Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

[sideshowbob]

The centre of an infinitely big universe is anywhere you want it to be...

btw,
The centre of time eternal is also any where you choose to make t=0
because no matter where you put your NOW there is always infinite time past and infinite time to go...

does that make sense?

First, the Big Bang is the zero point of time, a finite end on a line which may or may not be infinite at the other end.

Second, you seem to be describing the universe in the old-fashioned way, as "nothingness" stretching to infinite distances in every direction. As far as I understand it - which isn't very far - modern physics thinks of the universe as finite, made of a kind of "fabric" called spacetime. An analogy (which some physicists don't like) is the surface of a sphere, which has no center.

so to answer Balerions question:
Where is this God?
answer: "Where ever we choose him to be"

The answer would be: no center = nowhere.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Your first error is thinking that people ''choose'' to ''believe in God''.

Good point, since indoctrination is the normal mode of propagating religion.

Secondly, you make it seem like you've given a variation of different religious traditions, when in reality you've only given one, namely the Christian one. Is this (seeming) habit caused by delusion (thinking you're saying something, but actually not), and is all your reasoning based on this stylee.

I think whenever anyone asserts that evolution is wack, they are tacitly expressing not only Christianity, but the worst incaration of it, fundamentalism. A non-fundie who fails to grasp evolution would more likely just put up a thread asking for information or explanations. The operative word is "wack", as opposed to "please explain".

''Buying into the idea of God'' isn't the same as 'believing in God'', theism, or being a theist, because such designations require actual belief.

It's hard to differentiate between believing the idea of a cosmic magician and actually believing the existence of God. I think the valid point in the post was that God is a cultural phenomenon. Children brought up outside of such a culture have no such concept. They will tend to imbue rocks with the magical power of strength or of trembling in an earthquake. Similarly they may anoint the leaves as prophets of the changing seasons, reminding them to set aside food for the winter shortage. But I don't think you will ever find a case in which an isolated tribe, dissociated from all cultural influences, will individually arrive at a conclusion that in any way correlates with the common definition of God.

Science and theism are two entirely different things. The very fact that you compare them in the way that you have, shows that you don't really understand either, and just see it as two warring factions, most probably because you have been told this is correct.

I think this conversation has to always be referred to the fundies, who are the ones at war with knowledge and learning. The rest of religious people in the world don't share the blame, because their belief system doesn't meddle with education. Without fundamentalism, this thread wouldn't even exist. Or it would exist, and no one would understand it.

Rather than take a dumb-ass view of science and religion, why don't you look into them for yourself, then you'll realise what I mean.

A lot of folks who have similar views to what I've expressed here have a well rounded life experience, which includes at least just enough exploration of science and religion to inform their ideas regarding the IDers struggle against knowledge and education. Given that this is the case, I would naturally presume that anyone who brings logic and a reasonable set of factual accuracy about Nature to the thread is probably just addressing the fallacies of fundamentalism.

 

[Gorlitz]

It's really just heartburn for Christian fundamentalists. For the non-fundie Christians, and just about everyone else, the fundies are not affirming God at all. They're merely affirming their ignorance.

I wouldn't call a fundie a theist. They have a religion that promotes pathological traits like denial, lying and narcissism. As for the fight, it can be marked in time as beginning with the Scopes trial, and most recently punctuated at the Republican convention, after several recent legal attempts to interfere with the teaching of evolution.

That may apply for just about any religious person except the fundies. They are so heavily steeped in pathologically lying that they need to invent science all their own, which has no basis on Nature, and to do so to merely justify throwing centuries of knowledge out the window, knowledge about how Nature works, simply because they've been checked--proven wrong, and their denial is so deep seated that this becomes a crusade for them.

This probably only applies to fundies as well. Their particular version of Christianity was invented only recently, having grown out of the Anabaptist tent revivals that sprang up in the mid to late era of American pioneering. It has spread like an insidious disease because they've preyed on the vulnerable minds of weaker people around the world, who they've contaminated with their narcissistic missionary drives. Their sheep tend to have have little or no education, so the science issue is moot for them. For every naive person they win over, they score credibility, which is the area where they've been brought to their knees by academia.

By relegating all of the effort to a cosmic magician, they can wiggle out of this, without remorse.

That requires (among other things) that they understand that radiometric dating corroborates this. But the liars and deceivers go out of their way to invent false testimonials against geology and dating methods, and they sell this fertilizer to their sheep by the trainload.

By contrast, the fundies are so self-absorbed that they invent geo/ego-centric models of time and space that have been discarded by academics ages ago, merely to harp on how special they are. In the most obsolete of egotistical religious views, they're dedicated to the principle that the whole universe revolves around them. And their cosmic magician merely suspends the Laws of Nature, as needed, to combat any practical problems with ideation like this.

Hi Aqueous, I'm not really trying to knock religion, I suppose I'm just really trying to understand, to me it all seems so illogical. I actually like the idea of a God watching over us somehow protecting us. I just find the notion so hard to believe without some sort of evidence. Whenever I speak of this with someone religeous they always point me towards understanding 'through' faith. Now that's fine and I am happy to accept this is what they believe, I just can't see why they can't help someone who doesn't already have their faith to understand what it is they believe to be true.

You ask a scientist to help you understand something they are usually only to happy to explain it to you and help you learn.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The centre of an infinitely big universe is anywhere you want it to be...

Then it wouldn't be a center, just and arbitrary declaration of such.

The centre of time eternal is also any where you choose to make t=0 because no matter where you put your NOW there is always infinite time past and infinite time to go...

Or time converges asymptotically at t=0. Most physicists have concluded that spacetime was created in the Big Bang. But I think there is model that allows for the primordial universe to expand out of nothing while also allowing it to have forever been expanding out of nothing. This correlates with the illusion of time revealed by special relativity. That is, the moment you think has passed has not passed to the relative observer. If you integrate space over all time, you get (my own word here) an extrusion. That is, a flat disk traveling in a straight path at 1 m/s, when integrated over 1 s produces a cylinder 1 m long.

If you could somehow stand outside of time, you could not only observe this rod, but you could view it in any time slice you wish. Outside of time, then, all things are "happening concurrently".

That point of convergence I spoke of at t=0 necessarily lies "outside of time" and "outside of space". I would model this as a point from which, in the sense of a thought experiment, an observer "looking at it" might "see" all that ever was and all that ever will be as an "extrusion". (A jumbled knot occupied by every particle at every moment it occupied some position, all accumulated into a hypothetical pile of cosmic spaghetti).

What this kind of thinking tells me is that causality is moot outside of time. The Big Bang needs no cause, nor is it clear to the imaginary observer whether it is a beginning or an end. The directional flow of time would appear completely arbitrary. Watch enough videos in reverse and you might imagine that all you need is to think backwards to arrive at retro-causality. The puddle of milk leaps from the floor as droplets, propelled by a future cause: the glass of milk before it was dropped. The are infinite trajectories to put the droplets back in the glass, but only one set of trajectories imparts the exact momentum each milk particle had just before the accident. So this is sufficient to explain it.

To say, then, that the universe existed forever would not necessarily disturb Big Bang Theory. A little harder to see, but stemming from the imaginary observer's POV, is that the Big Bang is forever pulling away from zero, and, in reverse, forever converging at zero. This kind of ideation completely cures me of any need to connect it with any cause whatsoever.

Furthermore, the demands for causality, to fit the round Big Bang Theory into the square peg of ordinary experience, are usually extremely naive, and, among the fundies, tainted with a lot of utterly bogus facts wrapped in layer upon layer of fallacy.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hi Aqueous, I'm not really trying to knock religion, I suppose I'm just really trying to understand, to me it all seems so illogical. I actually like the idea of a God watching over us somehow protecting us.

Hi there. I think the idea of a divine protector stems from the ancient stories of angry gods, and the obvious opening this creates for a polar opposite. I think a sense of being watched over can impart either a good or bad feeling. It can serve as a sense of well-being, or as a caution not to go out of bounds, or maybe even a sense of anxiety, such as the cause for certain psychotic reports of feeling they are being watched. I would attribute this to an innate brain function, mybe even rooted in consciousness itself.

I just find the notion so hard to believe without some sort of evidence.

To me it's far more compelling that God is a cultural invention, which makes the question of evidence moot.

Whenever I speak of this with someone religeous they always point me towards understanding 'through' faith. Now that's fine and I am happy to accept this is what they believe, I just can't see why they can't help someone who doesn't already have their faith to understand what it is they believe to be true.

I can't connect religion with anything rational. And the only people who didn't acquire it by osmosis (culturally) seem to be fanatics who've been on space ships or (as someone recently posted here) say they hear angels whispering in their ear. Hearing voices, or hallucinating in general, is very serious and should be referred to a physician. Religion foments mental illness, seen by people writhing and foaming at the mouth, or jumping up and down and shouting praises to an apparition. Most religious traditions include dream like worlds that are even today being sold off as real. This is why I consider fundamentalism to be the only bandito in this train robbery. They seem to be the only folks who go to such extremes to dress up myth as literal truth.

You ask a scientist to help you understand something they are usually only to happy to explain it to you and help you learn.

Religious people must feel very conflicted, especially if they are steeped in fundamentalism. They see that all facts and evidence are being given to them, and that all experts are effectively on the same page. They may defend their position, but I imagine they feel the undertow and have doubts. So when they have a chance to meet someone who will ask them why they believe what they believe, they may over-react. They probably are eager to have a compadre since the business of chasing trains solo can leave them with saddle sores.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Gorlitz,




Your first error is thinking that people ''choose'' to ''believe in God''.

Secondly, you make it seem like you've given a variation of different religious traditions, when in reality you've only given one,
namely the Christian one. Is this (seeming) habit caused by delusion (thinking you're saying something, but actually not), and is all your reasoning based
on this stylee.



''Buying into the idea of God'' isn't the same as 'believing in God'', theism, or being a theist, because such designations require actual belief.



Science and theism are two entirely different things. The very fact that you compare them in the way that you have, shows that you don't really understand either, and just see it as two warring factions, most probably because you have been told this is correct.

Rather than take a dumb-ass view of science and religion, why don't you look into them for yourself, then you'll realise what I mean.

jan.

Hi Jan , as you already have noted Balerions methodology of thought is rather diminuitive of his actual potential.
You will note no doubt in his contra post the following:

Many problems with this drivel. One, it's drivel. Wait, I already said that. Okay, let's start again.

Balerion is clearly attempting to belittle your position by using unsupprted ridicule. He has stated that your post is not worthy of his attention prior to to saying why in a manner that is designed to upset you and make you feel vulnerable to his next diatribe of nonsense.
He is also claining to be an Authority that should be listened to ignoring any objections you may have about his authority and qualifiation to comment.
If he had qualification or serious learning in this field he would simply not use this method of intimidation. The same applies to a number of other simliar inclined posters.
It is such a pity really as he has so much potential to offer...as shown by the rest of his post...

 

[Quantum Quack]

All concepts of how God creates are false. Evolutionary biology isn't capital. It's knowledge. Lacking that knowledge, you may feel inclined to recast it as something it's not. That's also your prerogative. As for observing the processes of Nature, this is evidently not one of your strengths.

And all it is is knowledge of what is a not why it is?
You have no explanation for the existance of a single enzyme or even single hydroden atom. [ atomic model ]
You have no cure for the common cold only treatment.
You have no idea why electricity is available or why magnetism is even existant.
You have not discovered one single thing that isn't already present and you don't know why it is present.
You have not cured a single medical condition.
Science is great at assessing the where the how the what but it is utterly hopeless with the why.
why is it a single gram of DNA can contain over 700 tetrabytes of information?
ref: http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2012/09/06/1-gram-of-dna-can-store-upto-700-terabytes-of-data-reveals-latest-study/
what say you to these charges of arrogance?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Then it wouldn't be a center, just and arbitrary declaration of such.


Or time converges asymptotically at t=0. Most physicists have concluded that spacetime was created in the Big Bang. But I think there is model that allows for the primordial universe to expand out of nothing while also allowing it to have forever been expanding out of nothing. This correlates with the illusion of time revealed by special relativity. That is, the moment you think has passed has not passed to the relative observer. If you integrate space over all time, you get (my own word here) an extrusion. That is, a flat disk traveling in a straight path at 1 m/s, when integrated over 1 s produces a cylinder 1 m long.

If you could somehow stand outside of time, you could not only observe this rod, but you could view it in any time slice you wish. Outside of time, then, all things are "happening concurrently".

That point of convergence I spoke of at t=0 necessarily lies "outside of time" and "outside of space". I would model this as a point from which, in the sense of a thought experiment, an observer "looking at it" might "see" all that ever was and all that ever will be as an "extrusion". (A jumbled knot occupied by every particle at every moment it occupied some position, all accumulated into a hypothetical pile of cosmic spaghetti).

What this kind of thinking tells me is that causality is moot outside of time. The Big Bang needs no cause, nor is it clear to the imaginary observer whether it is a beginning or an end. The directional flow of time would appear completely arbitrary. Watch enough videos in reverse and you might imagine that all you need is to think backwards to arrive at retro-causality. The puddle of milk leaps from the floor as droplets, propelled by a future cause: the glass of milk before it was dropped. The are infinite trajectories to put the droplets back in the glass, but only one set of trajectories imparts the exact momentum each milk particle had just before the accident. So this is sufficient to explain it.

To say, then, that the universe existed forever would not necessarily disturb Big Bang Theory. A little harder to see, but stemming from the imaginary observer's POV, is that the Big Bang is forever pulling away from zero, and, in reverse, forever converging at zero. This kind of ideation completely cures me of any need to connect it with any cause whatsoever.

Furthermore, the demands for causality, to fit the round Big Bang Theory into the square peg of ordinary experience, are usually extremely naive, and, among the fundies, tainted with a lot of utterly bogus facts wrapped in layer upon layer of fallacy.

The question I posed was a response to Balerions question about where is God.
The method of answering was to use this question as a vehicle to stretch his somewhat narrow mental landscape.
If the unievsre was infinitely big were would be it's center of gravity?
the answer is simply
Where ever you wish it to be.

Now I know from a postion of pure logic that the above is absolutely correct.
I am not suggesting anything beyond the parammeters of the question and answer. Scientific models are something else again..
On a plane that is infinitely large any point can be considered as the center of that plane.

This logic stems from incredibly astute philosphers of over 8000 years ago....now that fact makes you wonder on it's own.

How it relates to Gods location is similar to how it relates to freewill.
Simply put the freedom to choose arbitarillly any point in an infinite universe IS freewill. [ re: an act of God ]

So in answer to Balerions trite question which I have decided to take as serious:
Where does God live?
as proved by countless diversity fo beliefs :
any where you wish to believe he does....thus granting freedom to be and believe in what ever you wish to be or believe in.

note: this post has been spell checked and any errors such as typos have been generated by the sites software upon submission.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To say, then, that the universe existed forever would not necessarily disturb Big Bang Theory. A little harder to see, but stemming from the imaginary observer's POV, is that the Big Bang is forever pulling away from zero, and, in reverse, forever converging at zero. This kind of ideation completely cures me of any need to connect it with any cause whatsoever.

now That is good thinking IMO...

the effect is indeed the cause...and the cause is indeed the effect when extended to it's absolute. IMO
The universe could not have started if it is eternal nor can it ever end.
There is no "Before time began" nor "after time ends" as both statements are entirely illogical.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And all it is is knowledge of what is a not why it is?

No, what I was talking about addresses the why. People have a conception of God only because of cultural transmission from the ancient superstitious era. Without that kind of history, this thread wouldn't even exist.

You have no explanation for the existance of a single enzyme

Sure. They address the reverse of protein synthesis.

or even single hydroden atom. [ atomic model ]

Sure. It's the most fundamental union of quarks.

You have no cure for the common cold only treatment.

I wasn't prescribing any. However, cure is probably only a heartbeat away.

You have no idea why electricity is available

Sure. Because charge is available. (Whatever you meant by that.)

or why magnetism is even existant.

Sure. Because moments and currents are existent. (whatever you mean by that.)

You have not discovered one single thing that isn't already present

Sure. I'm grounded in reality.

and you don't know why it is present.

Sure I do. There is no why. That's why.

You have not cured a single medical condition.

Au contraire. I've cured quite a few acute sclerosing cerebral fallacies.

Science is great at assessing the where the how the what but it is utterly hopeless with the why.

Au contraire. If you ask why A=C, science will answer: because A=B and B=C.

why is it a single gram of DNA can contain over 700 tetrabytes of information?

What's a tetrabyte? If you mean codon, then I assure you, 700 codons don't weigh a gram. If you mean 700 trillion codons, I'd want to do the math since that seems like a low number. But to answer your question, it's for the same reason that 1 g of Hydrogen contains 6.022 x 10[sup]23[/sup] atoms, namely, atoms -- and relatively small molecules like codons -- are "light" (low in mass) in comparison to objects in our world.

what say you to these charges of arrogance?

I wasn't charging arrogance. I'm charging fundies with ignorance.

 

[Aqueous Id]

How it relates to Gods location

A cosmic phantom that exists outside of the spacetime continuum can't have an assigned parking space.

is similar to how it relates to freewill.

What's the opposite of free will? Constrained will? Free unwillingness?

Simply put the freedom to choose arbitarillly any point in an infinite universe IS freewill. [ re: an act of God ]

It's not clear to me what you mean. Speculating about what infinity means is quite far from crusading against science. The latter isn't even a case of free will as much as it is a case of willful ignorance.

So in answer to Balerions trite question which I have decided to take as serious:Where does God live?
as proved by countless diversity fo beliefs : any where you wish to believe he does....thus granting freedom to be and believe in what ever you wish to be or believe in.

The ideal that people are free collides with the fact that we are constrained by reality, and when we strive to cut ourselves loose from it we end up losing our moorings and running aground.

note: this post has been spell checked and any errors such as typos have been generated by the sites software upon submission.

In that case, you might want to fire your spell checker. For example, you posted "arbitarillly". I doubt the site software is capabable of that kind of error.

 

[Gorlitz]

Gorlitz,




Your first error is thinking that people ''choose'' to ''believe in God''.

Secondly, you make it seem like you've given a variation of different religious traditions, when in reality you've only given one,
namely the Christian one. Is this (seeming) habit caused by delusion (thinking you're saying something, but actually not), and is all your reasoning based
on this stylee.



''Buying into the idea of God'' isn't the same as 'believing in God'', theism, or being a theist, because such designations require actual belief.



Science and theism are two entirely different things. The very fact that you compare them in the way that you have, shows that you don't really understand either, and just see it as two warring factions, most probably because you have been told this is correct.

Rather than take a dumb-ass view of science and religion, why don't you look into them for yourself, then you'll realise what I mean.

jan.

Hi Jan, Sorry you didn't seem to like my post much. It was not mean't to be offensive or really even disparaging of religion. I was just trying to understand things that to me made no sense.

After careful consideration you've convinced me with your first point that I was indeed wrong. I realise now that most people don't choose to believe in God, they can't, they're not able to make that choice because they are simply too young to understand, most people it would seem come to religion and believing in God because of their parents when they are very young. We wouldn't accept that very young children are capable of making other major decisions so why would we accept they are capable of making a choice over whether or not they believe in a supreme being. So you are in fact correct I was in error in thinking people choose to believe in God. I must say though I do find this very disturbing.

Your second point though is somewhat confusing, you seem to think my reasoning is based on the misconception that my understanding of all relgious traditions are christian ones, then asking if all my reasoning is reliant on such a fallacy. Well no that's not how my reasoning is centred because I'm not operating under that fallacy, I think this is more down to confusion over how what I was actually saying is being interpreted.

The point about science and religion being warring factions again is a misunderstanding, I was suggesting that there seem to be relgious people out there that believe this. They seem to want a theological answer for everything and are unwilling to accept a scientific one. I was only speculating on this attitude as I found it very difficult to understand. That said I would like to point out that I believe there are far more religeous people that believe in the merits of science than those that don't.

Finally, I'm again sorry you find my views "dumb-ass", but I am trying to learn about both science and religion but feel we should all accept people have different views. I find it interesting to learn why people hold these views. I hope in time I do realise what you mean and may even find something cogent about it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A cosmic phantom that exists outside of the spacetime continuum can't have an assigned parking space.

What's the opposite of free will? Constrained will? Free unwillingness?

It's not clear to me what you mean. Speculating about what infinity means is quite far from crusading against science. The latter isn't even a case of free will as much as it is a case of willful ignorance.

The ideal that people are free collides with the fact that we are constrained by reality, and when we strive to cut ourselves loose from it we end up losing our moorings and running aground.

the mention of freewill was more directed towards member Sarkus given many previous discussions on the nature of freewill, freedom in the philosophy forum. I apologise for derailing your line of thought with an "aside"

In that case, you might want to fire your spell checker. For example, you posted "arbitarillly". I doubt the site software is capabable of that kind of error.

the forum software apparently has a "save" feature and restore feature to prevent posts from being lost in the event of a browser problem. [advanced editor function ]
Apparently according to others this has the adverse effect of not posting submissions that have been corrected/edited and posted before the save function has finished the re-saving...[ when using the advanced post function]
....the spell checker also needs to be given the boot but we do the best with what we have..
there is also a concern that word characters are being tumbled and added to as well, but proper testing is not something I could be bothered about.

 

[cole grey]

Science has no answer to "why" other than an infinitely recursive one. If someone, as a good empiricist, explained all the processes involved in some certain events, we still wouldn't know "why". The radical empiricist is basically saying there is no "why" for humans beyond biological process, which is pretty denigrating to humanity. There are human events that have no rational explanation which do exist. Why is a Rothko painting deeply moving, while someone's red living room wall is in need of a picture to hang on it? I could come up with five reasons all with different rationale, all valid, none of them scientific, and five more that could claim scientific rationale, but in the end, my statement that it moves me is MORE valid than a scientists equation that says there should be less brown in that painting, because the art of painting is ABOUT people, not molecules and light frequencies. Religion TRIES to make connections that are meaningful to humans beyond the demonstrations and definitions of "what" is happening.

 

[GeoffP]

Why the hell is it "denigrating to humanity"? What proof do you have we were meant for anything better anyway?

If you want to talk recursive: who made God?

 

[Balerion]

Science has no answer to "why" other than an infinitely recursive one. If someone, as a good empiricist, explained all the processes involved in some certain events, we still wouldn't know "why". The radical empiricist is basically saying there is no "why" for humans beyond biological process, which is pretty denigrating to humanity.

Is it denigrating to humanity that the earth is not at the center of the universe? That we are not capable of performing miracles? There seem to be quite a lot of "denigrating" truths we've recently been made aware of, doesn't it? Perhaps you should reconsider the mantle you seem to have placed humanity upon is naively high.

There are human events that have no rational explanation which do exist. Why is a Rothko painting deeply moving, while someone's red living room wall is in need of a picture to hang on it? I could come up with five reasons all with different rationale, all valid, none of them scientific, and five more that could claim scientific rationale, but in the end, my statement that it moves me is MORE valid than a scientists equation that says there should be less brown in that painting, because the art of painting is ABOUT people, not molecules and light frequencies.

This is a straw man, as well as a bunch of nonsense. Science doesn't attempt to say that there is some "perfect" form of art; there are no equations to determine which blend of colors or images would be best suited for an individual. Neuroscience is still a young field, and (if I'm not mistaken) the field to look into why art is stimulating--neuraesthetics--is younger still. From what I've read on it, there isn't any backlash in the art community against the idea of attempting to discover why things speak to us the way they do, and in many cases quite the opposite, as artists and critics have often contributed to studies and papers on the subject. This knee-jerk against science as a method of uncovering truth--apart from being immature--seems to be a solitary one.

As for the "my reasons are more valid than science," you're barking at shadows. No one is attempting to invalidate your concept of beauty or your emotions, and even if science could tell you exactly why you like what you like, it wouldn't make your experience any less moving. After all, you know why hot water hurts you, but this knowledge doesn't make the experience of being burned any less traumatic, and the knowledge of why you like sex doesn't make an orgasm any less transcendent. You're railing out like an angry teenager against some perceived boogyman, and claiming your primacy against something that has no interest in usurping you.

Religion TRIES to make connections that are meaningful to humans beyond the demonstrations and definitions of "what" is happening.

Nonsense. First of all, most religions are very much concerned with explanations of the "how" and the "what," and all of their explanations for the "why" fall woefully short. And again, no one claims science "attempts" to do anything except explain the natural world. The truth discovered can be very beautiful--has any art ever matched the beauty and majesty of the images recorded by the Hubble telescope?--but it doesn't seek to "make connections" between anything but a phenomenon and its explanation. But we're in luck on that, because neither does religion. Instead, it simply offers a worse explanation of the how and the what, and for the "why" it dangles the carrot of "ultimate knowledge" or "eternal life" or "pure bliss," and in no case has it ever delivered on those promises.

 

[cole grey]

- first off, "who made God?" is recursive only to those illogical people who say the universe MUST have a creator because watches don't make themselves, or some other silly idea. Clearly, saying there is something uncreated, and that that thing, or force, or whatever, created something is not recursive. The idea of an uncreated thing creating something is not UNscientific. It is merely NON-scientific, not testable, but not opposing science. There is no evidence for or against the concept.
- secondly, if you hear me say the word "proof" in connection with a philosophical statement, please bring it my attention so i can punch myself. If you want to say your life is meaningless and empty, go right ahead, just don't pretend science made it that way. A person creates their meaning, others validate it, perhaps there is a metaphysical aspect to all of it, all those ideas are NON-scientific. Saying my sense -of- meaning is not affected by my biology, even day-to-day hour-to hour would be UNscientific.


- It is clearly not denigrating to humanity to say we are not the center of the universe. I have no idea why you would imagine i would think that. What is denigrating is to say that there is no meaning to a parent's love besides socialized synapse firing. It implies mechanistic behavior is the source of all action. If someone were to say, "it isn't about socialized synapse evolution at all", THAT would be UNscientific. Saying there is more to life than that is NON-scientific.
- Miracles are dependent on definition. If i call an exceptional event a miracle, and i think there are many events concerning humans that go against norms, there could be many. Also scientifically speaking, any event we can't explain could be described as a miracle. Science is clearly capable of performing miracles, or things that would have seemed impossible centuries ago. I personally have no basis for disbelieving or believing such super human acts as a man boiling an icy cloth with his body temperature. I am not going to say it doesn't exist, and i am sure most people would call that "miraculous" even after a scientist explained how it was done.
- rothko (you wish this were a straw man, i think anybody who posts the words "straw man" should be legally obligated to explain how they come to that conclusion). Look up the golden ratio for thousands of years of postulations about the equations of aesthetics. I didn't just pull the idea that people make equations about this stuff out of my ass. A bunch of computer aided artists create their art by adjusting ratios in their programs, but i am sure very few say a particular piece is most valuable because it had a good sequence on the creation end, but rather that it does something on the receiving end. Like i said, numbers are about numbers, paintings are about people.
- I NEVER said "my reasons are more valid than science" - THAT is a straw man. (you made something up that i didn't say, then attacked that) I said my views on art are more valid than an equation would be. If that weren't true, we would have a world full of music all in accordance with the harmonic series, not even going into other art forms.
- deeper meaning or a sense of beauty may be conveyed to some through a painting, and to some others through a picture of a galaxy, we could argue about that all day. None of that argument would be science. Science doesn't cover that.

- the fact that BALERION, among all the people in the world has actual KNOWLEDGE (you apparently know that religion "has never delivered on those promises") that there is no eternal bliss is amazing.

 

[spidergoat]

Science has no answer to "why" other than an infinitely recursive one. If someone, as a good empiricist, explained all the processes involved in some certain events, we still wouldn't know "why". The radical empiricist is basically saying there is no "why" for humans beyond biological process, which is pretty denigrating to humanity. There are human events that have no rational explanation which do exist. Why is a Rothko painting deeply moving, while someone's red living room wall is in need of a picture to hang on it? I could come up with five reasons all with different rationale, all valid, none of them scientific, and five more that could claim scientific rationale, but in the end, my statement that it moves me is MORE valid than a scientists equation that says there should be less brown in that painting, because the art of painting is ABOUT people, not molecules and light frequencies. Religion TRIES to make connections that are meaningful to humans beyond the demonstrations and definitions of "what" is happening.

That's what fiction does too. We all know art doesn't have to be realistic to evoke an emotional response, and religion doesn't have to be real to do the same.

 

[cole grey]

religion may or may not portray what is objectively "real", we may know someday. It also depends on what level of "metaphorism" is allowed to be validated by the religion as well. Of course, what is "real" has had a hard time figuring itself out since the existentialists came around, and long before that actually. Maybe the buddhists are full of it calling it all unreal, or maybe that is a translation error haha. Anyway, I think you are too smart to make "proof" attacks, and I find your subtle attacks on religion interesting and well made, just as i remember from years ago. I hope all the sciforums people that have been around here during that time have been doing well

 

[Balerion]

- first off, "who made God?" is recursive only to those illogical people who say the universe MUST have a creator because watches don't make themselves, or some other silly idea. Clearly, saying there is something uncreated, and that that thing, or force, or whatever, created something is not recursive. The idea of an uncreated thing creating something is not UNscientific. It is merely NON-scientific, not testable, but not opposing science. There is no evidence for or against the concept.

You're missing the point. The reason God is "logically" put at the beginning of things is that "things must have a creator." Positing an uncreated thing at the beginning of this is not a solution to the problem, but simply a pushing back of it. That's the reason rational human beings respond with "But then who created God?"

As for it being nonscientific, I call BS. It's unscientific because it is making a factual claim about the material origin of the universe. You don't get special classification just because there isn't a firm reasonable answer to the question.

- secondly, if you hear me say the word "proof" in connection with a philosophical statement, please bring it my attention so i can punch myself. If you want to say your life is meaningless and empty, go right ahead, just don't pretend science made it that way. A person creates their meaning, others validate it, perhaps there is a metaphysical aspect to all of it, all those ideas are NON-scientific. Saying my sense -of- meaning
is not affected by my biology, even day-to-day hour-to hour would be UNscientific.

I completely agree. Not only that, but I extend the same invitation to you, should you get the urge to insist religion provides some "deeper" meaning through delusional wish-thinking.

- It is clearly not denigrating to humanity to say we are not the center of the universe. I have no idea why you would imagine i would think that.

Because you're arguing the same thing, just on a more localized level. Had you lived a few hundred years ago, you would no doubt be making this same case against the heliocentric model because of its implication that we are not special nor chosen and that we might very well have been some random accident. You only don't have a problem with this notion because you never believed the opposite was true, such as you do in this case.

What is denigrating is to say that there is no meaning to a parent's love besides socialized synapse firing. It implies mechanistic behavior is the source of all action. If someone were to say, "it isn't about socialized synapse evolution at all", THAT would be UNscientific. Saying there is more to life than that is NON-scientific.

I disagree with the distinction. It seems that whenever you want to fudge reality to add your own little slice of faith, you call it NON-scientific so as not to be eligible to the scrutiny that usually comes with such claims. You want to, in other words, make claims that you don't have to support in any way whatsoever, and cry foul at them being criticized. They call that weaksauce in the hood. Okay, that's not true, but I'm sure it's true of some hood somewhere.

As to the denigration bit, I don't see why you view our emotions and actions being reducible to synapse-firing as making them lesser. If that's what they are, then that's what they are. Acknowledging that doesn't make you love your partner or your children any less, it doesn't make art any less beautiful, and it doesn't make your life any less meaningful. As you said before, a person creates their own meaning. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and find it no less meaningful just because it's based on chemistry. In fact, I find it kind of romantic, that these things are so hard-wired into us we can say without fear of sounding trite that we are love, that we are beauty. These things are intrinsic to our nature.

That's how I look at it, anyway. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to think it makes you less of a caring, loving, appreciative person to accept that you're just brain activity in motion.

- Miracles are dependent on definition. If i call an exceptional event a miracle, and i think there are many events concerning humans that go against norms, there could be many. Also scientifically speaking, any event we can't explain could be described as a miracle. Science is clearly capable of performing miracles, or things that would have seemed impossible centuries ago. I personally have no basis for disbelieving or believing such super human acts as a man boiling an icy cloth with his body temperature. I am not going to say it doesn't exist, and i am sure most people would call that "miraculous" even after a scientist explained how it was done.

You're talking about a colloquial definition now, not an actual definition. And no, "scientifically-speaking" events we can't explain are not therefore miracles. "Miracle" has supernatural connotations, and as such have no place in serious discussion. You want to say someone had a miraculous recovery, go on ahead, so long as you mean it in the sense of "amazing" and "improbable," rather than "supernatural."

- rothko (you wish this were a straw man, i think anybody who posts the words "straw man" should be legally obligated to explain how they come to that conclusion). Look up the golden ratio for thousands of years of postulations about the equations of aesthetics. I didn't just pull the idea that people make equations about this stuff out of my ass. A bunch of computer aided artists create their art by adjusting ratios in their programs, but i am sure very few say a particular piece is most valuable because it had a good sequence on the creation end, but rather that it does something on the receiving end.

You're going to have to give me some examples of these "computer-aided artists" and how this relates at all to the Golden Ratio, and also explain to where this "equation" says that there should be more brown in a painting. I'm curious to see this.

Like i said, numbers are about numbers, paintings are about people.

This is a meaningless statement. Supposing there were some equation that made art more more appealing to people, then that equation would be about people. It would be based on human reaction, and no different than a painter who knows that using a young boy sitting on a bucket is going to be more aesthetically pleasing than an image of a seal being clubbed, just more refined.

- I NEVER said "my reasons are more valid than science" - THAT is a straw man. (you made something up that i didn't say, then attacked that) I said my views on art are more valid than an equation would be. If that weren't true, we would have a world full of music all in accordance with the harmonic series, not even going into other art forms.

You're merely arguing semantics now. You said your view is more valid than a scientist's equation (aka his science). And again, where is this equation you speak of? It certainly isn't the Golden Ratio. If you think it is, you need to take your own advice and look it up.

In any case, no one is arguing that there's any such equation, because it would require believing that beauty is objective, and I don't believe anyone's making that claim.

- deeper meaning or a sense of beauty may be conveyed to some through a painting, and to some others through a picture of a galaxy, we could argue about that all day. None of that argument would be science. Science doesn't cover that.

It does to an extent. It may not be able to tell us why you like this one painting and I don't--but it might be able to someday. You writing it off as impossible either speaks to your fear of science or your misunderstanding of it. Maybe both.

- the fact that BALERION, among all the people in the world has actual KNOWLEDGE (you apparently know that religion "has never delivered on those promises") that there is no eternal bliss is amazing.

I'm glad you're so easily impressed, but all it takes is looking around. Do you know anyone who has experienced (er, is experiencing, rather) eternal bliss? Me neither.