Faith and Reason. My thoughts on God, science and the world

[Paul98]

What I mean is that I am assuming conditions had to be at the point for life to evolve -- meaning, had we been on Venus instead of Earth, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

The planet HAD to have met certain conditions, is what I am saying.

I would agree with this, had the planet been different in the past we wouldn't be here right now. But that doesn't mean similar conditions couldn't be present on another planet.

How did the physics get here? I am not saying you're wrong, but EVERYTHING on this planet that we enjoy, and use, had a builder...from a simple wheel to the world's most complex supercomputer -- these things had some sort of blueprint, thought, and planning behind them.

Knowing this as fact, to say this order didn't have a cause is illogical to me. Its so-well organized that NASA can plan trips to Neptune decades in advance and investigate a precise part of the planet based on this, what I call "prefect cosmic timing" that works like clockwork,

Everything has a builder? Do you count physics as a builder? Did someone create the grand canyon, or forests, coast lines,... ? You have your assumption that everything has a builder, but you have no proof other than what humans have built. Where I have proof of lots of things that aren't build by a builder. Heck look at the heavy elements those come from the center of stars.

I can't tell you where all this comes from either in detail, but I know its there and it works very well. Saying that god did it, IMO, only means we have a point of origin. I don't see how knowing that, or saying God did it, means it's time to stop investigating and learning more about it.

Knowing Dell built my computer doesn't mean I won't learn how it works, and being a technician, knowing who designed it doesn't detract from that.

I never understood that argument: "God means you've basically given up". That's probably the stupidest things I've even heard, to be honest.

The point is that you don't KNOW that anyone created the universe or what you are seeing is anything like how it actually works. You are so stuck on seeing everything as a creation of a creator. That you are blind to everything else.

You need to get rid of your assumptions, how you think the world works, what you think is logical. Until you start to see this you will be unable to move forward. You have made the assumption that everything that you see with structure has a creator. Yet you ignore everything you see around you that has structure but has no creator. Look at a rainbow it's light reflecting at a certain angle so we see what we think looks nice. Did someone create that?

 

[Paul98]

You are making my point for me about the mind and how it works. I can continue to talk to you all I want and try to convince you what you see as logical and true is only in your mind. But I feel like I am wasting my time, I would need to take another path to try to get you to understand. Don't take this the wrong way as It's me who has to put these things another way as I am having the problem communicating to you.

Try to think of this as why you need to use science and not rely on what you think as logical. I have gone through tons of things I thought were logical but once I see that they are not I change. It's hard to let go of what you think is real, especially if you held that belief for a long time.

I would suggest trying to understand special relativity, as once you start to remove some long held beliefs maybe you will see others follow.

The other thing that might help is where do the creators stop, you say everything has a creator, this leads to who created the creator. You will need to have a much more complex, powerful,... to create the universe.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I get that, but too many things have to be dead-on right for us to not only have this planet, but for conditions conducive for "evolution" to be here.

Evolution is what happens to imperfect replicators. That's all that needs to exist for evolution to happen.

More than that, however, you're committing a post-hoc fallacy -- painting the target around the arrow, as it were.

I mean, I do believe in coincidence, but this seems too coincidental to where it reflects deliberate purpose. If our brain recognizes patters, then I see a deceptively deliberate pattern with our solar system, planet, human intelligence, etc.

Argument from incredulity. A fallacy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How did the physics get here?

Loaded question fallacy. Why should we accept your baseless assumption that physics "got here" at all? What does that even mean?

I am not saying you're wrong, but EVERYTHING on this planet that we enjoy, and use, had a builder...from a simple wheel to the world's most complex supercomputer -- these things had some sort of blueprint, thought, and planning behind them.

This an assertion without evidence.

Knowing this as fact, to say this order didn't have a cause is illogical to me.

Which rule of logic does it violate, Socrates?

Its so-well organized that NASA can plan trips to Neptune decades in advance and investigate a precise part of the planet based on this, what I call "prefect cosmic timing" that works like clockwork,

It isn't "organized." It's consistent -- which is exactly what we would expect of a universe in which there weren't beings of unlimited supernatural power and inscrutable motives intermeddling with the universe's natural processes.

I can't tell you where all this comes from either in detail, but I know its there and it works very well. Saying that god did it, IMO, only means we have a point of origin.

Except this point of origin is not anywhere apparent.

I don't see how knowing that, or saying God did it, means it's time to stop investigating and learning more about it.

Because unless you believe that God "does" things in a natural way -- which it appears you do not from your earlier comments in another post -- the things you attribute to God cannot be reliably investigated. For that matter, your belief that God has done anything cannot be based on any meaningful evidence, because once you have allowed for the influence of supernatural effects, you have voided the reliability of your inferences.

Knowing Dell built my computer doesn't mean I won't learn how it works, and being a technician, knowing who designed it doesn't detract from that.

False equivalence. You don't believe that Dell builds computers by magic, genius.

I never understood that argument: "God means you've basically given up". That's probably the stupidest things I've even heard, to be honest.

Yes, your reaction surprises me very little.

 

[Retro Rob]

Loaded question fallacy. Why should we accept your baseless assumption that physics "got here" at all? What does that even mean?

That was a rhetorical question, Einstein.

Which rule of logic does it violate, Socrates?

Just doesn't make sense.

It isn't "organized." It's consistent -- which is exactly what we would expect of a universe in which there weren't beings of unlimited supernatural power and inscrutable motives intermeddling with the universe's natural processes.

Right, the rules were set in place and allowed to operate, IMO. You know... how a clock works, it just "works". It doesn't require you to intervene unless you have to change the batteries....

Except this point of origin is not anywhere apparent.

To you.

False equivalence. You don't believe that Dell builds computers by magic, genius.

You mad, brah? The apparent hostile and dogmatic disposition of evolutionists like yourself is the reason why I laugh at you - but keep it coming.

I see why it offends you how common people can extract a Creator from the obvious intelligence behind the most complex computers, and seeing how they can't come remotely close to the storage capacity of say...DNA, something greater is at work. I guess using basic logic and reason to make this simple but elegant deduction isn't something you support.

Yes, your reaction surprises me very little.

Ditto, to your attitude....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That was a rhetorical question, Einstein.

In the context of the rest of your comments, it does not seem to be. Would you care to explain the way in which it was meant to be rhetorical?

Just doesn't make sense.

That isn't an answer to the question.

Right, the rules were set in place and allowed to operate, IMO.

There is no evidence whatsoever that your opinion has any basis in reality. Why do you treat it like it does?

You know... how a clock works, it just "works". It doesn't require you to intervene unless you have to change the batteries....

Do you think the universe is a clock?

To you.

To anyone and everyone.

You mad, brah? The apparent hostile and dogmatic disposition of evolutionists like yourself is the reason why I laugh at you - but keep it coming.

Laugh away. You are still committing fallacies.

I see why it offends you how common people can extract a Creator from the obvious intelligence behind the most complex computers,

This has nothing to do with the design argument, and everything to do with the distinction between the methods alleged of your "Creator" and the methods of the builders of computers. Please pay attention.

and seeing how they can't come remotely close to the storage capacity of say...DNA, something greater is at work.

What do you think the "storage capacity" of DNA is? Can you put a number on it? What do you think it "stores," any way?

I guess using basic logic and reason to make this simple but elegant deduction isn't something you support.

I wouldn't know. I haven't seen any basic logic or reason in your arguments. All I have witnessed are fallacies and errors in fact..

 

[Retro Rob]

This has nothing to do with the design argument, and everything to do with the distinction between the methods alleged of your "Creator" and the methods of the builders of computers. Please pay attention.

I said nothing about my "Creator's" methods, no did I? You need to pay attention.

Take a look around you. You have Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Shinto, etc... then you have Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, then you have the "spiritual but not religious"... probably a bunch of other "views" or "beliefs" or what have you.

What does all this mean? That despite your indirect assertions that science has a strangle-hold on "all things knowable" (you didn't say this, but your fist-pounding attitude certainly speaks volumes), NO ONE has provided any physical proof that a Creator exists or doesn't exists.

The sheer diversity of opinions is a clear indication that people simply don't know, and you don't either. You simply express a reverse "faith".

You can come in here and run all your sarcastic "Socrates" remarks at the end of questions, but you're just as clueless as your run-of-the-mill believer, your "faith" is really no different than his.

Face that reality, and you'll get along better in life.

 

[sandorski]

I said nothing about my "Creator's" methods, no did I? You need to pay attention.

Take a look around you. You have Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Shinto, etc... then you have Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, then you have the "spiritual but not religious"... probably a bunch of other "views" or "beliefs" or what have you.

What does all this mean? That despite your indirect assertions that science has a strangle-hold on "all things knowable" (you didn't say this, but your fist-pounding attitude certainly speaks volumes), NO ONE has provided any physical proof that a Creator exists or doesn't exists.

The sheer diversity of opinions is a clear indication that people simply don't know, and you don't either. You simply express a reverse "faith".

You can come in here and run all your sarcastic "Socrates" remarks at the end of questions, but you're just as clueless as your run-of-the-mill believer, your "faith" is really no different than his.

Face that reality, and you'll get along better in life.

One can not Prove that something Does Not exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I said nothing about my "Creator's" methods, no did I? You need to pay attention.

You can clear everything up right now. According to you, did the creator in which you believe use natural or supernatural methods to make the universe? If the latter, then the distinction I made was apt, and your analogy was false.

What does all this mean? That despite your indirect assertions that science has a strangle-hold on "all things knowable" (you didn't say this, but your fist-pounding attitude certainly speaks volumes),

I will expressly deny any assertion that science "has a strangle hold on 'all things knowable'". Rather, it is the only method for reliable knowledge of shared reality.

NO ONE has provided any physical proof that a Creator exists or doesn't exists.

"Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. We're not dealing with "proof." Science deals with evidence, and evidence demands a universe that we can trust to behave consistently with our past experiences. That all goes out the window when you start introducing supernatural influences.

The sheer diversity of opinions is a clear indication that people simply don't know, and you don't either. You simply express a reverse "faith".

Which "faith" is that?

You can come in here and run all your sarcastic "Socrates" remarks at the end of questions, but you're just as clueless as your run-of-the-mill believer, your "faith" is really no different than his.

Blah blah blah. You're just desperately trying to deflect scrutiny from the myriad asinine claims you've made.

Face that reality, and you'll get along better in life.

How about you go back up and "face" the questions I asked you that you're now trying to pretend didn't exist?

 

[PowerEngineer]

There doesn't need to be conflict between science and belief provided each is limited to its proper place.

I think that most everyone contributing to this thread will agree that science has not and can not disprove the existence of god or something supernatural. After all, science can only address the natural. If someone wants to believe that there's a "designer" that caused the universe to come into existence and to operate by the "laws of nature" that we observe through science, that's perfectly reasonable.

However, what should be equally appreciated is that religious beliefs shouldn't extend into (or depend on) "revealed truths" about how the physical world/universe did/does/will operate. Beliefs need to transcend the physical. If this doesn't happen, then science is likely to contradict those "revealed truths". And we have all witnessed the strained logic and torturous interpretations that this forces believers through.

Rob, the bottom line problem is that you want to reject evolution even though it is science's best explanation for the development of life on this planet (clearly something in the realm of science) because it somehow conflicts with (or doesn't reinforce) your beliefs about god and the bible.

To my way of thinking, your religious arguments are effectively "out of bounds". Those who share my thoughts in this regard do not think you have a full appreciation for or understanding of scientific thought and process.

I can't help but (again) point out that Hawkin's assertion that the universe seems to be explainable through science without the need for the supernatural is not in conflict with the above.

I hope this helps...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Actually, it turns out that dark mater is in a sphere in and around galaxies (unlike galaxies that tend to fatten out) because its lack of luminescence keeps it from dissipating heat. The only rational conclusion being that science has proven the existence of an eternal fiery darkness; forever separated from the light.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

One can not Prove that something Does Not exist.

I can prove that a largest prime number doesn't exist.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I can prove that a largest prime number doesn't exist.

proof please!

Start with tan = sin/cos

 

[rudeguy]

Evolution is what happens to imperfect replicators. That's all that needs to exist for evolution to happen.

More than that, however, you're committing a post-hoc fallacy -- painting the target around the arrow, as it were.


Argument from incredulity. A fallacy.

But look at the reality of it all. Just for our DNA to be what it is, millions of things had to "just happen" without error. That would be like reading a book and assuming the ink just happened to fall on the pages and just happened to form words that just happen to make sense. It's much more logical to assume that an intelligent being wrote the book than that the ink just happened to show up on the pages (nevermind how the pages got there).

And then there is our planet. A perfect balance of water, plants, trees and air. But all of those things and the balance of them just happened? That would be like believing a 4 year old when they tell you the mess in their room just happened. It is possible but beyond unlikely.

 

[zsdersw]

But look at the reality of it all. Just for our DNA to be what it is, millions of things had to "just happen" without error. That would be like reading a book and assuming the ink just happened to fall on the pages and just happened to form words that just happen to make sense. It's much more logical to assume that an intelligent being wrote the book than that the ink just happened to show up on the pages (nevermind how the pages got there).

And then there is our planet. A perfect balance of water, plants, trees and air. But all of those things and the balance of them just happened? That would be like believing a 4 year old when they tell you the mess in their room just happened. It is possible but beyond unlikely.

DNA, whether ours or that of another life form, didn't "just happen" at the snap of some metaphorical finger. Neither did the natural systems of this planet. DNA works the way it does because it cannot work any other way. The development of DNA and the development of our planet make them work the way they work.

Does it take an "intelligent design" to start a small snowball rolling down a big hill? Is the much bigger and potentially destructive snowball that results from it, with all its inherent properties, a sign that it was intelligently designed? The complexity and intricacy of life and the physical universe (inasmuch as we presently understand it) happened the way they happened in a way that cannot be predicted by any purported "creator" or "intelligent designer".

 

[Paul98]

That was a rhetorical question, Einstein.




Just doesn't make sense.



Right, the rules were set in place and allowed to operate, IMO. You know... how a clock works, it just "works". It doesn't require you to intervene unless you have to change the batteries....




To you.



You mad, brah? The apparent hostile and dogmatic disposition of evolutionists like yourself is the reason why I laugh at you - but keep it coming.

I see why it offends you how common people can extract a Creator from the obvious intelligence behind the most complex computers, and seeing how they can't come remotely close to the storage capacity of say...DNA, something greater is at work. I guess using basic logic and reason to make this simple but elegant deduction isn't something you support.



Ditto, to your attitude....

You assert that everything has a creator because things we make have a creator. I gave you examples such as a coast line, a star, the grand canyon, rainbow,... These are examples of things you see that don't have a creator, but are a result of physics. There is not a designer saying that the grand canyon has to be a certain length, depth,...

You say everything has to have a creator, this means that your creator also has to have a creator, same with that one and so on.

There is nothing simple about a "God" as a creator, as the creator has to be much more complex and powerful than the universe we see around us. This is far more complex and the opposite from a simple answer, it brings up far more questions than it solves.

 

[rudeguy]

DNA, whether ours or that of another life form, didn't "just happen" at the snap of some metaphorical finger. Neither did the natural systems of this planet. DNA works the way it does because it cannot work any other way. The development of DNA and the development of our planet make them work the way they work.

Does it take an "intelligent design" to start a small snowball rolling down a big hill? Is the much bigger and potentially destructive snowball that results from it, with all its inherent properties, a sign that it was intelligently designed? The complexity and intricacy of life and the physical universe (inasmuch as we presently understand it) happened the way they happened in a way that cannot be predicted by any purported "creator" or "intelligent designer".

Yes

 

[jackstar7]

But look at the reality of it all. Just for our DNA to be what it is, millions of things had to "just happen" without error.

I stopped cold right there.

Without error? Really?

That's just being silly.

 

[Paul98]

I said nothing about my "Creator's" methods, no did I? You need to pay attention.

Take a look around you. You have Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Shinto, etc... then you have Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, then you have the "spiritual but not religious"... probably a bunch of other "views" or "beliefs" or what have you.

What does all this mean? That despite your indirect assertions that science has a strangle-hold on "all things knowable" (you didn't say this, but your fist-pounding attitude certainly speaks volumes), NO ONE has provided any physical proof that a Creator exists or doesn't exists.

The sheer diversity of opinions is a clear indication that people simply don't know, and you don't either. You simply express a reverse "faith".

You can come in here and run all your sarcastic "Socrates" remarks at the end of questions, but you're just as clueless as your run-of-the-mill believer, your "faith" is really no different than his.

Face that reality, and you'll get along better in life.

If you don't spell out what you believe we can infer from your posts what we think you believe. You keep on making these statements that the belief in something with no evidence or support, is the same as not believing in your claim. This is plainly not true. I can claim anything I want, you sure as hell shouldn't believe it without evidence or understanding. The fact that you say that there is no evidence that "God" exists should alone stop you from believing in it. The reason you can't have evidence against "God" is that it isn't something that is defined. Until you can say what "God" does, doesn't do, how you think "God" works, your thought's on how you think "God" works and why certain things can't happen is useless as you have nothing to back it up.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes

There is no way to predict or determine what the exact condition of the snowball will be when it gets to the bottom of the hill, just as there is no way to predict or determine that we, humans, would result from the initial creation of DNA or that the exact weather and physical systems and conditions of this planet would result from some initial creative act.

So, no.. I wouldn't call some entity that initiates a process an "intelligent designer" and the intricate end result of that process isn't evidence of any "intelligent design".

Why would we assume the beginning and the end result are even remotely understood and predicted by any sort of designer?

 

[Paul98]

Rob M.

You continue to find things that you think are logical.

Lets test some of this logic.

In spaceship A's frame of reference if the earth is moving away from at it .6c in one direction, and a spaceship B is moving away from it at .6c in the opposite direction. Through our normal thinking In the earth's frame of reference we would think that would mean that spaceship B is moving away from us at 1.2c. But this is not what happens.

We like to think what is happening "now" is universal, that everyone will agree on what is happening now. We may not see what happened during that now till the light reaches us. But if there is something a light year away from us as when we see the light a year from now we then can know know what happened while we were doing something a year ago. You would think everyone would agree with this. This is not true, and for things that to you happened at the same time for someone moving with respect to you depending on the events will happen at different times. To you the "now" that is happening a light year away, for them will have already happened or will happen in the future.

How about light, if there is a spaceship moving towards me at .9c. The light moving away from the spaceship for me is moving at c, and only .1c faster than the spaceship. For the spaceship that same light is moving away from it at c.

How about the double slit experiment. Observation changes the way the particles move. They move as a wave before hitting the detector screen. Even single particles moving through act as a wave, unless you observe it then they act as a particle.

You talk about you seeing something as logical all the time, do all those things sound logical to you when you first look at them?

 

[Paul98]

But look at the reality of it all. Just for our DNA to be what it is, millions of things had to "just happen" without error. That would be like reading a book and assuming the ink just happened to fall on the pages and just happened to form words that just happen to make sense. It's much more logical to assume that an intelligent being wrote the book than that the ink just happened to show up on the pages (nevermind how the pages got there).

And then there is our planet. A perfect balance of water, plants, trees and air. But all of those things and the balance of them just happened? That would be like believing a 4 year old when they tell you the mess in their room just happened. It is possible but beyond unlikely.

You are looking at this after it has happened. If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal you out the entire deck randomly. You will get a series of cards 100% of the time, the chance you will get the specific order of cards you got is very small. But you needed to get some order of cards.

The "perfect balance of water, plants, trees, and air" is a product of physics and evolution. If there was a different balance of things we wouldn't be here, things would be different than they are now. Just as things were different in the past. The earth hasn't always been the way it is, the balance of things has changed over it's life and the life on earth that thrived were the ones that were evolved and adapted for those conditions. We couldn't have a lot of the life we have had in the past alive now as it wouldn't survive due to the conditions of the atmosphere, temperature of the earth,...

Our DNA mutates and has "error's" in it everyone's does. But when we speak about errors we are talking about errors when compared to previous DNA. Our DNA is not static. These mutations help drive evolution. If our DNA was perfect and never changing evolution wouldn't exist. Everything would be an exact copy of everything else, and would be an exact copy of the first things to arrive using DNA. Thankfully it's not so that changes in the DNA from the first organism over time brought changes and new organisms.

 

[jackstar7]

Our DNA mutates and has "error's" in it everyone's does. But when we speak about errors we are talking about errors when compared to previous DNA. Our DNA is not static. These mutations help drive evolution. If our DNA was perfect and never changing evolution wouldn't exist. Everything would be an exact copy of everything else, and would be an exact copy of the first things to arrive using DNA. Thankfully it's not so that changes in the DNA from the first organism over time brought changes and new organisms.

Also, if our DNA were perfect, we'd probably never get disease or other biological ailments nor would we... oh yeah... we probably wouldn't die.

 

[smackababy]

Also, if our DNA were perfect, we'd probably never get disease or other biological ailments nor would we... oh yeah... we probably wouldn't die.

Well, what is God's plan was for you to get Ebola and die a horrible death?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But look at the reality of it all.

I hope that you'll see that in fact, I *AM* looking at the reality of it all.

Just for our DNA to be what it is, millions of things had to "just happen" without error. That would be like reading a book and assuming the ink just happened to fall on the pages and just happened to form words that just happen to make sense. It's much more logical to assume that an intelligent being wrote the book than that the ink just happened to show up on the pages (nevermind how the pages got there).

If you hope to reach a reliable conclusion that a god exists, you cannot start from the assumption that a god exists, no matter how well you try to hide it from yourself and others.

What you're doing is a committing a common fallacy. I call it "painting a target around the arrow." I'll illustrate:

Mr. Evolution, Mr. Creation and you stand in an open field.

Mr. Evolution asks you to place a blindfold on him, and spin him around a random number of times. After obliging him, he draws an arrow from his quiver and fires skyward in a high arc, causing the arrow to land sticking up out of the grass.

Removing his blindfold, he says, "Now watch."

Mr. Creation wastes no time sprinting over the site of the arrow's ground fall, and promptly outlines several concentric around the precise point of the arrow's impact.

"Hallelujah!" exclaims Mr. Creation. "See how perfect that shot was?! It would be nearly impossible for a blindfolded man to hit the bullseye so perfectly! Surely, we can only conclude that his arrow was guided by God! Oh, praise the Lord!"

Do you see the problem here?

And then there is our planet. A perfect balance of water, plants, trees and air. But all of those things and the balance of them just happened? That would be like believing a 4 year old when they tell you the mess in their room just happened. It is possible but beyond unlikely.

When you look around you and see a "perfect balance of water, plants, trees and air," or when you liken your reality to a perfectly ordered piece of literature that must have an author, you are doing what Mr. Creation has done above. You are painting the target around the arrow.

The fact is that the arrow had to land somewhere. The trajectory of evolution's arrow has gotten us here. If it had landed us somewhere else -- somewhere that, say, dolphins or chimpanzees were the dominant species on the planet -- you'd still probably have a small number of them trying to convince the rest that it was what some god had planned all along.