pop into existence (without cause) or when it will disappear once more. And no, we most definitely cannot reconstruct the formation of the universe; the best we can do is make some educated guesses at what happened immediately after the big bang. General guesses, not specific ones.
And all that's a good thing - if physical laws were as you say there could be no free will at all. Perhaps that's why God can't read the future either - it actually hasn't happened and follows no rules when it does.
From our perspective the future hasn't happened, and because we're the ones actually making the decisions, that's all that matters. But to God's perspective, there is only one timeline and things can only play out one way. You may have the free will to choose however you like in any given moment, but that moment only happens once and that decision is then set in stone. The only exceptions to this are those I pointed out in the biblical stories where God, existing outside of this environment, made a change. That alters the timeline that would have been. God can and does see the future because everything that plays into the decisions you and I make is all still part of the same timeline so it still only plays out that way. For God to get involved is to change it again.
Our reconstruction of the universe goes well beyond that. We can understand how matter first formed. We can create models that result in the formation of stars and planets and atmospheres and such that matches up with what we see. This is why people like Hawking look at all we now understand and make statements about how no God is required.
What you speak of in quantum physics is the uncertainty principle I referred to earlier. Like in the case of electrons, because as an observer we cannot simultaneously calculate the location and rate of speed of an electron we are unable to predict where it will be. But these happenings at the subatomic level do nothing to resolve the free will/determinism debate. Willful intent and it's ability to willfully determine the behavior of matter is well beyond simply not being able to predict the location of an electron. Even with all that's going on sub-atomically, there's nothing there to even suggest that matter can at some point take a form that allows it to make conscious/willful decisions. At best this would open the possibility of a random choice, versus pure determination. But not a willful choice.
It appears to me that you are understanding the concept of free will in a way that enables your belief. I'm not sure if that makes sense as MY written language is clunky at best and doesn't adequately reflect what my mind is thinking=D First of all free will is an illusion as I've said before. All mammals do things they shouldn't. Chimps sometimes murder other chimps in there own group. Dogs bite their owners, cats attack for no reason. Humans just sometimes do stuff on a much bigger scale. Humans are no different then any of animal when it comes to nature. We even have parasites that only attack humans. A polar bear will eat us like they were pulling a seal from the ice. They don't see us as anything other than soft on the outside and crunchy on the inside.
But the reason I jumped in here is because you mention God watching this unfold from outside our universe in a place without time and mentioned him adjusting things to see how they played out. Sounds kinda like a Star Trek episode if you ask me, but you must have given him the power to be outside our universe and inside so he can watch and communicate with us, as that requires time. But if he was in a place outside time aside from the fact that he would have no time to watch us let alone create the universe. If he could still manage to watch us go through time would know instantly the outcome of our actions as he would see the future and the past all at once. He would know he was about to test Abraham, know what Abraham would say (as he would be looking at the future) and instantly know how all of this would play out, which completely negates free will. Rather than trying to fit the concepts of space-time and free will into the story, why not try to understand the concepts and see if the story would be possible.
There's a big difference between instinctual behavior and behavior through reason. It's like the difference between unintended manslaughter where the result of death was not deliberately intended versus a murder that was premeditated/calculated and carried out knowingly and deliberately. Dog/cat bites and attacks, chimps killing chimps, even human attacking parasites, these are simply living things doing what they've been preconditioned to do to survive. They have defensive mechanisms and instincts and inherited behavior that can arise in what we may assess to be inappropriate ways that are still very much 'natural'. Life feeds on life, and we, being products of this very same well that all life sprang up from, we are not immune to this. Many humans have been food for many an animal and there will be many more.
You're right, being apart from time means God knows all past/present/future. But He only knows what actually happened along that timeline. This is what I find so interesting about the story it tells. There's really only a couple of places where He had to account for something as if He didn't see it coming. And both come right after an alteration. The first being the introduction of free will, the other being the test scenario God created for Abraham. These two events altered what would have happened otherwise in that timeline. You and me, though we have free will too, there's nothing that impacts our lives that isn't also part of the same timeline, so our actions don't change and there are no surprises. But to you and me, being the ones actually making the decisions, and being that we do actually exist in the moment that we made the decisions, the future is not set. It all has to do with who the observer/decider is, and whether or not the one making the decisions and choosing the actions exist within time or not. God seeing past/present/future all at once does nothing to diminish free will because He is not the one making the decisions or choosing the actions.
A Star Trek episode is a good comparison. For example, if the situation that caused Abraham to make that decision didn't exist, then looking to the future doesn't matter because the decision was never made, so it doesn't exist in that future. Only when God intervened and created the situation that then made Abraham make that decision would that decision then exist in the future so that God could see it. God, existing outside of the timeline, yet intervening and changing the course of events, changed the future. It caused Abraham to make a choice that he never would have had to make otherwise.
Again, even if we assume anything could exist and get anything done without time, the moment (time) he knows he will ask the question (which he must have always know he would ask) is the moment he would see the results.
It just doesn't work.
As for us the only species which plans, that's not true at all. I'd like to have time to show you all or even some of the studies done on other species and how they plan. Got no time.
That's not true because it's still up to Abraham to make that decision. If it were God's decision, then yes. But the scenario actually had to play out, within time, with Abraham doing His part. Once that situation exists, so does Abraham's decision. Then God can 'immediately' know. But for that to happen Abraham has to contribute his part. His making of that decision once the scenario existed that required it must happen for God to then know what it would be. Without Abraham having made that decision in that scenario, the ability to see the future wouldn't matter because neither the scenario nor the decision would exist.
And I don't mean for my manslaughter/first degree murder comparison to muddy the waters. The brain evolved to be able to plan. To weigh risk versus reward. That sort of thing. So just 'planning' in and of itself isn't the key. It's not strange, in the scenario I'm presenting, for animals to share the same behaviors because the same capabilities that evolved in us evolved through them via our common ancestors, at least to some degree. What makes us distinct is our higher evolved capabilities. The end result is the true key. Our higher capacity for realizing what we will to happen comes through a more capable and more evolved brain. Our self-awareness and our ability to scale our decisions with that self-awareness and realization of eventual death and our need to ensure a future for ourselves. It takes us well outside of the realm of what's possible in the rest of the animal kingdom and the results can be seen in the world we live in. It's the 'knowledge of good and evil'. It's no longer instinctual brain function, but the willful carrying out of deliberate actions based on our self-aware assessment and choosing actions based on individual need/want.
All our big brain has given us is the illusion of free will. And ours is not the biggest or most complex brain.
It's also given us the ability to understand and then manipulate the natural world unlike any other creature. We create materials that don't exist naturally, like plastic. We've altered the landscape considerably. The dark side of the Earth is lit up, visible from space, and that's our doing. We create rovers and put them on other planets unlike any other species. We are capable of, and actually do things, that are decidedly un-natural when compared to the rest of the natural world. Yes, other animals may have bigger brains, but we're the one species where 90% of our brain mass is made up of a neocortex, and that difference alone is infinitely significant, and the results reflect.
Clearly you're not paying attention, probably because you have absolutely no respect for me because of my beliefs.
Uh-huh, yet no explanation for the 'cause' of the natural laws, yet they are what shaped the natural world. Therefore, whatever 'caused' the natural laws, and matter, created everything. Do you see the problem? You're injecting opinion and personal leanings as if it were fact.
Well that's good to know. Sorry if I misspoke.
Based on what exactly?
It doesn't take much to see you inject your God into it.
And yes, you are correct for once, I don't respect your beliefs at all.
No, you are injecting your God. Pay attention.
Reality, of course.
Based on that same reality I argue that the evidence strongly suggests it to be the product of deliberate intent by an intelligent creator. That given what is observable, deliberate intent is the more likely answer. Not an injection, but a logical conclusion.
Can you demonstrate that my conclusion isn't valid? Can you demonstrate that your statement that "a creator isn't valid" is factual, based on reality, and not just your admittedly biased opinion/belief?
Sure, we've done this a few times now but, Steven Hawking said it best, "before time, God wouldn't have had the time to create the universe." It takes time to get anything done. Sure, you will argue that God is outside our universe and therefore time doesn't apply to him, however we have time inside the universe and we know no time existed before the universe.
Actually, we don't know that. We don't know anything about what came "before" this universe. We just know that time as we perceive it only exists in this universe. That doesn't mean time does or does not exist apart from it.
However time only really matters in the material world because everything physical is impacted by it. We cannot fathom anything else because that's all we've ever experienced. All we do know is that at the beginning, through whatever means, there was a singularity. And for that physical singularity to change states requires time. And time as we know it began when the change of state in that singularity first began. So there must be something that resulted in that singularity being there and there must be something that set it in motion. What, however, is beyond our scope.
While I don't think Rad man's comment that God had to have time to make the universe, I don't think you've got it right, either.
Being outside time, in another place without it, does not mean that nothing got done. It means that time wasn't necessary for anything to happen and thus God did not need time to make our universe. He could make it at the same "time" He made the universe.
But to say that a singularity outside our universe required time to change states is equally invalid as is proclaiming that there had to be a cause for that change of state. It did not exist in our universe, and was not subject to the laws of our universe; there is no way of knowing what laws (if any) that singularity existed within. You cannot declare it needed time OR a cause simply because everything we know now does (and even that is untrue).
The Big Bang (change in state of the singularity) does not prove Goddunnit and neither does it it show that God did not dunnit.
That's the one thing we do know. You're right, we don't know the environment or the rules/laws that govern it, if any. But we do know that singularity is the origin of the physical world, made of physical stuff, and the rules still apply to it. The changes in state described by the big bang require time from the first instant.
Now that doesn't mean time HAD to exist apart from it. That just means that whatever set it in motion was something apart from it as time as we perceive it didn't begin until it did. We don't know anything beyond the singularity, but we do know the rules still apply to that singularity because that's physical matter.
We know that matter goes into a black hole, but haven't a clue as to what happens to it then. Change to energy? Remain matter? Enter another universe? We don't know and cannot say that the rules of our universe apply to a singularity, particularly that first singularity.
We do know that sub-atomic particles pop in and out of existence with any apparent cause. So we do know that not all things have a cause and that the universe could have popped into existence without a cause. Meaning no God or cause required (it could have happened without a God or a cause). Look at all the abilities one has to give his God to be able to have created the universe, they are in fact more mind boggling then the universe itself.
"beyond our scope" and yet you seem to know how it started because you inject God into what you feel is beyond our scope.
Nietzsche said it best when he said "Gott ist tot". We just need to morn and move on and learn how to life life without him.
That's not entirely accurate. Assuming you're referring to 'virtual particles', these are states that exhibit characteristics of normal particles, but only 'exist' for a short time. However, this doesn't just happen without cause. These are transient states that arise in interactions between normal particles. The key here is that while they exist in this 'virtual particle' state, they still interact and have an impact, so they must be accounted for. But that doesn't mean they just pop in and out of existence without cause.
God or no God, the answer is going to be fantastical. It's not that we're having to assign more and more complex abilities to God, it's that the universe itself is indeed that strange. Our understanding changes as we learn. That doesn't change God, only our grasp of Him. If God exists then He's constant. But our understanding constantly changes. That has nothing to do with God or the universe. That's just our perception.
Exactly. There is more to the behavior of particles than coming/going from nothing; some of the particles are theoretical and their behavior equally theoretical. And, as you note, the universe is a strange and complex place.
God existing/not existing is---even for many (perhaps most) physicists and cosmologists an "if"; a theory; an explanation.
And whether or not there is a god is not important and changes nothing. Science is either an explanation of what god is doing or an explanation of what non-god "stuff" is doing.
As for Nietzsche: He was not god either. He was not the alpha and the omega or all-knowing.
Einstein believed in god. Max Plank believed in god. Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan believed in god. Many scientists believe in god; many do not.
The bottom-line for atheists and non-atheists alike: "Where evidence is lacking, concrete proof cannot be attained. Thus -- at this time -- we cannot conclude that God exists, but we also cannot conclude that God does not."
Well I guess you are more informed than Steven Hawking.
Remember when it was thought the universe was a few thousand years old?
Who old is it now?
Remember when it was thought the stars were the heavens?
Where is the heavens now?
Do you still think Jesus rose to the heavens (stars) and exist somewhere body in tact?
Seems to me you've got to change the bible and it's translations as well God's abilities to keep up with science.
Somewhere out in space, a bloated human carcass floats gently towards a distant star...
Can you show me where Hawking said something that contradicts what I said? Because everything I've read is consistent with my statement, and nothing I've read supports yours.
Everything you're speaking of is human perception. It's no surprise it changes as we learn more. Nothing strange there.
STEPHEN HAWKING'S GRAND DESIGN, I think that's the name of the special I watched on discovery about where he explains the book by the same name.
This may be it. I'm a little short on time right now.
I don't think that video was the one you were looking for in particular, but it's a good one none the less. It didn't speak of particles popping in and out of existence without cause, at least not yet (I still have the last 10 minutes of 45 to go). But it did say something I think is applicable to the discussion overall ...
"This is essentially what we do in science. We create best fit models of how we believe the universe actually works. The ancient greeks were the first to build such scientific models. They suggested that the earth was a large sphere, motionless, and fixed at the center of the universe. But later pioneering scientists like Copernicus and Galileo found a much simpler and completely revolutionary model to describe the same observations."
There's nothing concrete that says God is impossible. And I argue that what's been observed strongly suggests the possibility of intelligent/deliberate intent. So, creating a model that includes a creator isn't as far-fetched or out of bounds as its often made out to be. If there is a model that adequately explains the same observations, while we cannot test for the deity it/himself, we can look for proof that further supports the model in what can be tested/observed to either confirm or rebuke the validity of the model. Like my Genesis model.
The bigger deal here is... What if a God actually is part of the real truth, yet is never 'allowed' to be included in the model? Then the model will never work because it's missing a large key ingredient. So, we're essentially shooting ourselves in the foot by disallowing this possibility if it turns out to be true. We're ensuring we'll never truly understand because of our own self-imposed limitations.
What if the flying spaghetti monster is really the answer, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot for not factoring him in? Come on, friend. (And yes, I'm still mad at you for not mentioning me). Isn't this the very definition of special pleading? Why should we allow for the possibility of an unproven deity, and where does that allowance stop? Wouldn't we have to allow for every other unproven proposition as well? Where does it end?
Even if we allow for a maybe god, that's still light years away from a specific one. What's the point?
The point is that if we're building models to account for what's observable, if it turns out a God were actually an intricate part of that process, then we have zero chance right from the get go of ever actually reaching that conclusion because we're excluding it for no sound reason right from the start. That doesn't mean we check logic at the door when considering building the model. If there were reason to believe a supernatural Italian dish were the deity in question then someone might see reason to build a model around that idea. Some models that have since proven true, or even likely, would at one time seem just as far fetched because the universe really is that strange. The big bang, for example, would sound completely preposterous to the smartest of people in say the seventeenth century as it was well beyond what could be observed and didn't fit at all with contemporary knowledge at the time. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
I see reason enough in observable reality to think an intelligent creator was involved. There are ancient texts that claim that directly about a specific God who once made contact. So I simply set those texts against modern knowledge to see if there's something to it. It's not like I'm pulling this particular deity out of my butt, ala the FSM argument which IS straight from someone's butt.
I understand you still being mad. I'm mad at myself for not giving props where props were do. If we ever do a follow-up then I'll be sure to give you the credit you very much deserve!
We've been through this before and as I've said before the reason science doesn't consider God a possibility is because God donit ends discussion and thought. This earth is the centre of the universe and doesn't move. Done, no need to continue, lets let another 1000 years go by. The universe was started by God 6000 years ago, end of discussion. We have people still teaching that to their children.
As for order in the universe, tell that to the victims of earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, flash floods, or cancer. We've been here a fraction of the time dinosaurs were, what makes you think we won't meet the same fait? Crap, the black plaque killed between 75 an 200 million people. Where is the order in that?
Clearly my considering God a possibility hasn't ended the discussion or the thought. It's spurred my thinking and my learning. Science aids in better understanding. A good model steers investigation and potentially leads to answers. Science is a tool. But there are clearly limitations. Things it can't account for. Things outside of and beyond its jurisdiction. We're not just talking science here. We're talking about the entirety of existence. The mind alone is something we know to exist that is invisible scientifically. We know science doesn't and can't account for everything that exists. But we can recognize this and apply science to find answers where the physical world is concerned. We can use it to find the boundaries. But if we're looking to account for 'everything', then we're going to need more than just the physical sciences.
Plagues and diseases and people dying of 'acts of nature' are not one and the same as a lack of order. The order is in the process. In the constant recycling of life and of the earth. Order is sustaining a dinosaur population for millions of years and a human one for hundreds of thousands. Order is biological material retaining and passing on genetic information. Order is assigning the workings of a vast universe to a mathematical equation.
There's also no evidence for gods, any gods, hence there is nothing concrete that says leprechauns aren't riding unicorns in the kentucky derby.
No, that has not been observed at all.
That is a model of nonsense based on myths and superstitions.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot by not placing bets on those leprechauns riding unicorns, either.
The points you are making, in terms of the existence of God, are ridiculous. The existence of a god does NOT require that Christian doctrine is true. Nor does it require that the Bible is literally true.
Problem #1: You want to conflate the existence of God with religion.
Problem #2: You want to equate the existence of God with Christian theology and modern Christian religious thought.
What you are doing when you pit science against religion---which you think proves that there is no God, is arguing that the claims of the Bible and of some religious sects counter scientific fact. This proves nothing about whether or not in an infinite universe God exists. It simply proves that some theology and some religious texts got it wrong in terms of what science now knows about the workings of the universe.
Do you not understand at all that it is possible to believe in God and subscribe to NO religion? Do you not understand that not all religions are Jesus-based or Bible-based?
Of course I understand that, but do you understand many adhere to the concept of a God because of those texts. Without the texts, you are just guessing or speculating and filling in the gaps that you can't comprehend with a God. The only evidence for any God are those texts, without them you may as well be praying to the giant unicorn in the sky.
The Bible and other theological texts cannot be "evidence" as they are secondary sources.
And now you are conflating belief and/or faith with the existence of god; conflating what what is believed with what is possible and what we cannot possibly know as absolutely impossible.
That said, define/explain your proof against the existence of god. What do you know, what evidence can you offer that proves that there is no possibility of a god existing anywhere in an infinite universe?
And don't fall back on the preposterous nature of religion or religious texts or the ridiculous nature of people's beliefs and belief systems. Offer evidence---concrete information and facts that prove there is no God.
Right after you prove that leprechauns riding unicorns absolutely don't exist. Definitively.
It's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist. You are shifting the goal posts, right after your appeal to authority in naming scientists that believe in a god. These are both logical fallacies.
That is my point exactly: It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Claims that there is no god are no different than claims that there is a god.
Both are claims based on faith and belief, no facts and evidence.
But no one I know makes the claim that God does not exist. I'm an atheist agnostic. There is no proof of God, therefore I lack belief. I also don't think it's possible to prove it either way or know for certain, hence I'm agnostic. I think it's unlikely that there's a good that interacts with the physical world for a wide variety of reasons. Most of the reasons or proof offered is little more than wishful thinking and hope. That's not good enough for me, but I do my best to not resort to logical fallacies in the process.
Do you have evidence for such a God. You're make the claim.
I'm simply stating without time no time exists to accomplish anything.
There are major minds in physics and cosmology who DISAGREE with Steven Hawking.
Among them is Leonard Susskind. His book "The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" is worth reading.
Again, offer your evidence against the existence of God. I think some of us are waiting to hear what you have to offer.
But something was accomplished. Time didn't exist until that first instant when that singularity began to expand/inflate. So how did that start if time hadn't started? I get what you're saying, which is what makes that so strange. What you're saying is totally logical, but doesn't make sense in the context of what actually happened with the singularity actually changing states. Change in and of itself is tethered to time.
But if it were even as you say and these texts were written by people who just made it all up to justify their actions, then that means they conceived of it on their own for the texts to exist in the first place. In fact, belief in a higher power is practically absolute, with the only exceptions being in those ages of 'reason'. The texts just give a particular definition for others to then subscribe to.
To say "The only evidence for any God are those texts" is to first define for yourself what evidence of God would be to then decide there's nothing there. That's just your concept of what evidence of God would look like if it existed. Finding an 'intelligent' process of retaining and passing on genetic information in itself would be evidence for an intelligent designer, depending on how you look at it. Because you have a very specific concept of what God would be if He existed, then this appears to be to you evidence that doesn't involve a God. Ultimately, that's just you.
Physicist Simon Singh says it best when he suggests that the instant before the "Big Bang" (in which he firmly believes) is an instant---at least at this point and in this time, for St. Augustine.
As for Hawking, he has also written a book (a magnum opus of sorts) which he titles "God Created the Integers". In this book he argues that if one cannot determine the "causes" of X, then one is prone to---as have many scientists and mathematicians claim that "God did it".
I get that and I agree. It's not a 'natural' conclusion for intelligent beings to assume an unintelligent cause. It takes a lot of 'finagling' to convince ourselves of that. When we see order and structure we're prone to lean towards deliberate/intelligent intent and not just pure 'unintended' causation.
What we're 'prone' to do is the product of a naturally evolved brain whose origin is the same as the universe. Whatever this mind is, and whatever it is 'prone' to do, came about without us having anything to do with it. We just came along later and started trying to assign labels and definitions to everything. Doesn't mean its wrong or totally off-base. After all, what our minds are 'prone' to do got us here in the first place.
But we don't see order and structure. Not in the cosmic sense and on a cosmic time scale.
Compress the next billion years into a 30 second detailed video of our solar system and THEN try and claim it has order and structure at this point. Or watch as Andromeda collides with the Milky Way and find the "order" in THAT!
We perceive it because we want to. We disregard the thousands of meteors that strike this planet every year because they don't "fit" within our demand for order. We disregard the very movements of the earth under our feet because it doesn't fit. We conveniently ignore the changes in our own DNA, commenting that we are static and not evolving. We FORCE order where there is little to none.
Giving us an excuse to declare that an intelligence was necessary.
It's hard to look at the universe and not see order. If you consider the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, that means that this solar system and this planet have sustained for over 1/3 of the time that the universe has existed. Though it has 'settled' into its current state, this planet has remained inhabitable for 4 billion years because of the order. Something doesn't last a 1/3 of the time of the entirety of the universe has existed and not have order. The universe in itself recycles itself. The natural world on this planet recycles itself. Land recycles. Air. Water. Even the cycle of life is order.
Einstein sited the order he saw in the cosmos as his reason for believing intelligence was involved in the formation of the universe.
Well done, Mr.HeadlyvonNoggin, your arguments are convincing and reasonable but it is very difficult for atheists to appreciate the same as they have very strong belief in absence of God and even most of them rule out the possibility of a creator,they feel convinced for believing in the'' magical universe'' and declare the same as the'' logical'', they are reluctant in discovering the limitations of the reason and are interested in ''capturing'' and'' killing'' their ''god ''by their'' cruel logic'',it is more interesting that they declare all arguments for God as ''nonsense'' and pose themselves as the most ''scientific'' ,'' rational'' and'' logical.'', they destroy the disciplined,ordering and balanced universe with a single stroke of the arguments and they discord the great systems of laws, information and intelligence and translation present in the universe , human brain and genetic code, they close their eyes from all great evidences and signs of God and then suppose that there is no creator and evolution and nature is sufficient to explain universe.They have right and freedom to close their eyes and we have right and freedom to have opened our eyes.
I agree. I think much in the same way religious beliefs can make otherwise completely rational people irrational, the same holds true on the other side of the fence. There are a lot of perfectly reasonable/rational people who have been led astray by misinformation and misunderstanding. And, much in the same way people of faith can have a misguided sense of entitlement in 'knowing their right', rendering themselves incapable of accepting what seems obvious to most everyone else if it conflicts with what they think they know, the same holds true the other way. Once you're convinced you're right, or the other is wrong, it's hard to see things clearly.
HeadlyvonNoggin, I am agreed, we can never overview the negative effects of religion,the blind faith is not enlightened faith,therefore,the man has been blessed by the three great sources of knowledge,reason, senses and the intuition and further has been enlightened by the conscience,the conscious of truth and justice,these all are test for a true belief and differentiate the same from the blind faith and ignorance ,every religion that fulfill these tests is true religion and that never allow the same is ignorance.I , think, conscience is the light within the self of everyone,the revelation within man,we can do justice and behave truth without requiring any book and philosophy and following that path we can find truth,every great prophet has awakened this light within the man and therefore the effect of great prophets and messengers is everlasting.
No, they're not, they are as silly and ridiculous as yours.
That is false, there is no evidence or signs for any gods. Evolution explains all life on earth and no creator was required.
"Though it has 'settled' into its current state, this planet has remained inhabitable for 4 billion years because of the order"
Yet life has been virtually wiped out several times from disorder. Disorder that varies from the dozens of falling stars we see each night only by size.
And no, most of the universe does not recycle. Earth does, although only of it's own material, but Mars is long since dead. A death that earth will follow one day and all recycling will cease. Only then will you find even a temporary order, only on earth and only until the sun swallows it.
You only see order because of the extreme limits you set on the time allowed. Yes, the earth has been around for 4 billion years, very few of which showed the universe the face it shows now. From a molten ball of lava to a snowball and everything in between, disorder has changed the face of our planet many, many times in it's short lifespan.
Nor will you look at the disorder of small things in short times. The massive disorder of molecules bouncing around to ants running through their nest, bouncing off each other. Open up, Headly, and look around you. Any order you see is illusory and fleeting; everything is disorder on a scale you can hardly imagine.
wilderness,you really believe that universe is working without systems, laws and balance,just randomly,in the present scientific age? you have no belief in the laws of gravitation,the laws of definite compositions,laws of conservation of energy and matter etc,and according to you universe is working in a magical fashion without systems of laws,if so,then what is blind faith ?
No... it's according to you that the universe is working in a magical fashion.
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces:
Rad Man,you also believe the magical universe of wilder working without order,discipline and laws? if answer is'' yes,''then this is magical universe,working as a great system but randomly,and if answer is ''no'',then believe'' ONE'' who has maintained this great order.
Rad Man, When you say that order out of random has come out by self without ''intelligence'', here you are presenting a'' magical universe'', ''intelligence'', is required for maintaining order of infinite universe,therefore.your universe can never be explained without'' God'',if you had been succeeded to explain the universe without necessity of interference of ''external intelligence'' ,then you were right to make the statement that God is not required to explain universe, but you have failed for the same .
Come, come. You are the one stating the universe works in a magical fashion. I have maintained from the beginning that natural laws and forces are the only thing here - you suggest that there is a magical god out there directing each atom, not I.
wilderness,you have completely failed to explain universe logically and scientifically without the necessity of interference of'' External Intelligence'' ,therefore,you have to suppose that the existence of universe,laws of universe,its order and balance ,the information and translation system in the genetic code,the great evolution of life towards perfection without any collapse of the same and its wonderful escape from all dangers accidentally , are by self without any intelligence,here you are presenting a'' magical universe'' as you are not capable of explaining the same without'' God'',consequently,you replace''God'',by'' by self'' ,this is your fallacy and all are trying to explain you the same but you are committed to repeat again and again .
I have tried very little to explain the workings of the universe to you, and even that little you refuse to see. Therefore...therefore...therefore...nothing. I don't have to assume a god, you don't have to assume a god. You may make that assumption, but your ignorance of the workings of the universe neither forces that assumption nor gives even a hint of necessity for it. Sorry about that.
But Sibtain, I tire of your incessant claim that if I cannot explain the universe to your satisfaction that your ignorance means a god made us. I shall respond to no more posts along those lines.
wilderness,you are not understanding,I try to explain, firstly, I am not assuming God ,I am concluding requirement of ''Intelligence'' , ''Absolute Reason'', or ''Absolute Ego'' for logical and scientific explanation of this universe and life out of systems of universe and life for which you have no explanation except ''by self'' or '',eternal'' or ''self existence and self evolving'', your have failed not to satisfy myself but to give reasonable explanation of universe without an ''Intelligence'',it is not my problem,it is your problem to explain universe and life may exist ,evolve and work without necessity of a creator for ousting God for supporting your views and if you can never do then better and sound explanation of the same is ''God'', I am not saying that God is running the universe magically without laws and systems,it is your claim that universe is working magically without order,balance and law and only randomly and by chance has been shaped as infinite and great and wonderful system and life , by chance, has evolved to such a stage of ''humanity'' ,the living miracle of God.you are just substituting the'' God'' by'' by self''.
wilderness, Order may be discovered from disorder? if an infinite system of universe is maintaining itself without collapsing by the conflict of stars and planets,it would mean it is working in order and balance and what examples you mentioned are necessary to support this order,your point of view may be accepted when universe had been random collection of masses,planets and stars were colliding with each other and nothing was possible to be maintained, therefore, I say ,by such type of arguments from atheists ,that they first close their eyes from infinite system of universe and life and then say '',they can never see God'', ''prove your God'', pl. open yours eyes,you will find your God.
Your concept of order and mine differ considerably. I do not consider it "order" in our little solar system when the earth could (and has repeatedly) suffer a collision with another celestial body large enough to wipe out life here at any time. Or collide with smaller bodies on an hourly basis.
I do not consider it "order" when two galaxies, each with a billion stars, collide. I do not consider it "order" when Yellowstone park will blow up one day, taking much of the northwest US with it. You may consider all of these to be in perfect "order" to support your idea of a god, but I do not.
"Recent observations have shown how galaxies are able to recycle huge amounts of hydrogen gas and heavy elements within themselves. In a process which begins at initial star formation and lasts for billions of years, galaxies renew their own energy sources." - http://www.universetoday.com/91078/do-g … -material/
"The infinite, eternal universe continually recycles energy and mass at both the subatomic and macro-atomic level, thereby destroying and then reassembling atoms, molecules, stars, planets and galaxies (Joseph 2010). Mass, molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, and elementary particles are continually created and destroyed, and matter and energy, including hydrogen atoms, are continually recycled and recreated by super massive black holes and quasars at the center of galaxies, and via infinitely small gravity holes also known as "black holes", "Planck Particles", "Graviton Particles", and "Graviton-holes."" - http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology5.html
It's not just here on Earth. True, this is ultimately a finite universe and everything will indeed 'play out' eventually. It's a place in constant flux, changing all the time. It's a ripple, essentially, that began 13.7 billion years ago and is simply playing out. But within that ripple of causation arose an environment where life sprang up and evolved into intelligent, self-aware beings made possible by billions of years of stability in this galaxy/solar system. And throughout those billions of years the landscape has changed dramatically. There have been at least six mass extinctions. But it's those mass extinctions, those 'edits' along the way, that eventually 'made' us.
Ants bouncing off each other is because they pass pheromones back and forth as a means to communicate. And the way in which molecules bounce around, or bond together and condense, is how things work as they do.
But the fact is that both this sun and this earth have existed for as long as stars and planets have existed. They all formed around the same time, roughly 5 billion years ago. And they've been here ever since. You're right in that it seems chaotic and violent at times. Yet it's ultimately this beautiful dance happening in the midst of what's essentially a chaotic explosion.
"Einstein was puzzled as to why the universe didn’t cave in on itself. Empty space, he suggested, contained a mysterious energy pushing outward, resisting the universe’s inward collapse. After he published this idea — what came to be known as the cosmological constant — he regretted it. He said it didn’t emerge naturally from his equations; he’d tacked it on like a cheap piece of plywood over a hole in a roof.
Einstein eventually denounced the cosmological constant. And that, it turns out, was his big mistake. In the 1990s, physicists discovered dark energy, something very similar to that mythical force." - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/books … l&_r=0
Einstein, to balance out his equation, plugged a constant into it only for us to find out decades later that that 'fictitious' constant was real.
Dark energy is a bit different from the cosmological constant, though.
The cosmological constant was a mysterious outward force that was supposed to explain why the universe didn't collapse in on itself (as you said). However, dark energy was the name given to the mysterious force that causes the universe to expand faster and faster over time. The difference is important.
While I do think stars recycle (although no one has followed a "packet" of photonic energy to see if it turns into a hydrogen atom) I was referencing the cold dead matter of earth and the other planets. No recycling will ever occur except for the minute chance of a passing star swallowing the earth one day. Maybe in the utter chaos when Andromeda and the Milky Way collide.
"self-aware beings made possible by billions of years of stability in this galaxy/solar system" What stability? Certainly there has been none in the solar system as utter chaos reigned supreme for a very long time. It is only in the last few moments of the lifespan that nothing large has hit the earth (though it has other planets).
"But the fact is that both this sun and this earth have existed for as long as stars and planets have existed"
?? The universe is 14 billion years old, and there have been stars since the first billion years. The earth is 4 billion years old and has most definitely NOT existed since the first star.
Yes, it is a beautiful dance, in the midst of chaos. I watched a projection of Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way - Beautiful! Stars swirling about, long tails of millions of stars changing orbits, smashing into other stars, massive explosions everywhere. Beautiful to watch, but utter chaos, beyond imagination. Not order, unless you find pure order in the break of balls on a billiard table. And even if you do, it is not the kind of "order" that is an environment suitable for life as we know it.
It's my understanding that when star's life ends (ours in particular will consume the earth) and when it goes super nova a cloud nebula will be left over to form a new solar system. If the star was large enough all of the elements will be created by the dying star that we have in ours.
Our star will become a red giant, expanding past the earth's orbit. It will be very nebulous at that distance, little more than thin hot gas, but it will envelope the earth. Later it will shrink, becoming a white dwarf and finally dying out to a black dwarf. There will be no super nova - it is not large enough for that - and all it's elements will basically remain within it.
When you consider the vastness of everything involved, order seems obvious. Take the small window, temperature-wise, that water actually exists as water, and not vapor/ice/plasma. Think of the extreme temperatures found throughout the universe and just how small of a range liquid water exists within that range. The same goes for the elements of our atmosphere that make this environment what it is. There's a reason why this planet's conditions are said to be in the 'goldie-locks' range for allowing life and why these conditions have proven so rare.
Think of recycling only in relation to the building blocks of matter in general, you're right. In that case the matter that makes up the planets and moons of this solar system will not recycle in that way for over a billion years. But the environment that makes life possible is constantly recycled. The very first thing to develop after the formation of the oceans was the earth's water cycle. Then land, which also recycles through plate tectonics. The natural world of this planet has just the right conditions to revitalize itself and maintain an environment that allows for life to exist and thrive for significant amounts of time to allow for thousands of generations of lifeforms to come to be. And though there have been multiple mass extinctions, life has survived on this planet for 4 billion years straight. Those of us alive today represent the most recent links in a chain that goes all the way back to the primordial pool.
To think of this universe in a purely 'causal' sense, where the seemingly chaotic interplay between matter/energy and the constant laws of this universe result in reality, to see the establishment of systems that at every level constantly recycle themselves, from stars/planets, to water/air, to matter itself, I see order here where there should be pure craziness. To think of just how fragile we are, to consider just how small of a change to our global temperature would wipe out all life, or how small of a change to the earth's orbit, or even the tilt of the planet, our moon, any of these things and the landscape would be transformed dramatically and most likely totally uninhabitable by anything, there is definite order here. It's not infinite order. It'll all unravel eventually. But for this pocket of order to exist at all is beyond comprehension in the grand scheme of things.
Upon further reading I confirmed you're right about stars existing much longer. I guess I was thinking more specifically of 'population I', or 'metal-rich', stars, like our sun. The universe was a very different place before the formation of our galaxy, then our sun. Stars like ours do not appear to have existed previously to this 'era' because the conditions were dramatically different.
Rare? Our neighbouring planet Mars is in a better spot to contain life than earth, it just happened to be to small to hold onto it's atmosphere. There are some scientist playing with the idea that life may have originated on mars as earth is short on the building blocks of life, but Mars isn't. It wasn't long ago that we didn't know that there were even planets around other stars and they've found plenty recently in close proximity to us, many those in the sweet spot.
Anyway the odd being stacked against us doesn't change anything at all. Perhaps we are the ones who won the lottery. Perhaps not. Perhaps there are billions of much better places out there.
Can you refer me to what you're talking about as far as Mars being in "a better spot to contain life"?
This right here, I would think, should further establish order in the cosmos. Just the fact that there are other solar systems with their own planets and moons. It's not that each is totally random and different from one another. The laws and the matter behaved in such a way as to create no telling how many planetary systems. That in itself is order. Consistency. We can relate what we know about our own planet/sun/solar system/galaxy and associate it to countless others all throughout the landscape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstel … table_zone
http://www.boston.com/news/science/arti … _for_life/
When I get and and if I remember I'll see if I can find more.
That's what I said - you see order because you vision is so extremely limited. You see the earth as special for the same reason.
You talk about the earth's place in the solar system (right temp, etc.) and how rare that is, but how many solar systems have you checked in our galaxy for similar planets? Out of hundreds of billions of galaxies, how many have you examined for liquid water on even 1% of their billions of planets?
None of course. So when you say liquid water is so very scarce, think that the only solar system that we have even glanced at (our own) has liquid water in at least two places. Then think that there are billions of planets in our galaxy and billions of other galaxies. Quadrillions of potential locations and two planetary orbits in the only one we've briefly scanned - it kind of changes the idea we're so special and odd.
Likewise, you look at a tiny portion of earths lifespan and find it can support life and thus has "order". What you fail to do is look at the rest of that life, where life is clearly impossible. Maybe it's not so incredible after all?
You speak of how fragile life is, and how important our orbit, moon, tilt, etc. are. But earth has been nothing but a large snowball and life survived. The surface was covered in molten rock and life survived. The earth precesses on it's axis all the time - life has survived through many changes in title. The moon has been moving away from the earth since it appeared and life has survived. It may be have been here before the moon - we have no way of knowing.
Not sure what you mean by "metal rich" stars - while hydrogen is technically a metal and is the basic building block of all stars I doubt that's what you refer to. All stars, now and in the past, turn hydrogen into other elements including metals; when a significant portion of the mass has become iron bad things happen and the star begins it's death cycle.. Nothing new in that; it has been that way since the big bang.
Yes, things were different before our galaxy formed; it is, after all, nearly as old as the universe at 13.7 billion years. Only 1/2 a billion years younger than the universe. Things were indeed different and most stars were much larger. 9 billion years later, when our sun formed, most stars coming to life were smaller but I'm not sure of your point? That the tiny bit of order discernible in the first billion years was soon replaced by something different? That's what I keep saying - that there IS no real, long lasting order! Only a local, transient version of something that could be called order if one closes their eyes to most of what is happening even locally.
The Earth doesn't have to be special, or unique, but it is most definitely rare. But besides that it's just the example we are the most familiar with and know the most about, and it's the only one we know about that can and does support life. And the conditions here that allow for life to live have to be very particular. But the fact that there is such order in the universe means it's entirely possible there are others. There's consistency. There are other planetary systems much like ours. Other rocky planets the right distance from their metal-rich stars for liquid water to be possible. Metal-rich, or Population I, stars have a much higher probability of having planetary systems with rocky planets and primarily exist in the 'sweet spot' of spiral galaxies like ours. So while the number of qualifying galaxies are obviously numerous, that's a rather small percentage of the total universe.
But what we're talking about here is order, so the possibility of numerous other earth-like planets only supports that further. The fact that we can even take what we know about this one solar system and galaxy and apply it to so many others is order. The fact that we can even comprehend it at all is order. The fact that we can break it down in mathematical equations and define the constant laws is a testament to its order. True chaos, true disorder, would be incomprehensible because it would be chaos. You can predict solar eclipses or the passing of comets, but you can't predict disorder and chaos.
I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no reason to even think the earth is rare, let alone tell others it is. There could well be a billion other earth's in just this galaxy, one of billions more.
Cometary orbits: we can only calculate cometary orbits in the most rudimentary manner. The disorder, or chaos, of how a comet disintegrates as it comes nearer the sun prevents any better calculation. We can never know when it will blast off a ton of water or now gaseous nitrogen, changing the orbit.
It is a good example of what you are calling order; things that at first glance, with only slight care or observation, have lots of order. Closer examination, or longer, shows us just how chaotic the universe, solar system and earth itself really is.
The whole 'rarity' of the Earth is confusing things, I think. That's not the issue. We're talking about order, and my primary point where Earth is concerned is the observable order of the systems in place here. I can understand your reasoning. In your mind order shouldn't have an end. An eventual end or breaking down of something, in your mind it seems, in itself means a lack of order.
Eventually, being a finite universe with a beginning, it will all unravel. It will die out or spiral out of order. This is true. It's not just perpetually in order. The order has to be established through a causal process. It didn't just 'poof' into existence as is. Much like everything else finite, the universe goes through stages. The era of the Earth and our solar system arrived when the universe settled into 'adulthood'. But before that there was infancy and adolescence. And later it'll get old and systems will break down. Out of the chaotic puberty of this universe came order. If there were no order we'd have no hope of comprehending what we observe. And we certainly wouldn't be able to reconstruct the events of the universe coming into being if there were no order. There's consistency to the behavior of all the component parts and the systems that come about. It's that consistency that allows understanding. Like in how we can understand the stages our own sun will eventually go through by observing other stars. Or in how medical professionals can know how best to treat an illness you have because of prior experience treating a totally different person. Without order there'd be nothing to be gained through science because there'd be no consistency to key in on and understand.
LOL, I give, Headly. I have continued to provide examples of massive chaos - tens of thousands of meter strikes each year, unpredictability of a cometary orbit, brownian motion of gas molecules, unknowability of electron motion, collision of entire galaxies - and you simply ignore whatever it is while insisting the universe is in perfect order.
Now you claim that the universe is adult in it's order, that it will degenerate one day to a period of maximum entropy and zero motion but with less order than it now has.
You and I have very, very different concepts of what that word "order" means, I think. Or it is simply much more important to you to find "evidence" of your god than it is to me...
Haha, well, that'll happen. Sometimes we'll just never see eye to eye. Though I do want to be sure to make the distinction between me saying there's 'order', and you taking that to mean 'perfect order'. It's not as black and white as that. At least that's not how I was speaking of it. Things like this ...
"A circadian rhythm is any biological process that displays an endogenous, entrainable oscillation of about 24 hours. These rhythms are driven by a circadian clock, and rhythms have been widely observed in plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria."
.. are clear signs of order because the day/night cycle has been such a consistent mainstay throughout the evolution of life on this planet that biological processes are actually attuned to it. You don't get that sort of thing without order. Even if that is just order in the window of time in which life has existed, being only about a third of the age of the universe, that's still incredibly consistent order coming from a process that really has no business being so consistent.
Meteor strikes I don't see as qualifying as disorder. They're still adhering to the laws and behaving as expected. Just because something got in the path doesn't mean all is in disarray. That's simply inevitability. And the 'unknowability' of an electron in motion is just our problem. By the time you locate an electron it no longer has a trajectory/velocity to measure and by the time it's in motion again it no longer has a location to pinpoint. That doesn't mean there isn't order to what it's doing.
Alright, I'm done. I think. I'll leave this dead horse alone.
Where exactly do you see order? How do you define that order.
That does that mean, "settled"?
You're reaching false conclusions. What order?
What does that mean, "recycles itself"? How do you defined that? Provide examples?
You need to define your terms, explain what you're talking about and provide examples, so far, it is just so much word salad.
That is nonsense. Provide the exact quote in which he said that?
Well put, sir. Einstein said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible", that it works. And its not just basic order, whether you study the sprawling macro-cosmos or the invisible micro-organism, it is a breathtaking orchestra. Reason, sound judgement, rationality, prudence and logic dictate that God is among the possibilities, perhaps even a great one. Obstinate refusals and consideration is almost as if against the human spirit of progress and understanding.
Here are examples I provided in a previous post ...
"Recent observations have shown how galaxies are able to recycle huge amounts of hydrogen gas and heavy elements within themselves. In a process which begins at initial star formation and lasts for billions of years, galaxies renew their own energy sources." - http://www.universetoday.com/91078/do-g … -material/
"The infinite, eternal universe continually recycles energy and mass at both the subatomic and macro-atomic level, thereby destroying and then reassembling atoms, molecules, stars, planets and galaxies (Joseph 2010). Mass, molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, and elementary particles are continually created and destroyed, and matter and energy, including hydrogen atoms, are continually recycled and recreated by super massive black holes and quasars at the center of galaxies, and via infinitely small gravity holes also known as "black holes", "Planck Particles", "Graviton Particles", and "Graviton-holes."" - http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology5.html
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Sorry, but this is what Einstein says about gods and creators...
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"
Obviously, Einstein was referring to folks like you.
Nothing about that quote says anything about a personal God. He made clear that he believed in a God much like Spinoza did. And he also made clear that he saw order in the universe as his reasoning for why Spinoza's idea of God appealed to him.
"I do not believe in a personal God"
Did I miss something?
Not ATM's quote, the one I referred to ....
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So you just ignored his quote because it doesn't support your view?
In this quote Einstein was clearly referring to a very specific kind of God, a personal God. But it's well documented that what I said, and the quote I referred to, is what he believed. The order which he saw in the cosmos was why he believed in an intelligent creator. He saw the idea of a personal God judging morality as being a childish concept, and made that very clear. But he also made clear that he was not an atheist and why. And when he explained why it was because of the order he observed in the universe.
There is nothing in any of those quotes that says he believes in an intelligent creator.
Well, you might have to look beyond those two quotes to get a sense of his beliefs....
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations"
"Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion" and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954, which later became his book Ideas and Opinions in 1955. The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas," devoid of a personal God who rewards and punishes individuals based on their behavior. It rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science. He told William Hermanns in an interview that "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … t_Einstein
I don't see anything in either quote to indicate that Einstein (those were his words, right?) made the unfounded leap from his own recognized ignorance to another universe, complete with an intelligent god that made this one...
The closest that he came was "There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look" but that says nothing of intelligence. The lawgiver could just as well be the big bang as an intelligent creature in another universe.
Another universe? I think I can understand where you're coming away with that conclusion, but to be clear that is not my claim. I actually included the quote initially to illustrate that Einstein acknowledged order in the universe. However, he made it clear on numerous occasions that the order of the universe led him to believe in an intelligent creator like the God Spinoza envisioned.
"Spinozism is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
As for the quotes, it seems pretty clear to me, not just in the bit you referred to, but also in the parable....
"...The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how.... The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."
A definite plan/order. Books that 'someone must have written'. There's more beyond just these, I just cherry picked a couple. He was pretty clear, probably because he had to be.
There is really no point in quoting Einstein to support your irrational beliefs, it is quite simply, dishonest.
The point is that Einstein stated emphatically that the beliefs of YOUR God were childish and that he did not accept them at all, and that he wanted to make it clear that anyone who used his quotes in regard to God were lying.
And the physical order is just one aspect. Think deeply about the 'articulate speech', 'conscience', 'thought-process', 'awareness', 'mind' etc etc.-- these are not convincingly understood as having developed per physical observable evolutionary process.
Of course they are, and humans are not the only mammal to have all these attributes.
humans not being the only ones to possess the attributes is not the answer. besides which mammals have articulation in speech, highly developed and complex language? which mammals have rich and diverse cultures? which ones have high states of intelligence that they can comprehend science and manipulate the environment to advantage? which ones feel shame and are adverse to nakedness?
kindly name a few
We could start with humanity as the only species stupid enough to think their bodies are shameful and should be covered at all times. No other animal is anywhere near that foolish.
Wilderness, do we start with you walking the streets naked then? Don't post any pics
Not all humans are ashamed to be naked. It's something that's taught to us.
If it is mere inculcation, why don't you just disabuse yourself of it? what's holding you back?
The same reason that make you hold on to the nonsense that was taught you, I guess.
But I have faith in convictions and follow my beliefs. Where as you, by your own admission, do not. I am clothed, and so are you.
I see conviction on one side, and a lack thereof (confusion) on the other.
Typical, "I have conviction and everyone else is confused".
Not fair nor just to state it like that. We are discussing a specific topic here.
I said . . . I have belief + follow it = conviction
I will refrain from putting anything out for you, you can state it if you like
You have a belief that the skin on your back is shameful and shall never be seen on threat of hell? Why?
Or do you wear a shirt because it is commonly accepted/required in your society?
What is your belief and how do you follow it?
As I just mentioned in another forum, Jesus said a rich man can't get into heaven, he said to sell you stuff and give the money to charity, he also supposedly said in the same breath that we should leave our wives and children and follow him.
If you are a follower of Christ with conviction you must have don't those things already so I applaud you for your conviction.
I on the other hand, I believe I should stay with my wife and children and raise them to be good people. I'd attempting to do just that so I have conviction as well.
A few hundred years before people had faith in the conviction that earth is flat. A few years before the perpetrators of 9/11 had faith in their conviction, so your point?
How do you know? For all that you know I could be from an African nation where people do not wear suits daily.
It is better to be confused than to have a conviction that nonsense is the truth
The fact is that inhibitions have largely survived in society since time immemorial. Exceptions of tribes in Africa or S America are not the rule.
The question is that why and how did such inhibition establish? And then why did it survive?
You and I keeping ourselves clothed because society would react adversely otherwise is not the answer. Why is society that way to begin with? If these are merely fabricated and inculcated notions, why haven't the real natural forces overcome them? And why on earth would they be adopted in the first place?
Exceptions of tribes in Africa?
I'd say the exceptions were in communities/peoples moving North into much colder climates where clothing was not optional. More southern tribes have always used clothing as adornment, but seldom if ever turned it into something so much a part of their culture that it cannot be done without. Only those cultures where climate made clothing necessary at least part of the year.
You can't even convince yourself to shed them, let alone anyone else that they are nothing more than culture, adornment and climatic need. And their inhibition at shedding them is just because they are silly.
sounds like its wilderness in name only, just kidding . . .
The law for one. Every see a child walk around naked? Ever see images of tribes in south America or Africa walking around naked?
They seen to not care.
You shall not see me walking the streets naked. That would be cruel and unusual punishment to any observers.
Interestingly enough, if no one wore any clothes other than say fig leaves, for example, everyone would probably maintain their bodies. Obesity would probably not exist. We would all be in excellent shape.
Not me. Vanity has never been an option - there is nothing to be vain about whether excellent shape or not.
"other than say fig leaves" ?? still holding on to the fig leaves? you need to stand better behind your convictions, if they had merit that is.
You're kidding right? Have you ever seen the bodies (!) of some so-called "naturalists"?
cruel and unusual punishment? why o why? thought it was meant to be the 'au naturale' state
Laws are for little people. People who do not understand how to or refuse to behave in accordance with good conscience in a civilised society, need laws to direct them to live their lives. Laws are also instigated by those who wish to control others for their own personal gain.
Religious laws are largely man made in order to keep people in line and to instigate fear.
To live according to good conscience and a duty of care to fellow man; against these there is no law.
I have researched that scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth.
Makes one wonder if the bullet and fire ants of Brazil think the Brazilian environment was made specifically for them?
While you may have read statements by people saying that, I would suggest you limit your "research" to those that study science, not religious myths. Because for sure, no scientist worthy of the title will claim the universe has been designed, let alone specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. Only the massively egocentric religious have ever made such a ridiculous claim.
"The universe appears to have bent over backwards to accommodate life." - Physicist Russell Stannard
Russell Stannard is a retired high-energy particle physicist, who was born in London, England, on December 24, 1931. He currently holds the position of Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Open University. In 1986, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for ‘significant contributions to the field of spiritual values; in particular for contributions to greater understanding of science and religion’.
"The Universe knew we were coming." - Physicist Freeman Dyson
Freeman John Dyson FRS (born December 15, 1923) is a British-American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
You quote the statements of a lay preacher as evidence that scientists believe the universe was designed?
A lay preacher that also says that "It is my contention that one can neither prove nor disprove God's existence on the basis of such reasoning" (that the universe had to be designed to fit life on earth, or mankind) in the same religious tome that has your quote?. One that apparently swallows the philosophical double talk of the "Anthropic principle" that says the universe is designed because if life were impossible no one would know it?
This is what your "research" produced as "scientists now conclude the universe is tweaked to allow human life"?
Lay preacher? For one thing he's a high energy particle physicist who worked at CERN at one point in his career and was involved in some of the most notable breakthroughs in quantum mechanics in recent years. You may disagree with him philosophically, but that's all this is. A philosophical difference.
If you want to limit your worldview to only what can be determined through the scientific method, that's fine, as long as you recognize it as a philosophical choice and don't make the mistake of thinking your viewpoint is the only rational one. The naturalistic viewpoint of the scientific method, while it is a necessity in the practice of science, it is not a necessity in the formation of your worldview. And the same applies to scientists. In their work they can maintain their naturalistic viewpoint, yet take the information learned to inform their worldview that allows for more than the purely material. You can either think the material world is all there is to reality (Materialism), or you can recognize it as only being applicable to one aspect of reality. And if it's only part of the story, then science can only fill in part of the blanks.
To not recognize this leads to things like convincing yourself that anyone who reaches different conclusions than you, because they allow for more than the material to be at play, must be delusional. You end up reducing clearly qualified people down to being 'lay preachers'. Which means, according to recent polls, nearly half the scientific community would have to be delusional, as well as half the world's population. Which, of course, is exactly what a vast majority of believers think. So, it's ultimately just a belief that leads to making the same old mistakes of the past. It makes you dismissive of others based on nothing more than a personal bias.
I don't know the man and have never heard of him. "Lay preacher" came from Wikipedia. And if you think half the scientists of the world qualify for that terminology you are sadly mistaken. Very few have written religious texts.
You are absolutely right that I can limit my worldview to the materialistic. It is my choice, and one I make because I wish my worldview to coincide with reality, not with some made up imaginary world. That most definitely limits my view, but it is my choice.
Nor is it a "wrong" choice somehow; your insinuation that it is inferior to using imagination to define a personal view of reality is, as you say, delusional. I do agree, however that it makes me dismissive of others based on their use of imagination to define their perception of reality. I don't swallow it, I don't agree that it is valuable to me (it can be very valuable to the believer, though), and I absolutely will dismiss it out of hand.
What I meant in regards to nearly half the scientific community is the somewhat recent poll results that show a much higher percentage of the scientific community have spiritual beliefs in one form or another. I wasn't aware of Stannard's book until I went to find out what you were referring to, though I'm definitely going to read it now. And it's nothing more than my own ignorance that took 'lay preacher' to be derogatory, and I apologize for that.
And I did not intend to come off as saying the materialist viewpoint is inferior. I don't think that. But I do find it common amongst those of the materialist persuasion to look at anything else as inferior. To, as you put it, see everything else as imaginary or fantasy. If science has made anything clear to this point it should be that there's much more going on below the surface that we're only faintly aware of. Just because we've discovered one bag of tools useful in determining what's what doesn't mean it's an all-in-one tool that covers everything. It's just what we have so far. So I see the flippant dismissal of the non-materialist as being a lack of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature. A lack of humility that you'd think history should have taught by now should be avoided. Neither viewpoint is more valid than the other.
Here's another example of a Christian scientist, Dr. Francis Collins, who's very much reputable and respected in the community. In fact, he's currently the director of the Human Genome Project ... http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collin … l?_s=PM:US
You're confused. Although Collins make have respect for his work, he certainly has very little respect for his religious beliefs. He is viewed as a hypocrite and his books are considered intellectual suicide.
"In 5,000 pages of transcribed interviews, she said that scientists who view religion as compatible with their professions frequently cited religious scientists as examples of how the two fields can work together. Scientists most often spoke highly of Francis Collins, the physician and geneticist who is the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins has spoken frequently about being a Christian and a scientist and released a book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," on the topic in 2006."
"The most religious scientists were, overall, described in positive terms by their nonreligious peers."
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 … 74116.html
Seems to me you brought one of those guys in the past and we established that the awards were given for his preaching and that's pretty much what he's been do for some time using his profession to confuse people into thinking the science establishes something it doesn't. But I could be mistaken.
We have discussed Dr. Stannard in the past, but we definitely didn't establish any of that. There's undoubtedly confusion, but that's not Dr. Stannard's fault. He doesn't claim science establishes anything that it doesn't. He's just one of many examples to illustrate that knowledge or understanding of science in no way has anything to do with belief in spirituality. As this poll illustrates, it more has to do with the individual's views on religion in general, in regards to how narrow or broad they are, and whether or not they see science and religion as being at odds with one another.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 … 74116.html
Half the scientific community? Where do you get that number? Gallup polls say that less than 5% (including mechanical engineers, computer scientists, etc.) are believers. There is a list of about 700 scientists out of some half-million that are believers, which constitutes about .015%.
"In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them. She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong. Nearly 50 percent of them are religious. Many others are what she calls “spiritual entrepreneurs,” seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion…..only a small minority are actively hostile to religion. Ecklund reveals how scientists–believers and skeptics alike–are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for “boundary pioneers” to cross the picket lines separating science and religion."
- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter … loKTH-CWuI
Did you even read the comments on that page? They are all scathing criticisms of Ecklund and her so-called study. They are calling BS on it.
Yeah, that's weird. A bunch of random people on the internet who didn't like what the results had to say criticized her 'so-called'/'alleged' study.
And, you are not a random person on the internet?
And, I suppose you didn't notice the evidence all of them produced showing Ecklund was not being honest about that study? For example, the fact that Ecklund is funded by the Templeton Foundation...
"Its (Templeton Foundation) aim in practice appears to be to corrupt the public discourse concerning science in the interests of religion, by swaying academics with much more money than they'd get any other way. Anything or anyone funded by Templeton should be viewed in this light."
I would have to agree considering the first link on the Templeton site is "Religion in the Western World"
And, that is the problem with HeadlyvonNoggin, he falls right into those traps without even reading his own sources. That's why his credibility is nil.
So, I should take the clearly biased, intolerant, and ignorant opinions of you and other random anti-religious people on the internet over credible surveys and credible and reputable foundations because...? Maybe, rather than referring to comments from other random people, you could counter with another survey that shows how in error this one is?
The larger point here is that it's only ignorance to think the level of understanding of science has anything to do with spiritual belief.
LOL. Templeton Foundation is credible and reputable?
Like yourself, for example?
"National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%."
BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Right, the survey I sited was showing how the tide is clearly turning, so this survey done 15 years ago goes right along with that. It's a social issue of ignorance and intolerance on both sides of the fence that's clearly diminishing as we move forward. For a time it was very much unpopular to admit you were a believer. It could actually impact your funding, your reputation, etc. Times are changing.
Yes, times are changing. Religions are going the way of the dodo as non-belief in religion is skyrocketing. Soon, it will be the dominant majority and institutions like the Templeton Foundation will be equivalent and as relevant as the Creationist Museum.
Here's another one. This one is a Pew survey done in 2009. It shows 33% of scientists polled believe in God, with another 18% believing in a 'higher power', and only 41% not believing in either.... http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-an … -americans
Which is what I said before. While the poll you sited was 15 years old and specific to a "personal God", what we were talking about from the beginning had to do with my statement ... "What I meant in regards to nearly half the scientific community is the somewhat recent poll results that show a much higher percentage of the scientific community have spiritual beliefs in one form or another."
You're not fooling anybody. You have shown yourself to be nothing more than an intolerant anti-religious activist, so your statements are clearly motivated by your own personal biases and have no basis in facts whatsoever. This whole thing was just another dishonest attempt to move the goal posts in an attempt to discredit me and what I was saying. If you were in the right, gimmicks like this would be unnecessary.
What I'm wondering about is why you're so obsessed with those statistics. They don't give you any credibility nor do they in any support anything you say. It's all faith based BS, just like those who are supported by the Templeton Foundation, which you appear to support, as well.
Intolerant anti-religious activist? Grasping at thin air, dude. You only discredit yourself, no one here needs to do that for you.
I'm correcting the misinformation that keeps getting injected into these conversations. The false beliefs that only what's material is all that exists, and that no credible scientist would say otherwise. There's this distinct inability to separate the naturalist viewpoint necessary in the practice of science and the materialist viewpoint that the material is the totality of reality. That alone is an issue in itself, but then when 'science' is invoked as if it supports the claim, that's seriously misleading.
No, you're not, you're only injecting disinformation, mostly in the form of irrational beliefs.
There's an irrational belief, right on time.
It is only an issue to the deluded and ignorant who embrace irrational beliefs and know very little about how science works.
So you're saying nearly half the scientific community is deluded, ignorant, and knows very little about how science works. Which is the more likely answer? That, or that you're wrong? Materialism is the dogma of the 21st century, and it causes many to repeat the same mistakes organized religion has made in the past. It convinces its disciples that everyone else is deluded and that their beliefs are backed by the authority of science. Instead of 'God did it', now it's 'science explains it'. And it's just as damaging and misleading.
First of all, you can keep projecting those ridiculous numbers all you want, despite the fact they are not true.
Secondly, it is YOU who knows very little about how science works.
Pure nonsense. Your irrational religious beliefs drive your posts, nothing more.
As usual you ignore the facts if they conflict with your beliefs. Everybody else is wrong but you. Polls are wrong if they conflict with your beliefs, entire foundations are wrong if they conflict, physicists and biologists must be deluded or they don't understand science as well as you do. Despite it all you're certain that you're right and all of these others are wrong or lying.
You are not presenting facts, you are presenting faith based beliefs and fallacies.
No, they are not wrong or lying, that would be you.
Explain that. Explain how your statement makes any sense at all. Explain how you could call scientists/christians into question and say their beliefs are 'suicide', how the first poll I pointed out could be due to the agenda of a foundation you find suspect, yet not be wrong or lying. Which is it? Are they lying or not? Are they delusional or not?
I think this delusional thing can be put into perspective.
We don't consider ourself delusional, but yet we have both been labeled as such.
Are the new Earther's deluded?
Are the IDer's deluded?
There faith has them rebelling against what is known fact. I would say it's a matter of perspective.
You have a poll that seems to conflict with other polls of the same nature that was funded by a foundation that clearly has an agenda that wants to validate religious thoughts in science.
Two polls, both that show the same thing. The only one that differs is the one ATM brought up.
And it doesn't have to be an agenda just because you don't agree with it. A large number of the population, including a large chunk of the scientific community, are looking to answer the 'big questions'. Those being beyond the realm of what's knowable through pure science.
I love that. The 'big questions' that you think are beyond the realm of what's knowable through pure science and yet you and others think they have the answers. But of course you can't back up your beliefs with any of the sciences so you claim that your beliefs are beyond the realm of what's knowable.
I don't think, I know. Any scientist worth his credentials says the same thing. You can't see beyond the big bang. That's a fact. Whatever led to this universe existing is what 'caused' the singularity/big bang, yet is beyond the sight of science. These are facts.
I don't claim to know anything beyond anyone else. That's why I present what I think, a model that attempts to answer these questions and explain what we observe, and ask that they be scrutinized. Just like anyone else. Just like multiverse hypotheses attempt to do. They attempt to answer questions about what's beyond the observable by building a model and making predictions based on that model.
You should know better than this by now. If you're really trying to be honest here then you'd be calling ATM out on the nonsense he's spewing right now. Instead you're accusing me of things I'd like to think you'd know by now I don't do.
You simply don't know what science will be able to eventually see beyond. just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean God must have done it. Think about the changes in the last 100 years and imagine what will be learned in the next few thousand and if we are still hear 100,000 or million years.
As for ATM, what is it you think he is spewing that is nonsense? If I agree with you I'll call him out on it, right away, without question. I haven't read everything he has said.
Here some interesting numbers...
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie … nd-belief/
95% believe in either a God or a higher power.
51% believe in either a God or a higher power.
Physics and astronomy
29% believe in God
14% don't believe in God, but do believe in a higher power
46% are Atheists.
What does this mean? Nothing to me at all, but there is clearly a difference between the general population and scientists.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ … lic-media/
Think that humans, other living things have evolved due to natural processes
Public = 32%
Scientists = 87%
Public Science knowledge
Electrons are smaller than atoms = 46% of the public got that right.
Slightly more than half (54%) knows that antibiotics do not kill viruses along with bacteria.
What that means is that statements like this ...
"You're confused. Although Collins make have respect for his work, he certainly has very little respect for his religious beliefs. He is viewed as a hypocrite and his books are considered intellectual suicide."
and this ...
"Half the scientific community? Where do you get that number? Gallup polls say that less than 5% (including mechanical engineers, computer scientists, etc.) are believers. There is a list of about 700 scientists out of some half-million that are believers, which constitutes about .015%."
... are wrong and totally misleading, and that my statement that I made two days ago, and am still defending, is right.
This should also make apparent that both belief in a higher power and materialism are just as valid as far as the evidence goes, which is also what I've been saying all along.
Those are his opinions, I haven't bothered checking his facts as they are irrelevant to me.
I don't believe there is any evidence that suggests a God created the universe, just the words of a few story tellers who made miraculous claims. A story which makes no sense as first it asks for blind faith rather than supplying evidence.
More nonsense. You really have no idea what the scientific community is looking to answer, it has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, no matter how much you want to fabricate it.
That's an argument from authority and a really poor one at that as your assuming that minority is correct. In a very religious society as the U.S. where we find something like 80% of the population believing in some kind of God and with the elite scientist dropping significantly to below 50%, you appear to be claiming that because they are the minority they must be correct.
That's the whole point, Rad. I'm not the one making that kind of statement. It's being said here that anyone who says there's more to reality than just the material is delusional or that they don't understand science. I'm only showing that understanding/knowledge of science has nothing to do with belief. That's the fallacy. Clearly the scientific community is just as undecided. That should tell you something.
"Ecklund did her study at “elite” universities, but if you look at “elite scientists,” i.e., those who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the degree of disbelief is even higher: 72% are flat-out atheists and another 21% are doubters or agnostics, with only 7% accepting a personal god. (The NAS data are from an independent study.)
What else can one conclude but that American scientists are far more atheistic and agnostic than the American public, and that the more elite the scientist, the weaker the belief in God?"
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com … ing-again/
That's something else studies like these are concluding. That a big reason why a higher percentage of 'elite' scientists are atheists is because of public perception of science and religion. People who grew up in non-religious homes over the past century or so were more prone to self-elect fields of science, where those who grew up in religious households were less likely. It's a trend that's showing clear signs of turning around as ignorance lessens.
Sorry, but scientists are saying no such thing.
so I guess scientists will agree that all life on earth and the universe itself with ALL of its PERPLEXITIES had no intelligent designer behind it? So all of the universe happened just by chance?
Now I understand why after some time has passed junk yards turn into corvettes. Yea...that makes more sense.
First, let us consider the science of thermodynamics: In Psalm 102:25,26, we read, "Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed."
In verse 25, we find, restated, the fact that God is the Creator of all that exists. Verse 26 then tells us something highly significant, not about the initial, created state of the universe, but about the present state of the universe. According to this Scripture, written three thousand years before the dawn of modern science, we learn that the universe is like a suit of clothes that is wearing out. In other words, the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly.
There is certainly no doubt, then, that modern scientific research has verified the truths expressed in Psalm 102:26. Many years of careful measurements by scientists, repeated many thousands of times, established beyond doubt the scientific truths expressed in that verse of Scripture.
I don't think ancient scribes saying, "Clothes decay, so it makes sense that the heavens decay, too," coinciding with the discovery of entropy is truly that big a revelation. The scribes were simply extrapolating what they saw on Earth to the heavens, and it just so happened that, this time, they got it right.
Now, get back to me when we find rivers of liquid water and organized streets of gold floating around in space somewhere.
If that's what you're waiting on then there's a bit of a kink in your logic. You're wanting physical/observable evidence of God's/heaven's existence as if God could somehow be a detectable part of His own creation. If He created it He exists apart from it, meaning He's not going to be a detectable part of it. How can the one who made the causal chain be a link in it?
And there I saw it as a statement that God is not subject to entropy. Maybe because He is not only extra terrestrial but extra universal as well. And of course the ancients knew that, too.
No, science has not verified anything of the sort. You simply lack an understand of thermodynamics.
Revelation 21:1, 3-4, 15, 18-25 NLT
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone. I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, “Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.” The angel who talked to me held in his hand a gold measuring stick to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. The wall was made of jasper, and the city was pure gold, as clear as glass. The wall of the city was built on foundation stones inlaid with twelve precious stones: the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. The twelve gates were made of pearls—each gate from a single pearl! And the main street was pure gold, as clear as glass. I saw no temple in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light. The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the world will enter the city in all their glory. Its gates will never be closed at the end of day because there is no night there.
There you go homie!! :-) anymore requests?
A Trouble Man, I understand now why your " A Troubled Man"
No insults brother, just messing with you a little. no disrespect.
To me, systems of o r d e r ( which are found in nature) are evidence of God. This is true. There is no arguing it. The intelligent scientists comprehend this truth. And as far as God being intelligent? I disagree, the force of God found in nature and all life is way beyond intelligent... even genius is an understatement! Brilliant? Obviously beyond our ability to describe.
Our morality, civilized laws, music, literature and art owe a lot to our Greco-Judeo-Chrisitian religious heritage. However, belief in God is a matter of faith, not certainty nor science.
We just don't have man-made technology to detect God. However, God is a reality on the metaphysical plane of existence... detectable by intuition.
According To My Research.
You admit God is undetectable by any means except the human mind. Yet you can't prove he is detectable by the human mind, what makes you sure it's God your mind is detecting? Which God does it detect? The Christian, Muslim, Jewish or one of the thousands of Hindi Gods?
by SaiKit6 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
by David Bowman7 years ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from...
by Eric Dierker3 years ago
I just started a forum looking into the subject. It was great and polite but the discussion veered into all about people who believe in God and how that is fallacious.Here I hope we focus on the atheist. Can the atheist...
by Alexander A. Villarasa23 months ago
So what does Chemistry have anything to do with astrophysics, specifically the beginning of the universe as proposed in that Big Bang of a theory. PLENTY it turns out. As proposed by chemists at the Free...
by Obscure_Treasures5 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by pay2cEM5 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.