Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

I'm always combing the internet for websites about clear thinking and skepticism, and sometimes I like to share what I find. The links below originate from sites skeptical about religion. I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble... wait, that's wrong, I do mean to burst others' bubbles!  :thumbsup:

The following link is very... interesting for those who tend to believe in an all-knowing, all powerful God (e.g. those that believe in a God from the Abrahamic religions):

Illogical Questions:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html)

It has often been said that non-theism is the default position if we are not raised in a religious environment. However, thinking logically is not our default setting, and we must be trained to think in this way, as are scientists during their doctorate studies. The following two links are excellent for learning how logic works. The second page takes a while to read but is second to none for refining one's thinking ability:

How to spot a bad argument:
http://www.paulstips.com/brainbox/pt/home.nsf/link/19062006-How-to-spot-a-bad-argument (http://www.paulstips.com/brainbox/pt/home.nsf/link/19062006-How-to-spot-a-bad-argument)

Logical Fallacies:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html)

You will find that religious people and/or creationists fall into these traps time and time again. Once you learn how to compose and analyse logical arguments it is very easy to disprove religious arguments using utterly watertight arguments. I welcome a tense, uncomfortable debate on these subjects because it helps to refine our beliefs. However, if you are religious (and even if you are not) please read at least the first link (How to spot a bad argument) before debating. I am eager to hear religious people defend their belief system. I'm ready with gloves on  :hungry:

Excellent website!

But I think that the one "how to spot a bad argument" is very liberal-biased =/.

I've never truly bought into all this stuff about "liberalism" and "conservatism", "left" and "right", "extremists" and "moderates" etc  etc. I think it's all emotionally loaded language and represents very broad generalisations. I've also noticed that these expressions are used more in the USA than here in the UK and Europe. Could you explain precisely what you mean when you say you think it is "liberally biased"?

In reality the whole point of logical analysis is to remove all the "chaff" or peripheral ideas/memes that might cause us to lean into one of the above categories. I for one find it enormously relieving not to feel lumped in with such groups. The website you mentioned uses certain examples to illustrate each fallacy, but as he says at the end it was not his intention to represent any particular viewpoint, whatever his private views.

On the other hand, my point is that cold, hard logic is more than enough to debunk religion and an omnipotent God. Whatever conclusion logic arrives at (whether "liberal-sounding" or otherwise) should be satisfactory to us, so long as it is based on sound premises.
Posted on: August 14, 2007, 04:23:45 pm

---

On the subject of washing away all the crud from our brains, have a look at the following video. Don't worry if you can't stand Richard Dawkins; this one is more about perception than evolution. It lasts quite a few minutes so make a cup of tea and put yer feet up:

The Universe is queerer than we suppose:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98 (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98)

I'd like to emphasise that by thinking scientifically, we don't need to consciously "align" ourselves with some political group or otherwise, "left", "liberal" or "luddite" or whatever. By testing our arguments logically the proper conclusions arrive naturally. Scientists do not simply believe what they want to believe. They only allow concepts to enter into their sphere of understanding after rigorous testing. It is the opposite way around for most people, and this gives rise to all kinds of opinions, ideas and superstitions. The following page illustrates this nicely. Scroll down further for the usual human "sphere":

Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation:
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/science/847_atheist-metaphysics-and-religious-equivocation_2007.html (http://www.blacksunjournal.com/science/847_atheist-metaphysics-and-religious-equivocation_2007.html)

Beautiful Doc  :D
Your arguments are very elegantly put, and thank you for using and integrating sources.
I had already bookmarked several of these articles, so it is nice to know other people do read them, and the others appear to be interesting reading as well :woot:

By the way, have you read any Jared Diamond (Guns, germs, and steel: that sort of stuff....?) or maybe E.O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life? They are some of my favorite writings, which I believe to be highly coherent and logical (but that is just an opinion :blush:).
-dom

I haven't read anything by those writers, but I'll keep an eye out for their stuff  :thumbsup: . I'm always on the look out for new information, mostly online to be honest. I've built up a gigantically huge number of bookmarks, so much so that I may need to write some of the URL's down just in case my PC ever dies. You never know...  :sweatdrop:

Great, the thread's gone dead!!  :rolleyes:

I was really hoping that a Christian would prove to me there was an Omnipotent God. I'm a partial argument nerd (like a Tellarite) so I was hoping for some real roll-yer-sleeves-up debate. Aah well. I'm not disappointed really.  :'(

Honestly I'm not disappointed. I'm not disa... disapp... pp... paaaaaaa!!!  :crybaby:

alrighty then, i will provide you with your fun.

God exists, because how could stuff come around that is so complex, and so highly unique, come about purely by chance.  it couldn't.  that is why god exists.  also, by proving he exists, he would negate the faith part of religion, and believing he exists without proof is part of faith, because proof makes fact, and fact is not faith, and without faith god is nothing, so if he proves he exists, he makes it fact, and fact defeats faith, and therefore god would make himself not exist.

Aah, you're referring to the argument from irreducible complexity. Creationists like to appeal to complexity, but introducing a Creator (especially an infinitely intelligent one) just makes the new system more complex than a universe without a God, failing "Occam's Razor" (the most scientific solution out of all choices is the simplest one). Additionally, we must then explain the origin of the much greater comlexity of God, merely relegating the question of "creation" to an earlier time. Note also that evolution does not proceed by chance, a common misconception, and a "Straw man" argument. See the TalkOrigins FAQ on evolution and chance for a brilliant explanation.


Your argument is sound, but your premise is not (laws of logic here). This depends on establishing the importance of faith by its own merits, which you have not done, so you need to explain the importance of faith and, before even that, properly define it for me so that you do not mean credulity (so much depends on definitions). If God revealed himself, it's likely 95% of people would join up to the new religion, and most religious conflict would cease immediately. I simply to mot see how "believing without proof" is a virtue. Read in my signature a quote by Thomas Jefferson about how God would, if he existed, reward thinking ability not blind acceptance. This is reasonable, is it not?


Actually, proof does not make fact. In science (in fact, in anything) you cannot ever positively prove anything, you can only disprove (Popper's falsification). If something cannot be falsified, it is not science, hence the current string theory debate because it might not be testable. On the other hand, facts are just observations, the raw data, and are meaningless without explanation. Facts occupy the lowest rung of the ladder of science, followed by laws, and then theories, right at the top. Hence the division of evolution into its "facts" and "theories" (see my earlier post in this thread).


Most certainly I agree with you. This also applies to Bertrand Russel's teapot orbiting Mars, and the flying spaghetti monster. They all require faith to exist. I cannot prove they exist, but I cannot either disprove they exist!! Creationists like to claim that because I cannot disprove God, it's like 50:50. In reality God is highly improbable, just like the microscopic celestial teapot.


Well, my refined definition of "facts" notwithstanding, I agree!! May the day come soon.


You make it sound like his very existence depends on "faith" (by your definition). If no one had faith in Dr. Lazarus, would he cease to exist? (I hope not  :sweatdrop:). Nope, I'd still be here at my PC, and above all I'd feel happier if people genuinely knew of my existence rather than just had "faith" in me.





 

Apologies, I told you to look at an earlier post in this thread when it's actually in the "Please Explain" thread started by ewm:

http://www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,3209.msg57740/topicseen,1/#new (http://www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,3209.msg57740/topicseen,1/#new)

Here I also address much about the "complexity" idea, based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

i jsut spooled together a bunch of arguments that i heard, and one from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (movie, but the book is also equally epic win)

Cool, the hitchhiker's guide is great. And there was me thinking you were deadly serious. You were joking, right??  :ermm:

Actually humour relies on logical fallacies, that's what appeals to the brain, especially a "Non-Sequitur".

That makes it all the more worrying that creationists still try these arguments, as though the "life is complex" thing has never been said before. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, all of the creationist arguments have been stated and refuted for a hundred years since Darwin, it's just that the fundamentalists claim that the arguments are new again.

The only way we can truly fix the epidemic of Lack of logic is to fix the school system because is people have the facts they will not try to answer them with "god".

Quite true ewm. It seems we've always slapped the "God" label onto anything we do not understand. THe trouble is that "what we don't understand" constantly changes. As our knowledge improves, God must get more and more powerful!!! Perhaps this is why God was foiled when the enemy came at him with iron weapons in the Old Testament. He wasn't powerful enough yet!  :lol:

There may be higher beings, aliens, timelords, robots and ferengi out there, but even though they're far more likely to exist than an omnipotent God, since we cannot (yet) prove or disprove their existence, the question is not a scientific one so we should forget about such things. We carefully allow new ideas into our circle of knowledge, not the other way around (like most people).

Your absolutely right ewm. Perhaps if people studied what little scientific knowledge we do have, they would see the sheer beauty and logic of it. There's more poetry in the secrets of the universe than in any form of mysticism or religion. Perhaps then they would be satisfied the beauty of our inner circle of knowledge instead of ignoring it and pursuing meaningless questions on the outside of what we do know and what we can know.

Here's the proof you seek:
God's Last Message To His Creation ... We Apologize For the Inconvenience

If you would like to see this message in person contact me... I sell green motor scooters on the way to the mountain of fire orbiting.,...
 :D :lol:

truly, but the hike was well worth it

Ah, as true believer! :woot:
Did you buy the post card?

hell yeah.
but i can't read it as i looked directly at the words with the telescopy-thingy  :crybaby:

Hehe...funny thing.

Let me challenge your logic:

What was first: God or Humankind?

I think before we start trying to proof the non existence of a god we should clarify this question. Fully neutral.

If we did have a creator, then obviously God came first. However, obviously I view things differently. From my perspective, it was man that came first, and they invented the idea of God which could absorb all the things they do not understand.

I don't think this is anything like a "chicken-egg" scenario. If anyone can prove God's existence, then obviously it will be clear that He came first, and created everything that followed. But all of this "time language" ("first", etc) brings up something interesting.

If you believe in a God, almighty or otherwise, He is is a spirit being, am I correct? Therefore He invented all physical things. Now Einstein showed, using General Relativity, that space and time are not separate entities, they are inextricably linked. This is so true that if you warp or bend space (the "gravity" effect), time itself slows down. So everyone will agree that, just as space is, time is a tangible, physical thing.

Therefore, God created space, and God also invented time, right? Good we're getting somewhere  :sweatdrop: . But, wait a minute! (pardon the pun). You can only use "time words" (first, before, when, now, happens, happened etc etc) if time exists. You cannot argue that God existed "before" the physical universe (before "time") existed, because there was no "before". This is like asking what is more "north" than the North Pole. It's a meaningless question.

All professional physicists accept that both space and time came (excuse me) into existence at the "instant" (excuse me) of the "Big Bang". A "first cause" is not necessary or even meaningful because both the word "first" and "cause" imply that God existed in a continuous stream of time heading infinitely into the past; it is clear from our discussion that He did not, and He could not. Note that "exist" is also a time word. I propose, therefore, that God does not exist.

Ok...and where is the answer? I guess we were really close! Go on and try it again.

Well based on the previous discussion, it is logically sound to conclude that God does not exist, so asking "who came first" is like asking, which came first, Russel's teapot orbiting mars, or mankind. The very question has no meaning. Nobody knows the answer. One thing I know for certain, is that the answer is not in an ancient book that promotes violence and intolerance, and is full of inconsistency.

Even in science, it is not (strictly) possible to "prove" anything. Only in mathematics can you have any kind of logical proof. You can only ever disprove something, so scientists try to falsify their theories. This is the great strength of science. So obviously, scientists do not attempt to tackle questions that can neither be proved or disproved. This is why scientists do not engage with the teapot idea, or Allah or Yahweh.

Before we ask "which came first, God or man?", we need to first prove that God exists, which is not (yet) possible. Your question assumes that God exists, but in science and logic you have to base your arguments on sound premises. Note that it is possible to construct a logically perfect, utterly watertight argument, but reach incorrect conclusions. This is because we must prove our premises true first.

Beautiful Doc :D

A man of my own heart (I think that's the cliche)

Thanks dom.  :innocent:

well, of course, the bible isn't supposed to be taken word for word as historically accurate.  the people of that time told their history orally, and they probably had to make it exciting because, i don't know about you, but when i read/listen to a boring story, i just tune it out.  so they made it exciting, so that more people would pay attention, and remember it, and pass it on, so that their history lives on, but it has to be slightly interpretated to get to. and i just totally lost my train of thought at the end of the previous setance.  :blush:

Lumpy, I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the bible is looked at as the ultimate guide with all the answers, not just a historical/cultural lesson. When people take it literally, or even try to interpret it as being a text describing a deity, they loose site of the fact that it is written by people and take it as reality.

crap, you mean i just caused myself and my side (christians + other believers)  to lose!?   :blink:

I appreciate this point, and much harm has come from fundies taking the bible literally. It's quite obvious that much of the Old Testament is oral tradition, that's exemplified by the repetition and redundancy (not to mention obvious characteristics of Mesopotamian militarism). Trouble, is, 1Timothy3:16 says that the whole bible is "inspired and beneficial". Believe me, some people hang onto these words for dear life. The christian, New Testament interpretation is somewhat different, so those who do not follow 2Tim3:16 are more like Jews than proper christians.

One thing, though. You say that the bible "isn't supposed" to be taken literally. I'm curious about who exactly decided that, or from what authority you get that from. It seems to me that there are a number of different ways to "interpret how we're supposed to interpret" the bible etc etc and circular reasoning such as that. But that's the nature of the scriptures, watery and open to dozens of interpretation. I know, I studied them for years.

Curiously, many also use 2Tim3:16 to validate the inspiration of the bible, but that too is circular reasoning, using the bible to prove the bible. It's a well known logical fallacy, because the premise of the argument is also the conclusion (i.e. you assume the bible is inpired in order to prove that it is inspired.

What is more, if in fact we conclude that not all of the bible is to be taken literally, then how do we decide which bits are literal, and which bits are metaphorical or symbolic? Much harm has been done and much bickering occured because christian groups cannot agree. It seems to me that it is entirely arbitrary. A classic example is the book of Daniel, supposedly book predicting modern political developments, using nebulous wording such as "the beast with iron jaws" or the "ships of kittim". Basically, it's so open to manipulation that you can fit any historical event to it; in fact i've read about half a dozen "explanations of Daniel" in the past year online. This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the bible is concerned.

The more you examine the bible with an objective eye, the lower its value gets. Eventually, you end up in the situation where you're a "devout christian" who views his holy book as little more than a biased history book, or even just a collection of stories. Then, you have to ask yourself, "why then am I a christian". Many say, "I just believe in christ, he's my saviour", so on and so forth. Note that christ said that not one word of the law (the mosaic law) can be invalidated. You can't just cherry pick which bits you like and which bits you don't. A person of integrity will see what's at stake when he decided to join a religion and judge accordingly. Often it requires concessions to irrational thinking to be a devout christian. The only other option is tokenism.

Laz, being the thinker you are, I'm sure you've come to the realization of the amazing complexity of life, and the difference from 'primordial goo' and a functional organism.

With this in mind, and in addition to the scientific 'hole in one' that allows out planet to support life (I admit that the term 'hole in one' is an incredible understatement, and I would doubtlessly sooner place a bet on someone acing an entire golf course twice than I would on a second planet such as ours), how would you explain the process through which life was created?

There's no doubt that the amazing complexity of life demands an explanation of some sort of explanation, and I'm often awestruck when studying molecular biology and other related subjects. The only trouble is that by throwing an infintely intelligent God into the cake mixture, you vastly increase the complexity of the universe. If the complexity of life requires an explanation, then why does not the much greater complexity of God require one?

Actually, I'm not too sure about the primordial goo argument either. The complexity or functionality of a collection of molecules has nothing to do with its physical texture. Ultimately it is chemistry that determines whether or not we can achieve self-replicating molecules or not, so we must look at chemical reactions, and ask whether a simple reaction could become more complex without outside assistance. I think it is at least possible, and depends more on environmental conditions than anything else.

Life on our planet could be a freak occurrence, and to me this would make sense, since the universe seems vastly more well suited to support black holes, neutrinos and other cosmological phenomena than life. Why would God have such a huge fondness for supersized singularities, especially considering the danger they put our solar system in when they get too close? In an Earthly context, God seems more fond of beetles and bacteria than humans. The mere existence of predators, pathogens and parasites gives me great cause to question the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving creator.

The probability of life having started here may be very small, but then again so is the chance of all the molecules in my bedroom gathering in one corner. There are so many other permutations that in practice it never happens, but ask any statistical physicist and they will tell you that the possibility is there. One thing we have learned from statistical mechanics is that probability is determined by statistics, not the other way around. And if we then have selection pressure as per Darwin, then complexity can increase. Note that no evolutionist says that life came about by chance, but its formation is governed by non-random processes. There is a fantastic FAQ on talkorigins.org that explains this point much better than I can.

Even so, why would God limit life to prokaryotes for literally tens of billions of years? They are mindless and pointless, and existed for far too long to serve any ecological purpose. The rapid appearance of intelligent life in the last few million years was sudden and amazing. We shouldn't rule out outside intervention, but neither should we take it as the "default position". The default position in scientific investigation is always the simpler scenario, i.e. the one without a more complex creator. That does not mean that a creator (or creators?) does not exist, but as an empiricist, you only accept an idea after proof. You do not accept an idea, and then search for proof.

All things said, it is considerably more likely that finite gods exist than an infinite God. The idea of an infinite God may even be logically absurd (e.g. can God create a rock he cannot lift, or a concept he cannot understand?). Any respectable scientist would accept the evidence when presented with it, but we shouldn't proceed in the wrong direction. We may even never be capable of obtaining such proof. Unfortunately from your perspective, the age-old "argument from irreducable complexity" doesn't hold for me. And remember, that if you choose to believe the Genesis creation account, you must also now believe in subsequent rapid evoluition following the sin in eden. Such evolution is on a scale vastly greater than anything an evoltionist would claim.

You may find it interesting that I used to be a staunch creationist and fundamental chrsitian. I had an excellent knowledge of the bible and, unfortunately, I was skilled at convincing others that creation was correct using many classic creationist arguments. The complexity one is well known, and I have since studied creationism and evolution in a lot of detail. It's going to be very difficult for anyone to convince me that there is a God after I prayed to him for answers day in, day out. BUt everyone is more than welcome to try though, I don't mind at all. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you misunderstand me.  I made no mention of "God" or "creation", it was a simple question on the origin of life as you perceive it.  Instead, this is rendered meaningless by the insertion of assumptions having to do with a nonscientific and uncontrollable factor.


I believe that you once again misunderstand.  The factor which I struck at (there was no argument, either present or implied) has nothing to do with the texture of the object.  The phrase 'primordial goo' was simply being used as a slightly derogatory catch-all in reference to the purported stage of 'life' in which globs of proteins existed and formed a mass somewhat resembling future biological material.

I also believe that your use of 'self-replicating molecules' was a mistake.  Molecules do not in fact replicate, as that would imply creation of new matter which goes against the first law of thermodynamics, if I'm not mistaken.


I could form a logical rebuttal, but that would delve into theology and metaphysics, a place to which I have pointedly avoided introducing to this purely scientific, albeit hypothetical, question.


A hypothetical point: with human intervention, the chance of all molecules moving in a single corner (how do you define this corner?) of your room becomes far more likely that it would be random chance...


I will not try to judge the intentions of a hypothetical all-knowing being, as that would be worse than theology or metaphysics.  It would be an exercise in futility.  Much of what you say is true.  Perhaps even many darwinists can learn from it, as they seem to have it quite backwards.


You remind me of another friend of mine.  However, all this is, unfortunately, irrelevant to the initial question posed.

I apologise if I've misunderstood anything you've put forward. It can be difficult to see what another person means on the internet, so I'm sorry for that. However, please allow me to address a few points that relate to the discussion.


I'm certainly not a molecular biologist, but I am a trained chemist, and there's nothing in my book that forbids a molecule from self-replicating, and in fact it happens all the time in our cells. When a DNA molecules duplicates, the amount of material effectively doubles in size, but this material does not come from nowhere, it principally comes from RNA molecules present elsewhere in the cell. I believe that what you were actually referring to was the simple law of conservation of mass, which, in reality, applies only to the whole universe. The mass of the universe is constant, but a chemical reaction vessel may increase in mass if that mass is available and suitable for reactivity. The copying of DNA is a chemical reaction, albeit a highly complex one.

The first law of thermodynamics says that the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant. The isolated system may be the universe, or a shut off reaction vessel such as a Thermos flask. I do not believe that this is what you meant, so it has no bearing on the discussion.


You say this in response to God's seeming fondness for non-human phenomena (and phenomena which may harm us). I agree that some aspects of God (such as the "creation of time" etc) can verge on the metaphysical if taken far enough, but I do not believe that is the case here. The entities I referred to are real, physical, observable things. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the universe would be a different place if a God existed, and the difference would be a scientific one. This is as close as we can get to disproving God. The universe has all the hallmarks of an indifferent environment, hence parasites, tsunamis and babies being crushed to death become the brakes on some guys car fails and he mounts a pavement. I know it's hard to accept, but it really seems that we got where we are without outside assistance.


Of course, you're quite right, we can force the molecules into one corner, but what if the universe only consisted of molecules and a bedroom to house them? Such a situation is similar to at the start of the universe. I certainly did not exist to push molecules into an ordered system back then, and neither did a God. So, faced woth no other option, I ask the question about how likely it is that they could accumulate in one corner.

It can help here to have an understanding of statistical mechanics. We can define the corner any way we like, because (believe it or not) every possible combination of molecular distributions has the same probability. In fact, it is most helpful to define the corner as infinitely small, i.e. all the molecules at the same location (not possible due to intermolecular forces considerations, but a useful theoretical device). This configuration is just as likely as all the others. The only snag is that all of the other combinations (mostly, molecules distributed about the room) greatly outnumber this one. They are not more worthy, just more numerous. Diffusion of a gas happens because of this. In other words, the apprarently greatly ordered corner system is very possible and worthy. A probability mathematician will tell you that, given enough time, the molecules will accumulate in the corner.

So, to recap, you said that the gas is not likely to accumulate due to random-chance. However, the possible outcomes (accumulation, dispersal etc etc), and the apparent "randomness" that arises, is the result of statistics, not the other way around. This defies intuition but is the basis of modern statistical techniques in chemistry (note: even in molecular biology, where the famous statisical method, the Monte Carlo methos, is employed frequently to try to understand how a bunch of comlex molecules will behave). I advise reading up on the subject, e.g. in Atkins' Physical Chemistry, great book!

Obviously the seemingly ordered system is more likely with an outside "push", but my point is that, faced with no other choice, it is still possible mathematically. And if indeed (as it seems) no God existed, then this is the only choice we have, and it is still satisfactory.


I'm not sure my Christian background is entirely irrelevant. If I could come to a realisation of reality (and believe me, I was hellbent on creationism) then anybody can. Also, it illustrates that, as a past creationist, I once used the very arguments you are using with me. Nobody has said anything to me so far that I haven't heard before. Scientists refute these all the time, but in reality not everybody will listen, and on top of that, many distrust science.

You say that "molecules do not in fact replicate", which I find deeply worrying. You wouldn't be alive if DNA molecules inside you were not constantly unzipping, zipping and doubling up all the time. There are some great biology books out there that will show this to you. The ony proper description is "replication", and even some types of RNA molecules are called "transcription" RNA and "messeneger" RNA, each with a task that you might deem complex. Forgive me for saying, and I mean no insult, but you seem to be confused about some basic scientific principles, ranging from cell biology to the laws of thermodynamics and even elementary probability theory. Would you agree that, if we want to even try to explain how life got here, we must first study the sciences carfully and critically? It's better to attack a problem from a position of strength. If I've yet again misunderstood anything you've said, I apologise.

Crud, whenever I go on this thread Red makes a point, which I want to respond to.... and then I realize that the Doc has already stated what I wanted to say (albeit, in probably much more coherent phrasing).  :lol:

Oh well, the early bird gets the.... uh... I really gotta stop with the cliches. :ermm:

Sorry dude, you've gotta be really quick to get in there  :sweatdrop: .

And by the way, I love your little cliches  ^-^

i've been thinking.

when people get hungry, they eat food.  we know that food will make us not hungry, because we strive for it when we are hungry,   so therefore, hunger proves the existence of food, because if we were not hungry, we would not need food, and not know what it was.  the same can be said of religion.  Our own hunger, then- for the Transcendence, the Miracles, the Wonder, the Awe,- is proof of the existence of a food that can fulfill those needs for the Transcendence, the Miraculous, the Awe-Inspiring, the Mysterious, the Divine, and immortal verse of Supernature to which we are attached.  Our religious impulses, our hungers for food unseen, which many of us have tasted nevertheless, are not mere mindless, unscientific stupidity. Since the impulses are there, there must be some substance to fulfill those needs.

Not necessarily lumpybob. What you fail to take into consideration is the fact that perhaps humans seek knowledge. You are being too specific in your claim: for example, to use your analogy, it would be as if you had stated "we know that bananas will make us not hungry... hunger proves the existence of bananas". Spirtuality and religion are just one aspect of the desire to "find knowledge". We can prove that knowledge and hunger exists, but you cannot prove that a quakralkrj fruit exists. Do you get my drift? I'm a bit tired, but I'll return tomorrow to finish this train of thought. CHoo CHooo! Chuga Chuga Ch... :blush:
ps-
With your idea you could just as easily say that "our scientific impulese, our hunger for food unseen..." thus proving the "un-existence" of gods because since many of us seek out unadulterated knowledge about the natural world, gods must therefore not exist. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Anywho... *yawn* to bed I must go (insect hunting tomorrow).

-Dom signing out!

buggers, and i thought it out so well too,

at least i thought i did...

I have to (predictably) agree with Dom. What we percieve as a hunger for spirituality and the majesty and greatness of God is possibly our insatiable desire for understanding and knowledge, disguised as something else. Religion and related philosophies were the mainstay of intellectuals thousands of years ago, but religion is becoming less relevant each time we advance in knowledge. Every time we have a new Copernican-style revolution, for example, it seems more and more absurd that any God would view us as special, seeing as we're like specs of dust on a minute rock orbiting an average star in an insignificant coner of the galaxy, in an average part of our local cluster, in an unremarkable locale of our local supercluster (Virgo).

The development of technology tend to lead to more elegant, beautiful and powerful laws and physical devices. The very comfort and power that we try to seek in God is edging ever closer. If you think this is too optimistic, consider that in the near future, humankind will either destroy itself or reach utopia. And I don't mean global warming/nuclear holocaust and heaven, respectively. Allow me to explain if I may.

I guess you could call me a Singularistist, but without the cherry on top. What I mean is, I am quite sure  that Ray Kurzweil's accelerating technology is spot on, and undeniable, but I don't know where it's heading. The data are undeniable; scientific developments are inproving at a (double) exponential rate. The prime example is Moore's law (computing power doubles every 2 years/18 months/12 months constantly revised), but there are many others (internet bandwith, proliferation of information, genome analysis, world average GDP, patents filed etc etc). By this quite sound reasoning, we see more technology advancement in the first 20 years of a century than the previous 100 years.

If you can't believe this, consider that it alrealy happened at the beginning of the 20th century, and is happening again. Think about it. Life has existed for billions plus millions of years (unless you are a "Young Earth" creationist; we won't even go there). Humans took thousands of years to learn to make iron tools instead of copper ones (creationists will not deny this). Then, the fall of Rome notwithstanding, humans took a few centruries (roughly three) to get from the renaissance to the start of the industrial revolution, which took about a century and a half. Then we had the 20th century in which rapid change on a similar scale occurred over many decades. What I am proposing now is that the scale of similar progression is now compressed down to one or two decades or maybe even less. This is the philosophy of accelerating change.

The proponents of the Singularity suggest that we are not far off human-level AI, in which case eveything goes skewiff because the AIs can carry on our research with the speed and efficiency of a computer. At this pint we can make no further predictions, like past the event horizon of a black hole in physics (hence "singularity"). I believe that this is reasonable and arguable. Either way, the advancement of science is going to radically alter society within our own lifetimes, for much much better or for much much worse.

Faced with such developments, I now suggest that the reason that fundamental christianity (as well as literalist Islamists I might add) are kicking against the world because they feel under threat. This is not without precedent, and indeed Galileo was put nder house arrest for saying that the Earth goes round the Sun. Every major scientific deicovery in history has been at odds woth the church (to me this is highly suspicious, even without the myriad logical reasons why a kind powerful God cannot exist).

Not only that, but religious people, in their march towards armageddon or rapture, risk missing out on the most beautiful, powerful and socially dynamic time ever encountered, all because they "feel" that a God must be there. Religious people are so interested in the unprovable and irrational unknown that they've already missed out on the much greater beauty and poetry in science. It springs to mind that somethimes by looking to the stars we forget the flowers at our feet. Except, in my analogy, the stars actually form part of what I am referring to when I talk about awe anf wonder of science.

I'll admit it: I'd love (more thananything) to believe in an all-powerful, all-loving God, and in fact I did in the recent past, until I couldn't ignore the inconsistencies any longer. God won't protect you if your house is on fire, or if you lose your job, or if you encounter flooding, or get assaulted. Amazingly though, humans will often do all these things. If you had a fire resistant suit on, and heard screams from children next door due to fire, would you sit back and say, "hey, they'll be fine if they have faith in me that one day they'll be rewarded". Hell no! (pardon the pun). You'd be straight in there to save them. This is why all we can rely on are fellow humans. Some are downright nasty, but most people are considerate and reasonably thoughtful.

And, with the incredible advancement of technology, we may actually end up creating our own Gods. This is not as crazy as it sounds. Think about it: how do you define a God? It's only about the power to effect change. If you had the power to eliminate poverty, would you do it? God does nothing. The power you speak of is possible via the singularity of genetics, AI ad nanotechnology, and even if no such cherry on top happens, the remarkable advances will give humans more power to help others or to destroy. I hope it is the former, and seeing as humans are all we have, I choose to put my trust in them. If a god (or gods?) present themselves in the future, fine. But for the moment, we should not believe something just because it is comforting, but we should believe something because it has basis in reality. With a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, we may find we et on just fine (better in other words) without God.

What your forgeting, is that all Science is just Understanding our Universe. Its all here, we just finally 'Discovered' how to make use of it. So, in otherwords, it was Planned. Someone else Planned this all to happen, set us up to occomplish this. That mabey one day, we could reach understanding it, so we can Enjoy the Adventure of Exploring it, and making it our Home.

We are often put in Positions to take Credit for things we Discover, without realizing we didn't Create what we've discoved: We just figured something out! Our Eltitlement is a Fruadulent Emotion, that is the Sole Beginnings of Socialism, Arogance, and Obsesion with ourselfs. That is what puts us on a Path to Distroying ourselves. If we understand what IS realy going on, the Big Picture, it becomes less about our Logical Thinking, and more about Reality (More than just one persons Thinking).

When you Experience different things, in Different places, you can Contruct a Picture from the Puzzle Peices you've collected, and find that None of the Peices alone cant say much, until they are put together to make one Picture: The Truth.

Who says "we" will ever discover everything? This seems incredibly naive, pardon my bluntness. Plus as the doc stated, what makes us so special? I am a little confused by your argument in the second paragraph... could you perhaps dumb it down for me?

Lastly, who is to say we have the right puzzle pieces... if everything you said is true, then all science would be "meant for" would be for discovering this intelligence which planned for us to discover it. This is unproveable and complicates matters to the extreme. Are you trying to say that this divine power planned for us to discover scientific things in order to divine the nature of this all-powerful being? This seems to contradict itself, because it would render bunk much of science if the laws of physics and nature in general could be so altered as to create such a being.... do you understand what straws I am clumsily trying to grasp at?
-dom

I've heard many times before accusations by creationists of "arrogance" or even "taking credit". Each accusation is without merit. Of course, if you assume these things to be true, then you can launch forth with a long lasting argument about how "shameful" it is not to believe in a God, but therein lies the absurdity of not verifying your premises before you proceed (if you read earlier posts, you will see that this is very common from creationists). I won't address the argument that "we've figured out how to make use of the Earth, so i was all planned", because that's plainly ridiculous, and Dom refuted that. I will address these dodgy little wordings though.

It's not arrogant to conclude that humans are the most intelligent species that exists, if this fits with the best of the evidence (read earlier posts if you want to see how blatently different the universe would be with a God). Of course, scientists do not rule ot "higher beings", but we do not assume their existence by default (I am getting tired of saying that, but it must be said). If a guy said that he talks to Elvis's ghost, or the flying spaghetti monster, each night, we would askhim to prove it. Ultimately, the burdon of proof rests with the person making the claim; it is not the job of the detractors to disprove, even though they usually do a much better job at it. Prove to me first that God exists, then we'll talk.

Actually, it's far more arrogant of the human race to think that a God is so interested in us personally. At one time the religious establishment even believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe (surprise surprise,  it was science that came against this position). What is more, thousands of children die of starvation each day. Why should God answer your prayers? This is the height of self-indulgence, especially when people go on to claim that they got a job etc due to God's good will. It's even more sickening when religious people claim that floods are God's punishment, things like that.

You also say that science takes the credit for things we discover. Wrong again. We may name things after people, but this aids memory and has more to do with avoiding mass confusion than anything else. Not the smoking gun you were looking for. The more scientists discover (and we're discovering an awful lot these days), the more we realise how little we know in relation to the whole (and the whole may be infinite in size; it's certainly going that way). Even Newton, centuries ago, said that he stood on the shoulders of geniuses. Einstein kept photos of famous physicists in his office to remind him who he was indebted to. Science, normally, encourages humility, and gives us a sense of how small we are (not so with the church in history and indeed the present, we're made in God's image, no less!!). ANd finally, scientists must work together nowadays. The simple problems have been solved, and science is now adolescent, so scientists must work in large teams or even international collaborations. There's no room these days for anyone taking credit; we're al in this together.

You'll have to look elsehwere to find the arrogance and self indulgance you are looking for. I encountered more kind, self-sacrificing people when at university studying chemistry than I did when I was a chrisitian. The local Elders were often haughty, arrogant and self-serving. I found my religion to be divisive and depressing. A common claim by religious people is that atheism inspired hatred via socialism due to HItler and Stalin. Well, you can count Hitler out because he firmly believed in God and this inspired his actions (there are many websites about this). Stalin may look like an unfortunate exception, but the very fact that one man can control others in a fascist style shows that it was never a truly humanist, secularist society. If there's one thing we know about the atheist, humanist people, it's that they cannot have their thinking controlled, and will not give allegiance to any hegemony. Stalin, clearly, had his own agenda. These are tired, old arguments, all over the net.

Most of the prison inmates in the US are religious, and were not converted inside. Religion has caused the deaths of countless people, far more than Marxist socialism. In past, recent centures you could expect 30% of men to die through war and conflict. In the 20th century it was just 1%. Of course, it seemed worse due to a hugely bigger population, and due to media reporting. Similarly, one report showed that there were 40% fewer wars on Earth in the past decade, but due to our pessimistic and efficient media, we all see nothing but doom and gloom. Things are improving (believe it or not), and we don't have religion to thank for that. It's all a result of a knowledge based global economy where one nation dare not go to war with another or they risk economic collapse. You may find that as the middle-east's GDP increases they will avoid conflict more and more (the USSR is not a good examole because the US found their GDP was much smaller than previously thought, and the global economy was less joined up even 5 years ago never mind 20).

We could go on forever asking questions such as, "if the uncovering of science is due to a divine plan, then where did the Indonesian tsunami fit into that plan? Hurricane Katrina?". Not to mention suffering and death of any form, in which humans have been our only hope so far. If any God is there (and a finite or partially bad God is much more likely), then he is either disinterested, or utterly powerless. It is tempting to see design or purpose in the development of life and tehcnology, but no such purpose exists with regards to viruses, parasites, predators (except contadictory or competitve purposes) or earquakes and volcanic eruptions. A cold, hard, honest look at the universe reveals it to be just as the evolutionists have been saying all along: built on the blood of competition, and greatly more in favour of beetles, bacteria and cockroaches than people (not to mention black holes). We see purpose where non exists sometimes, and this is comforting, but dangerous. I beleived it myself once. But, in the name of self-integrity, I will never believe it again, unless I receive hard evidence, and rigorous proof.

What he said :D

It disturbs me greatly that you ignore the original question posed, and instead focus on picking my statement apart grammatically.  I apologize that my knowledge of chemistry is not as vast as yours, and a bit rusty on top of that.  Yet you also waste time begging, it seems, for an argument on God, taking my comments out of place and context whenever possible.  God is not a factor in my question.  he does not have to be.  It seems you are the one inserting religion into science.

I did not ask for an evaluation of God.  I asked a simple question on the origin of life as you understand it.  I will not force you to answer, but dodging the question seems quite odd.

I think he just got carried away with the fact that most of the other questions being asked or arguments made were about god/deities; so he assumed... I don't know why I am answering *slaps forehead*

*walk away, just walk... away.... :sweatdrop:*
Crud, I just dug my grave didn't I

And stepped in it.

May I remind you that such an assumption is... illogical? 

And I clarified my intentions in the previous post, to boot!

(Tentitively... did you realize I was talking about the Doc?....) No need for harshness now  :D

Redshirt, I know full well that you were asking what may take was on the origin of life. It should have been evident that I do not know exactly how life got here, so my best strategy is to speculate on whether it is possible. I thought that you were implying that an outside force must have been responsible. Otherwise, why ask me the question? If you didn't want an "evaluation of God", what did you want? Besides, I cannot (and will not) "evaluate" something which does not exist. You're bending the English language here.

I'm not the oracle of wisdom on the origins of life. I'm just as much in the dark as the everyone else. Logic is not the only way to view the universe, but at the moment it is the best way, so all I can do is speculate. I take some offense to the insinuation that I'm "injecting religion into science". Just where do you get that idea from!!!  :lol: I oppose religion, with the greatest severity. If you cannot see this, then something troubling has occurred.

Also, I'd use some caution when making the "out of context" claim. I did not strip down your words to such an extent that your sentences lose meaning. I agree that context is important, but it is not that important. I've debated with christians and muslims many times, and the "cry to context" is one of their favourite refrains. Do not fall into the same trap as they have. The christians and muslims have used context to excuse all sorts of murderous verses. Not only that, but they ignore context at the times that it actually does matter! You'll only induce laughter from me if you claim I quoted you out of context. If you are going to type something using your computer, you must be prepared to defend it, and you must also be prepared to have your sentences chopped into pieces for examination. Maybe you could provide some examples of where I have "misinterpreted" your words.

You also seem to hint that I am lauding my subject specialisation over you. I would never do such a thing, and besides I principally believe that knowledge is to be shared and explained, not used to act as a superior. I mentioned my background to show you why perhaps I say some things that sound technical, and to illustrate that it is useful (if not imperative) to have scientific knowledge before you even begin to ask where we came from.

Finally, perhaps you could look right back to the beginning of the topic, where I told all what my intention was. I was hoping that someone woud seriously try to provide some evidence that there is a God, and refute the information in the links I provided. Of course, this does not mean I don't want to discuss other things, but when you asked for my take on how life got here, what was I to think? I obviously thought you were going ahead with the irreducible complexity charge, attempting to "prove" there's a God. I'm still fascinated to know exactly where you stand on the matter. Instead of asking a vague quaetion which nobody has the knowhow to answer, perhaps you could clarify your position for me.

As to my position, you must realise that I cannot prove that GOd does not exist, but I can illustrate that it's ludicrous to suggest it. How did life come from lifeless molecules? Who knows? I certainly don't. Dom doesn't. Richard Dawkins doesn't. So, why are you asking me?     

Perhaps I ask simply to discover if you should have more insight as one such as I?  Surely theories must exist, I was simply asking your opinion on such.  Or, indeed, your own ideas, if applicable.

I find this last part humorous as it plays into a point in my previous post stating that you were busier criticizing me grammatically rather than answer a straightforward, although admittedly complex, question.

And indeed, I can think of many other things I want more than an evaluation of God offhand, and I can probably find some in the original question as well.



I mean not that you fuse the two into one, but rather that you compare the two side by side.  Perhaps my choice of wording was not the most apt for the situation.  If you construed anything else from the phrase I apologize sincerely

And I do indeed see that you oppose religion most sincerely, and that troubles me, as I can name very few I have met that can maintain both that claim and an open mind.  Looking at this from this perspective, maybe I was wrong.  It is possible that they may indeed be compared.

You see, it is a matter of where one's trust is placed.  You, for example, choose to trust that someday science will explain the universe.  You yourself have stated that as of now, it has most certainly not.  You even admit that it is not the only way to view the universe.  Why, may I ask, are you so opposed to mine?  What if there are some things that science, as we understand it, cannot explain?

Indeed, it deeply troubles me that you seem so deeply opposed to religion in general.  However, my perception of your point of view may very well be incorrect.  As such, I would be deeply interested in learning more of your perspective.  In my experience, I have seen many discussions such as these turn into flame wars and worse, stoked on by both sides.  Due to this, I would rather take part in such a discourse in a closed forum, such as by pms or email.


I apologize once again, this time form happening to sound like an argument you have a particular stigma against.  I used context in this case as an assumption.  It was the only possibility I could imagine for you to reply such a direct question in such an off-the-wall manner.  I apologize again if you did indeed do that on purpose.


I accuse you of nothing, I only acknowledge that my own chemistry knowledge is more limited than I would like, and I simply ask for you not to eat be alive if I say something that doesn't make sense.


I admit that I have not followed this topic from the beginning, as I believe that I was in Wisconsin at the time.

And you know full well that it was a perfectly valid question.  Do you honestly believe I expected you to have the answer?  No!  However, I expected you to have ideas.  Was I wrong?

Why do you suppose I should clarify the answer when you have already made it more than clear that my knowledge is insignificant and my presentation is lackluster?  This seems like utter foolishness to me.  How do you suppose I should raise an arguement you can't knock down, regardless of its truthfulness?


Science has explained many things.  Let it be known to you that I in no way eschew science or what it represents.  However, as you have pointed out, science has us no closer to answer to what is quite possibly the greatest (or at least most relevant) question of them all.

That, my friend, is why I don't put all my trust in science.  I put my faith in a promise.  Is it true?  We shall see.

(ps, I look forward to receiving your email/pm)

(additional note, if you have questions/comments/problems/hate mail, don't hesitate to contact me)

Hi Redshirt. Can I begin by saying that, despite what you say, I try not to criticise anyone's actual grammar, as that would be unkind, as we all have varying strengths. I assume you mean the structure of your sentences. I agree with several of the things you say, as I have a clearer (but still unclearish) idea of your view, so I will only address points I disagree with.


Fair enough here, but I still wouldn't say that I compare science and religion side by side. In my view they are unworthy of comparison. Science is not (believe it or not) our understanding of the universe, but a methodology for understanding it. Religion does not even have a methodology, except perhaps allowing the Bible to interpret itself, which is circular reasoning. The main reason I harp on about religion so much is because it has been thrust into the limelight recently, and because I believe it is a threat to reason and dangerous. Frankly, I'm perplexed about how something without substance has become so widespread, but I guess the reasons are historical.


I don't actually strictly believe that science will one day explain the universe, but it may one day happen. Yes, I said that science is not the only way to view the universe, but my point was that it is by far the best way. It is possible that in a few centuries it will be supplanted by a better way. One thing I know for certain: spirituality and mysticism are not good methods by which to explain the universe. I'd rather have no answers than all the wrong ones. Also, I cannot possibly be opposed to your view of the universe because I'm not sure what your view is. If you have the handle on the meaning of life, please, seriously, let me know right away.

Sure, science is a long way off, but at least it's moving in the right directiong, using a genuine epirical approach which for now is an excellent way to find real answers. Are there some things that science cannot explain? Your question makes science sound like a person in a white lab coat. Science is not any sort of personification, but a method of doing things. There is no reason to believe that the method fails for incredibly complex problems, and it has never failed even in very weird quantum theories which defy common sense. We have to learn to walk before we can run, so addressing questions of the unknown must be limited to the next rung on the ladder, not twleve steps up.


In all honesty most of my "ideas" on how complexity might have arisen out of simple molecules are in another thread (called Please Explain I think), so I thought it best not to repeat them here. I engage this idea mainly from a physics and entropy perspective. You might find it interesting to have a read, and it falls better into my subject area than a biological approach.


I don't think your knowledge is insufficent, but, perhaps, I did not understand your presentation. I'm not usually misunderstood in a post because I go to great pains to express myself clearly (that's why my posts can be annoyingly long). It's easy to be misunderstood online so I do lots of italics, stuff like that. But I would never attack someone for their use of English, as that would be unfair. I agree that it is possible to use intelligence to knoeck down other's arguments, but I can only ask you to trust me that I would never do that. I will always nod my head to hard proof and rigorous, watertight arguments. If I knock down arguments easily, it is because the arguments are weak, not because I am strong. The truth always stands up to test.


Science can never get close at all to the reality of an infinite God (by definition). However, it can get closer to finite truths, and each time we understand our place in cosmology we are uncovering more of the truth of our existence. Is this in a theological setting? I honestly don't know. But we should not assume by default that a being exists. I know that you say you choose to believe a promise, but I cannot do that unless I trust the source of that promise. I used to trust the bible, until I read it in detail. Even if that God exists, I do not want to worship him. Perhaps one day a benevolent God will reveal himself, in which case I will wholehearted;y put my trust in his promise. I will pm you my e-mail address shortly, and you are more than welcome to use it (it's also my IM address).