Science and Religion

Theories are based in speculation. They only become fact when they are tested. Which is what we should be doing! You clearly missed the point of my post. :confused:
 
My evidence is not evidence that is specifically FOR the theory, it comes about from finding unusual inconsistencies in existing science.
For example:
Special relativity necessitates that motion and timing be described in terms of reference frames rather than in absolute terms. Perhaps you find this presumptuous and illogical, but it has been tested and found to be true. I'm curious why we shouldn't test the proposition (which is not mine) that this necessity be extended to all properties, not just motion and timing.
 
I think the first guy who proposed the strong version of the anthropic principle was Brandon Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Carter

One of the first semi-mainstream texts to deal with this was
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler by two physicists. They take the strong anthropic principle position, which the OP does also - not that they take it the same way. You can Wiki to get an overview.

One link to a paper discussing how physicists have reacted to the suitablity of life and various constants is

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/Where do the laws of physics come from.doc

One of the major proponents of the multiverse (there are various versions) is Tegmark. And how he works this in with the Anthropic principle can be found on his website here....
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html


Those references should be enough to start.

Note: it is not remotely the case that even those who believe in the strong anthropic principle believe there must be a God. However many physicists do believe that the appropriateness of the conditions for the coming of life does need to be explained and would not find your short dismissal satisfactory. The proposals around the multiverse are often seen as explaining, in a non-theist way, why conditions are as they are.

The issues surrounding this are not settled.
 
Based on speculation? Do you even know what you're talking about? A theory is the highest status any hypothesis in science could ever obtain. A scientific theory has overwhelming evidence to support it. Perhaps no one bothered to tell you what a "scientific theory" is
 
"The first organisms were not conscious" -- ah but they were, in their own primitive way. A bacterium senses and responds to its environment in a complex, non-algorithmic way, and this can be considered a very primitive form of consciousness. Regardless, the reference frames I speak of are necessary *for us* to use when *we* want to describe something rigorously, such as the origin of life or the Universe -- science being the rigorous mathematical/linguistic description of the physical world.
 
haereticum135 said:
Theories are based in speculation. They only become fact when they are tested. Which is what we should be doing! You clearly missed the point of my post. :confused:
Click to expand...

Tested how?

Doreen said:
I think the first guy who proposed the strong version of the anthropic principle was Brandon Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Carter

One of the first semi-mainstream texts to deal with this was
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank Tipler by two physicists. They take the strong anthropic principle position, which the OP does also - not that they take it the same way. You can Wiki to get an overview.

One link to a paper discussing how physicists have reacted to the suitablity of life and various constants is

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/Where do the laws of physics come from.doc

One of the major proponents of the multiverse (there are various versions) is Tegmark. And how he works this in with the Anthropic principle can be found on his website here....
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html


Those references should be enough to start.

Note: it is not remotely the case that even those who believe in the strong anthropic principle believe there must be a God. However many physicists do believe that the appropriateness of the conditions for the coming of life does need to be explained and would not find your short dismissal satisfactory. The proposals around the multiverse are often seen as explaining, in a non-theist way, why conditions are as they are.

The issues surrounding this are not settled.
Click to expand...


Argument from Authority carries weight. Albeit- little weight.

If there are scientists that are practicing theists, one cannot say that Scientists believe that God is real. (Anthropic Principle aside).

However, what you are citing is different from what haereticum135 is proposing.
Secondly, your assumption is that Earth holds a special place. It really doesn't.
Perhaps the conditions here are more favorable to life than on other planets. Well, then it's a good thing we up and decided to exist here, huh?
It seems reasonable to say that Earth is favorable. After-all, we're here.
What you did NOT show is that the Earth has many specific traits that make life ONLY possible here, that life could NOT develop in similar conditions and adapt to its environment, nor does that demonstrate any validity to haereticum135's claims anyway.

Deep oceanic Worms living at vents probably find their environment perfectly designed for them.
 
Consciousness = Awareness of surroundings + Ability to collect information on surroundings + Ability to adapt and learn + Decision-making . Bacteria, along with all unicellular organisms, are unaware of their surroundings. They're not even aware. They simply perform the life functions necessary for survival. They cannot make decisions, they only perform their life processes. Bacteria cannot learn or individually adapt, it is simply genetic variation that causes any bacteria or any other unicellular life to adapt to any environment, along with natural selection and evolution. Bacteria cannot collect information on anything, because they are completely unaware of anything surrounding them.
 
They do not willfully mutate.

Secondly, imagine a machine with gears and cogs.
Is it intelligently turning? Or just doing what its properties make it do?
 
3.14159265358979323 said:
@Neverfly: Intelligently turning? Only if someone is turning some sort of mechanism which makes the gears turn.
Click to expand...

mmm maybe not my best example.
Internal combustion engine?

My point was simply that just because a given object follows the properties that govern it, doesn't make it aware.

Water refracts sunlight making a perty rainbow. It didn't mean to, though.

It will follow those properties whether anyone is around to see it or not. It will have no awareness of consciousness about it. It "does" it. But it doesn't "DO" it.
 
Neverfly said:
mmm maybe not my best example.
Internal combustion engine?

My point was simply that just because a given object follows the properties that govern it, doesn't make it aware.

Water refracts sunlight making a perty rainbow. It didn't mean to, though.

It will follow those properties whether anyone is around to see it or not. It will have no awareness of consciousness about it. It "does" it. But it doesn't "DO" it.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it backwards. I mean to say life conceived the parameters for its existence.
 
True. Much like bacteria. They are not aware, they simply perform the life processes that make hem alive. But they are not "aware" in any sense that they are doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top