RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:30:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

What is really amazing to me is that I have to prove God doesn't exist and religious people who have the God delusion don't have to do anything. Why don't they prove to me that God exists?

Because they can't, of course. But if you really believe that the nonexistence of God is a scientific fact, then you are suffering from the Dawkins Delusion.

K.



Brain -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:35:43 PM)

It took me a while to find your post but I was determined to do so because I think this is the first time I actually agree with you about something. I have actually for a long time believed this to be true myself but I didn't know it was called a rubber band theory. And I also didn't know it was a belief of ancient Hindus. I don't have a lot of time these days, who does, but if I can find the time I'm going to take a look at the beliefs of the ancient Hindus.

I'd like to say that I agree with you is a miracle and almost enough to believe in God but to do so would be dangerous because it would undermine significantly my efforts to drag people into the present and to stop believing 2000 year old nonsense.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I was taught that the big bang may occur over and over again according to the rubber band theory, a theory which, to me, ties in nicely with some of the beliefs of the ancient Hindus. According to the rubber band theory gravity pulls all matter together and compresses it to the point it explodes with a "big bang" after which the new universe expands until gravity once again overtakes the weakening force of the explosion and draws it all back together again, then it all endlessly repeats.




quote:


(in reply to Kirata)



Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:44:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

It took me a while to find your post but I was determined to do so because I think this is the first time I actually agree with you about something. I have actually for a long time believed this to be true myself but I didn't know it was called a rubber band theory. And I also didn't know it was a belief of ancient Hindus. I don't have a lot of time these days, who does, but if I can find the time I'm going to take a look at the beliefs of the ancient Hindus.

Thanks for reminding me of Sanity's post. Actually, these kinds of threads rather typically argue the Abrahamic deity, more or less literally interpreted, when in fact there are other religious traditions whose views have been found to be surprisingly in accord with modern physics and cosmology.

K.



Brain -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:46:28 PM)

You can't call it the Richard Dawkins delusion because it's based on facts, not fantasy. You have to call it the Dawkins God reality check because there is no antonym for delusion.

http://www.synonym.com/antonym/delusion/



Kirata -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:52:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

You can't call it the Richard Dawkins delusion because it's based on facts, not fantasy. You have to call it the Dawkins God reality check because there is no antonym for delusion.

To assert as a fact that there is no God is delusional no matter what you call it. There is no way we can know such a thing, and plenty of room among our unanswered questions for all manner of unexpected surprises for everyone. The only real mistake we can make in the circumstances is to have a closed mind.

K.




EbonyWood -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 6:54:33 PM)

[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]



eihwaz -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 7:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Of course nobody can do that because there is no such thing as a man in the sky who created us and knows everything we do 24 hours a day.

You said,' science knows this?' And the answer is yes they do

There is not one link I can point to where they did an experiment and proved the nonexistence of God.

There is a meeting that I saw on the Internet however, where all of the major scientists involved in studying this matter were present and they found people's belief in God amusing.

<snip>

I would also like to add that they will not do such an 'experiment' because they are not interested in attracting attention from religious wing nuts...

Actually they won't do such an experiment because the question of the existence or nonexistence of God is not within the domain of the scientific enterprise, whatever the personal beliefs and opinions of individual scientists.



Sanity -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 7:56:27 PM)


Essentially, the universe is a grand perpetual motion machine working on many different levels, from subatomic to cosmic.

If I were wandering through a primordial forest and found something far less complicated than all of this lying in a meadow somewhere I would have to wonder, who or what made it...

Life itself and all the associated spiritual aspects of creation such as art and sexuality and music, and all the other wonders of nature are merely bonuses. I can't prove that a God or something God-like is responsible, but neither can you prove that there isn't.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

It took me a while to find your post but I was determined to do so because I think this is the first time I actually agree with you about something. I have actually for a long time believed this to be true myself but I didn't know it was called a rubber band theory. And I also didn't know it was a belief of ancient Hindus. I don't have a lot of time these days, who does, but if I can find the time I'm going to take a look at the beliefs of the ancient Hindus.

I'd like to say that I agree with you is a miracle and almost enough to believe in God but to do so would be dangerous because it would undermine significantly my efforts to drag people into the present and to stop believing 2000 year old nonsense.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I was taught that the big bang may occur over and over again according to the rubber band theory, a theory which, to me, ties in nicely with some of the beliefs of the ancient Hindus. According to the rubber band theory gravity pulls all matter together and compresses it to the point it explodes with a "big bang" after which the new universe expands until gravity once again overtakes the weakening force of the explosion and draws it all back together again, then it all endlessly repeats.




quote:


(in reply to Kirata)




rulemylife -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 8:10:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.



What I always find interesting in these arguments is that we are to believe there is a God with no evidence to support that, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary as not being definitive.





rulemylife -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 9:06:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

There was some debate about my usage of 'belief'...
When I state that I absolutely believe in evolution, I mean that I personally have not proved the theory of evolution - it is not fact, it is just a theory, there is always another option - but from what I've read, it makes the most sense. If I were to have faith in one theory in the creationism vs. evolutionism debate, I have faith in evolution. I've yet to see either of these viewpoints proved conclusively beyond a doubt, but I choose to believe in evolutionism. 'Faith' and 'belief' can be used out of the context of religion, and are necessary when logic (esp. quasi-quantum physics logic) proves only that an abstract cannot be proved, or disproved.



Creationism is not a theory in the scientific use of the word, it is a belief.

A theory in the scientific sense is not the same as you having a theory on who will win the Superbowl.

theory

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.


(Dictionary.com Unabridged)




MzMia -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 9:10:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Essentially, the universe is a grand perpetual motion machine working on many different levels, from subatomic to cosmic.

If I were wandering through a primordial forest and found something far less complicated than all of this lying in a meadow somewhere I would have to wonder, who or what made it...

Life itself and all the associated spiritual aspects of creation such as art and sexuality and music, and all the other wonders of nature are merely bonuses. I can't prove that a God or something God-like is responsible, but neither can you prove that there isn't.
quote:



As a Believer, I am going to remember this last line.
We agree on a few things here Sanity!
Merry Christmas!
It is amusing the time and energy many put into, attempting to prove, there is not a GOD.
I guess it gives them something to do.
[;)]



MzMia -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 9:18:32 PM)

[/quote]

Sir Issac Newton was of a mind that if he could better understand the natural world he could better understand the nature of God.  We accept his science, even if his motivation was religious.

Science and religion seek really to answer the same questions:  "What the heck is that and how does it relate to me?"  Both science and religion is flawed when it supposes it has all the answers and stops seeking.

I think the person who tells me to stop believing in the Spirit I call God and the person who tells me I have to believe in God in exactly the same way they do... are really the same person. 
[/quote]

What a wonderful post!
Bravo!
[;)] 



vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 9:20:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Essentially, the universe is a grand perpetual motion machine working on many different levels, from subatomic to cosmic.

If I were wandering through a primordial forest and found something far less complicated than all of this lying in a meadow somewhere I would have to wonder, who or what made it...


Dawkins deals quite thoroughly with this line of reasoning in his book The Blind Watchmaker. You may come upon a watch lying on the beach and from experience presume it is man-made because it has a function and all the parts were put together to serve that function. You are employing a teleological argument for the existence of god; eg you are arguing for "a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination of these — in nature." You can read more here. Imho your error is compounded in two ways: first you are arguing from a particular to a universal (from something lying in the meadow to the creation of the Universe) Secondly, you are arguing in a backward fashion starting with something complex, whereas Darwinian Evolution argues quite the opposite building from rather simple structures toward more complex combinations.

Your concept of a yo-yo universe expanding and contracting was not just a Hindu belief; it was seriously considered by some cosmic theorists in response to the Big Bang hypothesis. It did not seem to satisfy however. Perhaps because no one could figure out why it should all collapse back upon itself. An attractive alternative hypothesis is that there are multiverses or multiple universes and ours is just one born from the explosion of a black hole in a larger universe. Just speculation of course. At least I do not know of any data to support it. As I do not know of any data to support the existence of a supernatural cosmic force (god in whatever guise you care to describe it must be supernatural, I think)


quote:

Life itself and all the associated spiritual aspects of creation such as art and sexuality and music, and all the other wonders of nature are merely bonuses. I can't prove that a God or something God-like is responsible, but neither can you prove that there isn't.


The human mind has this magnificent ability to reach out beyound the limitations of its neurochemical connections and the certainty of its own death and decay to create and imagine beyond the brain. It is wonderful derviative of the evolutionary process but in a way it is the curse of being an animal with foreknowledge of its own mortality. To me it speaks of evolution not of god. But we each have to make our own choice and live our own ethical life accordingly. So, let's debate in a kindly fashion.

vincent



vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 9:37:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.



What I always find interesting in these arguments is that we are to believe there is a God with no evidence to support that, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary as not being definitive.




The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent



NewOCDaddy -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/29/2009 10:43:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

As soon as you can explain with certainty the creation of all from nothing... time and distance without beginning or end... then you may explain away the possibility of a source that many call God.



What I always find interesting in these arguments is that we are to believe there is a God with no evidence to support that, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary as not being definitive.




The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent


I would only quibble with the last thought. CERN is arguably a temple to mass/energy. A church where acolytes gather to try and learn more about their "god". I see no reason why physicists should be assumed to be totally objective and not protective of their own pet theories and biases. It is more difficult for them to blindly practice and proselytize their religion than it is for the AGW crowd, because climatology has not reached the level of a hard science, and physics can generally be experimented on in real time, vs climatology, where experiments will necessarily outlive the (honest) scientists who design them.



rulemylife -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 12:02:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

I would only quibble with the last thought. CERN is arguably a temple to mass/energy. A church where acolytes gather to try and learn more about their "god". I see no reason why physicists should be assumed to be totally objective and not protective of their own pet theories and biases. It is more difficult for them to blindly practice and proselytize their religion than it is for the AGW crowd, because climatology has not reached the level of a hard science, and physics can generally be experimented on in real time, vs climatology, where experiments will necessarily outlive the (honest) scientists who design them.


Then you obviously are thinking climatology focuses strictly on global warming, and believing the anti-global warming bloggers ridiculous attempts to portray it as something akin to social science.

Ask the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration if climatology is a hard science.


cli·ma·tol·o·gy

n.  The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Dictionary.com)


Coastal Climatology
Before discussing coastal climatology, you must first define the terms climate and climatology.

Climate has traditionally been defined as the average and variability of meteorological elements, such as precipitation amount or air temperature, at a specific location over a period of time.

More modern definitions of climate include extreme weather event data and statistics. (NOAA uses a 30-year average climate normal as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.)

Climatology is the scientific study of these averages, their physical causes, and how they vary over time and by region.






eyesopened -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 5:46:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent


There is also the need for humans to feel a sense of belonging.  So it is human to try to fit personal experiences into a larger body of similar experiences and out of such comes religion.  In itself, harmless.  I don't defend God, yes, I agree, It doesn't require defending.  I do however take some offense at being told that my personal experiences ARE delusions just because some non-believing zealot says so. 

The shear volume of what we do know about the universe in which we live is a speck of dust compared to what we do not know.  If Super-natural simply means above nature, then it can only be compared to nature as we currently know it.  So if nothing is Super-natural, just nature undisovered, it would make more sense to keep an open and curious mind.  Again, I refer to those earliest scientists who, thinking they could change lead into gold, provided us with detailed properties of the elements.  Does it really matter the motive for discovery as long as we continue to seeks answers?



vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 7:28:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent


There is also the need for humans to feel a sense of belonging.  So it is human to try to fit personal experiences into a larger body of similar experiences and out of such comes religion.  In itself, harmless.  I don't defend God, yes, I agree, It doesn't require defending.  I do however take some offense at being told that my personal experiences ARE delusions just because some non-believing zealot says so. 

The shear volume of what we do know about the universe in which we live is a speck of dust compared to what we do not know.  If Super-natural simply means above nature, then it can only be compared to nature as we currently know it.  So if nothing is Super-natural, just nature undisovered, it would make more sense to keep an open and curious mind.  Again, I refer to those earliest scientists who, thinking they could change lead into gold, provided us with detailed properties of the elements.  Does it really matter the motive for discovery as long as we continue to seeks answers?


Sorry you took offense at my comment. It was not aimed at you. I had in mind such preachers as Jim Jones and David Koresh and others who placed themselves in the line of authority through personal revelation. I would appreciate your courtesy to point out where i made any reference to your personal experiences and to their being delusional. I have never spoken to you or in reference to anything you said with other than respect.

vincent



Rule -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 7:43:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain
That' s why they believed the earth was flat and it was the center of the universe, which was wrong.

They did not believe it, they knew it to be so.



vincentML -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (11/30/2009 7:48:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.

What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?

And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.

vincent


I would only quibble with the last thought. CERN is arguably a temple to mass/energy. A church where acolytes gather to try and learn more about their "god". I see no reason why physicists should be assumed to be totally objective and not protective of their own pet theories and biases. It is more difficult for them to blindly practice and proselytize their religion than it is for the AGW crowd, because climatology has not reached the level of a hard science, and physics can generally be experimented on in real time, vs climatology, where experiments will necessarily outlive the (honest) scientists who design them.


Your point is well made and somewhat amusing. i imagine as well it is difficult for some scientists to avoid clothing themselves in the mantle of priesthood. Especially in the AGW crowd and some physicists also. Yes, bias is an issue. Hopefully, peer review will provide a balance, although I am somewhat concerned it will not in the face of the growth of Big (institutionalized and governmentalized) Science.

You may argue that CERN is a temple to mass/energy and it may appear so at this moment, but I am compelled to remind you that it is only an instrument which will be discarded one day when it has outlived its usefulness.

I would speculate any bowing or quivering, while possibly self-delusional, is also a drama put on for the purpose of gathering more money from sponsoring governments and whatever other donors. That sort of charade seems to be ever more necessary in the realm of Science and poses a cautionary problem, one which I think motivates many of the AGW folks now.

vincent



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875