- This topic is empty.
- Posts
So size prevents understanding. The height of the Empire State building is more difficult to understand than the height of the Skytower.
I watched carefully but I didn't see any creator. I heard a man beg the question about one near the end, but he did not show a photograph or provide any evidence of this thing. I guess it must have been a figure of speech, in the way Hawking uses the word 'god' even though he is not a believer.
Stuart
Sorry Stu. This video is not about showing physical proof to a non-physical God.
It is there for those who have a certain faith to framework their science.Your faith that you frame your science in is nothing. That is fine (for you), but many choose not to believe in nothing for obvious reasons.
All science is framed in a belief of some kind and that is why Evolution is so fiercely defended because it is a religion, i.e., a faith and a belief. And in religion you will always have religious nutters who deny anything outside of their own narrow mindedness. Historian Jacques Barzun termed science “a faith as fanatical as any in history” and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence. Robert Anton Wilson criticized science for using instruments to ask questions that produce answers only meaningful in terms of the instrument, and that there was no such thing as a completely objective vantage point from which to view the results of science.
In fact it was true faith in God that spurred science. If there is a God and he has created man in his image, then he meant for us to understand things about him and his creation. This allowed the idea that we can work out or look into the glorious works of the creator which is the very angle of early science. If you look at many early scientists, they had a strong faith in God and a belief that they could know about the things of God.
Many great scientists followed this such as Newton, Pasteur, Pascal, Joule, Maxwell, Boyle, Faraday, etc.
Quote (t8 @ May 12 2009,21:14) Sorry Stu. This video is not about showing physical proof to a non-physical God.
Obviously not. It is about making a fatuous creationist statement that parades as a factual part of what might appear to be a documentary, just like the fatuous nonsense in your post. However all the images in the video are a product of the human imagination, just like the creator about which it provides nothing but unsupported assertions.That is nearly as fatuous as quoting a philosopher in order to make a strawman of science appear credible. I agree with him that fundamentalist anything is ridiculous. If you think I am such a thing had you considered it is because you cannot reach the minimum required level of probity to compete with science? There is a barrier of credibility to overcome. How do you think fundamentalist religion fares in reaching that standard? The man you quote thought you to be just as ridiculous, although he gives you credit for not thinking yourself rational, but I think you DO think you are rational.
About your creator, of whom you claim you are supposed to have some understanding, you cannot make one single falsifiable statement. If you cannot provide ANY evidence, how will you provide CONVINCING evidence? What actually has your god ever done that is beyond any reasonable doubt? What would be true if you were wrong about that?
Stuart
In the “Questioning evolution theory: thread, I have asked if you stand by what seems to be a falsifiable claim about creation. Now would be an honest time to stand by that, or withdraw it.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ May 13 2009,14:21) What are you talking about?
I’m talking about this:t8: Obviously you do not understand a code base and how you can mix and match code to produce different designs. Such is not proof that one design came from another but that it was made by the same programmer who reuses his own code. Even I do that because it is not necessary to redesign the wheel with each new machine.
Stuu: So do you confirm that you are making a falsifiable claim? That you would expect the same job to be done in the same way in different organisms?
Stuart
That claim on its own is not more fanciful than the claim that one group of code gave rise to another group of code.
i.e., that man is the offspring of another ape.
So my stance is agreeable to the experience I have of a creator and in line with scripture.
Your belief that man wasn't created by a creator but evolved from other apes and daffodils before that is not agreeable with the experience I have had with the creator and with scripture.
In the end you have a faith and I have one. I have experience with mine and you have none. That is why you consider believing in nothing as being the originator of all things whereas by reason of my faith and experience in the creator I have ruled that one out.
Interlinking one species with another is just imagination at the end of the day. There is no proof of such and it has never been observed and the fossil record doesn't agree with it either.
Based on what Darwin said, there should be a flood of intermediary fossils showing the progression of evolution in our museums today.
You have muddied the waters here t8. Lets get it nice and clearly from you. Do you think we should expect to see that in living things the same job is done in the same way, due to a common creator?
Stuart
Now, I'd argue that evolution is likely valid – and that there are intermediate fossils (but fossilisation is a rare event and even when it happens requires someone to find and preserve the fossil…). In living things the same job is done in the same way in many cases – because evolution IS a common process. However, if we were outright designed we likely wouldn't have vestigial organs (like the remnants of a tail in our skeletal structure).
I know people use evolution to try to remove the requirement for God to explain life and specifically, us – but if one allows for the existence of God, what exactly would prevent evolution from being a process God could theoretically use to shape living things?
It's only the limitations of our humanity that make us want to believe in something that happened overnight, in human timescales, and with a directly obvious strategy and improbable assembly (as a machine would be) from parts.
Not to mention we'd like to believe we're finished and perfect, and “were created in the image of God”, with the resulting excuses for our deficient (as a species) behaviour.
Personally I think in summary that people try to superimpose too much humanity on God, and evolution as a process is certainly not incompatible with God existing.
Evolution isn't finished yet, and in the distant future – if we make it as a species – our descendants could be looking back at us in the same way we look at Neanderthal, or apes, and calling us “primitive animal ancestors”.
Even in human timescales, there's a lot less time left for our current civilisation than most people would contemplate admitting. We are then extremely likely to face another near extinction event as a species (or actual extinction if we're unlucky).
For the record, I am not a religious person (even though I credit the highly probable existence of an entity that can conveniently be labelled God). If my refusal to readily soak up other human beliefs as my own makes me a “Non-believer” on this site, so be it.
Hi Douglas,
I am glad that you are open to the idea that there could be some kind of God.
I spent many years as a non-believer and tried to follow the theory of evolution but I was never able to find any evidence of one species evolving from another. With all the species that are and have been on this planet there would have to have been a lot of evolving going on. If you are aware of any evidence to support the theory of evolution I would sincerely love to see it.Douglas
Welcome to Heavennnet!
Quote Now, I'd argue that evolution is likely valid – and that there are intermediate fossils (but fossilisation is a rare event and even when it happens requires someone to find and preserve the fossil…). In living things the same job is done in the same way in many cases – because evolution IS a common process. However, if we were outright designed we likely wouldn't have vestigial organs (like the remnants of a tail in our skeletal structure).
You are quite right, although no christian ever tells us WHAT to expect of their god. They will say that god is perfect, but you should not necessarily expect what YOU think of as perfection, etc. There is no theory of divine creation, so there really is no alternative to discuss!Quote I know people use evolution to try to remove the requirement for God to explain life and specifically, us – but if one allows for the existence of God, what exactly would prevent evolution from being a process God could theoretically use to shape living things?
In the same way as above, nothing is incompatible with a god, because no one has said what the god did. So all our observations are EQUALLY compatible with no gods as they are with gods. Occam’s Razor removes them from science. Simple deduction removes them from philosophy, or at least makes all gods equally likely.Quote Not to mention we'd like to believe we're finished and perfect, and “were created in the image of God”, with the resulting excuses for our deficient (as a species) behaviour.
I don’t need to think that! I am generally optimistic about humanity.Quote Personally I think in summary that people try to superimpose too much humanity on God, and evolution as a process is certainly not incompatible with God existing.
Which god are you thinking of, and how do you justify choosing that particular one?Quote Evolution isn't finished yet, and in the distant future – if we make it as a species – our descendants could be looking back at us in the same way we look at Neanderthal, or apes, and calling us “primitive animal ancestors”.
Even in human timescales, there's a lot less time left for our current civilisation than most people would contemplate admitting. We are then extremely likely to face another near extinction event as a species (or actual extinction if we're unlucky).
There have been about six such events in the history of the planet. If we develop the technology to prevent a collision with a large meteorite we might stand a fighting chance, but we still have only about 5 billion years before we are consumed by our sun as it becomes a red giant. As you say, by then we almost certainly will not look or think like we do now. That is a reason to question the christian concept of a god and its alleged relationship with humans: does that relationship hold in the distant future when we are no longer like we are now, when we can no longer be said to have been “made” in the image of the god of old? Of course there will almost certainly be no such thing as christianity then. In fact there is a good chance christianity will die in the next few generations.Quote For the record, I am not a religious person (even though I credit the highly probable existence of an entity that can conveniently be labelled God).
Of course such things certainly exist inside people’s brains. What reason is there to think there is anything more than that to such beliefs?Stuart
Quote (TechJoe @ June 26 2009,14:14) Hi Douglas,
I am glad that you are open to the idea that there could be some kind of God.
I spent many years as a non-believer and tried to follow the theory of evolution but I was never able to find any evidence of one species evolving from another. With all the species that are and have been on this planet there would have to have been a lot of evolving going on. If you are aware of any evidence to support the theory of evolution I would sincerely love to see it.
You could try the fossil record, and the living record of ring species as first steps in your journey of discovery of reality:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossilsStuart
Quote (TechJoe @ June 26 2009,14:14) Hi Douglas,
I am glad that you are open to the idea that there could be some kind of God.
I spent many years as a non-believer and tried to follow the theory of evolution but I was never able to find any evidence of one species evolving from another. With all the species that are and have been on this planet there would have to have been a lot of evolving going on. If you are aware of any evidence to support the theory of evolution I would sincerely love to see it.Quote I am glad that you are open to the idea that there could be some kind of God.
I'm more than open to the idea now – but strictly within the phrase “some kind of God”. I certainly don't (and won't, without evidence) subscribe to all the ideas about God that most people do.Quote With all the species that are and have been on this planet there would have to have been a lot of evolving going on.
That's a fair point. The theory of evolution permits species to diverge into separate species over long periods of time. Such a divergence implicitly at least doubles the number of species, minus rate of extinction – permitting near exponential growth.Depending what you believe about the age of the planet and the number of generations typical for a species to be likely to have evolved into one or more other species, you should be able to calculate if evolution can provide the number of species observed.
Unfortunately, while I believe the current age of the planet is scientifically estimated at somewhat over 4 billion years – I lack the knowledge to try and provide my version of such a calculation.
Quote If you are aware of any evidence to support the theory of evolution I would sincerely love to see it.
Well, fossils aside, I think I'd start from a more tangential approach.Do you subscribe to the ideas of genetics, and the idea that genetic code can control the traits that lifeforms exhibit? And that genetic code (of the same chemistry, indeed) is common to all lifeforms we have identified?
It's a small step from there to consider mutations from genetic damage (which can be observed), and to argue it seems sensible that more favourable traits for a species will be selected by the trials and tribulations of it's members by permitting more successful traits to survive longer to pass on more genetic code. Over a long enough period of time the differences fundamentally alter the species to a point where it isn't reproductively capable with other members (this is a key part of the definition of the term species).
I personally think evolution is a very strong theory at explaining the observable world – it does have a few weaknesses at the earlier limits though. I'm not happy that it solves the matter of how life originated – and how the most basic forms of some structures could have formed.
For instance, how would the first cell have formed – already able to reproduce itself? (cells actually have quite a bit of chemistry at work in them and yet, as far as I can see are necessarily self contained systems within the cell membrane)
While I can sort of picture how single celled organisms might form co-operative colonies, ultimately becoming increasingly specialised – it's hard to visualise how the first simple pump formed (the basis for a heart), and how it divided into an increasing number of chambers able to circulate fluid – I can see how a leg gets longer through evolution, but a step change like a heart doubling the number of chambers is harder to picture.
So though I'm generally defending evolution, I'm curious to hear ideas about the earlier parts of the origins of life.
Stu,June wrote:[/quote]
Quote Welcome to Heavennnet!
Thanks.Quote Which god are you thinking of, and how do you justify choosing that particular one?
I generally don't identify a specific god, but generally refer to the concept of god. To many people that means something all powerful, all knowing and somehow mysterious. To me it simply means an entity which many people regard as being all powerful, all knowing and somehow mysterious.Quote There have been about six such events in the history of the planet. If we develop the technology to prevent a collision with a large meteorite we might stand a fighting chance, but we still have only about 5 billion years before we are consumed by our sun as it becomes a red giant. As you say, by then we almost certainly will not look or think like we do now. That is a reason to question the christian concept of a god and its alleged relationship with humans: does that relationship hold in the distant future when we are no longer like we are now, when we can no longer be said to have been “made” in the image of the god of old? Of course there will almost certainly be no such thing as christianity then.
We'd need to get off planet and get our eggs out of the single basket they're in at the moment. Then eventually we'd need to find other solar systems when the sun finally died (it'll get hotter before it does anyway).I'm not optimistic about our outlook however – I don't see how we can avoid our civilisation collapsing within the next few generations, and possibly sooner if the planet changes abruptly. We're overloading our population and overconsuming our resources, and we're heading into a civilisation collapse – but this time globally (the principle is the same as say, Easter Island, however).
Quote Of course such things certainly exist inside people’s brains. What reason is there to think there is anything more than that to such beliefs?
That, ironically, is why I came to this site.I know someone who receives messages from “God” and over a period of several years those messages have not only been consistent, but demonstrating knowledge and intelligence that that person doesn't generally possess (and sometimes that I don't possess, but have eventually been able to verify).
However, given the significance of some of those messages, it seems reasonable to suppose that a) “God” should be able to communicate with more than 1 person and that b) “God” should be consistent between different people, even without communication between those people (i.e. “God” would be the common element between those people who have never communicated between each other).
Blasphemous to a devout believer perhaps – but I'm not one of those, and furthermore I think a lot of belief is based around ideas propagated strictly by people. For instance, I don't see any evidence yet that “God” is all powerful.
Quote (Douglas @ June 27 2009,10:37) So though I'm generally defending evolution, I'm curious to hear ideas about the earlier parts of the origins of life.
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It is no more than intelligent speculation about the chemical origins of life. One such speculation is outlined (after the anti-creationist propaganda) here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NZ&hl=en-GB&v=U6QYDdgP9eg
With an event that happened once, it is understandable that there is no theory of abiogenesis. That is just a reflection of the honesty of scientists; there are some very good models of how living cells arose, based on sound chemistry, but there is not enough evidence to take it any further than that.
You may ask why we don't see life starting up spontaneously all the time today. Such complex molecules or protocells would of course make a nutritious lunch for the microorganisms that already exist.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 28 2009,11:02) Quote Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It is no more than intelligent speculation about the chemical origins of life.
True. I appreciate evolution isn't intended to address the origin question, my point really was only that we don't know all the answers (it's like the first fraction of time in the big bang). That does leave room for speculation (and possibilities).Quote With an event that happened once, it is understandable that there is no theory of abiogenesis.
Actually, there are some lifeforms with very different chemistry, I think – living near volcanic vents on the sea floor. Anywhere a complex entity can derive energy to power itself from chemical processes, I think life could have a chance (no need to limit yourself to an oxygen based metabolism, and we're very different from say, plants).Quote You may ask why we don't see life starting up spontaneously all the time today. Such complex molecules or protocells would of course make a nutritious lunch for the microorganisms that already exist.
Or possibly conditions are no longer favourable (we really don't know and can only speculate). Arguably extra-terrestial origins are possible (not necessarily intelligently seeded), though it only postpones the question of ultimate origin.One of my favourite quotes is the one by whoever said something like “not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine”.
Philosophically, we can't tell the universe wasn't created (along with our memories) ten seconds ago – it's just not a helpful argument for intelligent debate.
Douglas
Quote I generally don't identify a specific god, but generally refer to the concept of god. To many people that means something all powerful, all knowing and somehow mysterious. To me it simply means an entity which many people regard as being all powerful, all knowing and somehow mysterious.
This is like the ‘higher power’ that Alcoholics Anonymous and the Boy Scouts require belief in?!Quote I'm not optimistic about our outlook however – I don't see how we can avoid our civilisation collapsing within the next few generations, and possibly sooner if the planet changes abruptly. We're overloading our population and overconsuming our resources, and we're heading into a civilisation collapse – but this time globally (the principle is the same as say, Easter Island, however).
I suppose it could be as bad as that, but collapses of civilisations are not always quite that bad. The scenarios that gave rise to the dark ages had a heavy religious / superstitious element that had people living in misery inspired by the christian beliefs of leaders: this is to some extent still a danger for us now that we have the global threat of islamic terrorism, based in the islamic dark ages that many countries are currently suffering.Stu: Of course such things certainly exist inside people’s brains. What reason is there to think there is anything more than that to such beliefs?
Quote That, ironically, is why I came to this site.
And I remember that I stated that as a goal of mine too.Quote I know someone who receives messages from “God” and over a period of several years those messages have not only been consistent, but demonstrating knowledge and intelligence that that person doesn't generally possess (and sometimes that I don't possess, but have eventually been able to verify).
You would have to be more specific for us to decide for ourselves whether that would be an observation of something significant, but I daresay that to the extent that scripture, especially the OT, codifies public health warnings and general principles of human morality, someone COULD appear wiser if they quote rote-learned scripture. Of course the interpretation would be in the mind of the listener.Quote However, given the significance of some of those messages, it seems reasonable to suppose that a) “God” should be able to communicate with more than 1 person and that b) “God” should be consistent between different people, even without communication between those people (i.e. “God” would be the common element between those people who have never communicated between each other).
Blasphemous to a devout believer perhaps – but I'm not one of those, and furthermore I think a lot of belief is based around ideas propagated strictly by people. For instance, I don't see any evidence yet that “God” is all powerful.
Indeed the observation that, while science consolidates multiple lines of thought, religions only splinter into increasing numbers of factions, each having the absolute truth about their faiths. That would seem to be a partial answer to your point about whether a god would be communicating the same message universally. It is another example of how I don’t see any evidence of gods at all.Stuart
Douglas
Quote I appreciate evolution isn't intended to address the origin question, my point really was only that we don't know all the answers (it's like the first fraction of time in the big bang). That does leave room for speculation (and possibilities).
Sure! Speculate away. Forgive me if I treat your speculation as speculation, just as you should treat mine as such, for that first 10^-13s when for which we have not yet done the experiments!Quote Actually, there are some lifeforms with very different chemistry, I think – living near volcanic vents on the sea floor. Anywhere a complex entity can derive energy to power itself from chemical processes, I think life could have a chance (no need to limit yourself to an oxygen based metabolism, and we're very different from say, plants).
Well that’s right, and it would be a very long bow to draw to claim that the first organisms had the complex machinery required for photosynthesis. The evidence is that there were organisms round long before there was free oxygen in the atmosphere.Quote One of my favourite quotes is the one by whoever said something like “not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine”.
Indeed, which I put alongside “truth is stranger than fiction”: if strangeness is a typical characteristic of the better models of origins, then the dull and commonplace stories of the Judeo-christian scripture fail on that score too!Quote Philosophically, we can't tell the universe wasn't created (along with our memories) ten seconds ago – it's just not a helpful argument for intelligent debate.
Yes, if you accept the philosophical premise of Descartes that we think and therefore we exist, then it is quite reasonable to assert the physical and biological sciences as our best hopes of answering questions of origins. So far they have done a stunning job of explaining, and no need for any gap-filling gods anywhere.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 28 2009,11:52) Quote I suppose it could be as bad as that, but collapses of civilisations are not always quite that bad. Not always, but potentially. As a pessimist I think we're headed for a rough collapse – just because of the numbers of people and weapons available.
Quote You would have to be more specific for us to decide for ourselves whether that would be an observation of something significant, but I daresay that to the extent that scripture, especially the OT, codifies public health warnings and general principles of human morality, someone COULD appear wiser if they quote rote-learned scripture. I expect that in perhaps 3 and a bit years I'll have some final conclusions. At the moment I don't intend to be specific.
Quote Indeed the observation that, while science consolidates multiple lines of thought, religions only splinter into increasing numbers of factions, each having the absolute truth about their faiths. Even in science though, people are known to cling to obsolete beliefs and argue against changing their minds – tectonic plate theory, for instance. I think the great advantage of science is the idea of a scientific method to testing a hypothesis. Considering how recently it is since someone suggested a mass around that of a golf ball could level a city, I'm pretty sure science still has a long way to go to answer our most fundamental questions, and that we're a long way off from understanding much at all.
Mind you, I also think Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is more an admission of our human inability to know – rather than necessary fundamental uncertainty at smaller scales of the universe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
