Logical Thinking

posted on August 19th, 2007, 2:23 pm

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

posted on August 20th, 2007, 5:41 am

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

posted on August 20th, 2007, 7:59 am

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.

posted on August 20th, 2007, 1:01 pm

What was first: God or Humankind?

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  . 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.

posted on August 20th, 2007, 1:10 pm

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

posted on August 20th, 2007, 1:26 pm

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.

posted on August 20th, 2007, 3:14 pm

Beautiful Doc

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

posted on August 20th, 2007, 3:37 pm

Thanks dom. 

posted on August 20th, 2007, 11:15 pm

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. 

posted on August 20th, 2007, 11:23 pm

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.

posted on August 20th, 2007, 11:27 pm

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

posted on August 21st, 2007, 12:00 am

well, of course, the bible isn't supposed to be taken word for word as historically accurate.

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.

posted on August 23rd, 2007, 10:35 pm

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?

posted on August 23rd, 2007, 11:39 pm

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.

posted on August 24th, 2007, 2:00 pm

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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